Lysistrata and the Libs

Wednesday, March 14, AD 2012

 

                                     LYSISTRATA:     There are a lot of things about us women    

  That sadden me, considering how men

See us as rascals.        

CALONICE: As indeed we are!

Apparently some liberal women are calling for a sex strike , stating that if the Government does not coerce all employers to provide health insurance policies that cover contraceptives, that somehow translates into their inability to purchase contraceptives on their own dime.  With that reasoning, I think it appropriate that they are lifting the idea of a boycott of sex from Lysistrata, a comedy by Aristophanes, that envisioned women in Athens and Sparta refusing to pay their marital debt until their men made peace.  Of course nothing like this occurred in the actual history of the Peloponnesian War, just as no one is preventing liberal women from  carrying out their project of making certain that there will be fewer of their descendants in the body politic in the years to come. 

Continue reading...

12 Responses to Lysistrata and the Libs

  • Pansies. If they’re going to sacrifice and commit, then it should be permanent or until they get what they want. Sorry for the redundancy.

  • As a single man, the denial of “sexual favors” from liberal women (otherwise known as a “sex strike”) matters not one wit. Single people are supposed to be celibate because they are not married. A condition otherwise than that is called fornication, hence Sandra Fluke.

  • So does this mean liberal women are actually promoting — gasp! — ABSTINENCE?

  • I’m of the mind that sex with a liberal woman would be more of a punishment than a reward.

  • I publicly concur with “The Larry D”. BTW, have you noticed that conservative women look beautiful, but liberal women look like (what’s that phrase someone used here at TAC yesterday?) “long in the tooth harpies”? Again, it goes back to that old adage: “Sin not only makes you stupid, but ugly as well.”

  • “I’m of the mind that sex with a liberal woman would be more of a punishment than a reward.”

  • I want to know why these women are being so militant about their own contraceptive coverage, but not one single person has suggested that men also deserve free contraceptives under this massive healthcare bill that will already cripple our health care industry. It takes two to tango and one sex ought not have privileges over the other, if their liberal thinking were to follow through. So, imagine, we can cover all sexual activities for people unwilling to take responsibilty in their lives and their sexual escapades.
    I find the mindset of these folks who think that they are somehow owed free contraceptives, to be very troubling. I find that there are more and more entitlement loving Americans, and it makes me wonder if we will still be a free people when my grandchildren are in their adulthood.

  • These “women” are nuts. I feel like I’m living in the 60s and any time a huge bonfire for bra-burning is going to breakout…

  • I’m afraid that bonfire will be for the Constitution; these “women” don’t give a hoot about the finest document ever made, since the bible of course!

  • A sex strike is exactly what America has needed for half a century. Its called abstinence.

  • Pingback: FRIDAY EXTRA: U.S. POLITICS | ThePulp.it
  • Irony doesn’t seem to be their strong suit.

Obama Losing Public Opinion War Over HHS Mandate

Tuesday, March 13, AD 2012

 

 

 

My favorite liberal pro-abort columnist, Mickey Kaus, is a very honest man, and will never let his ideology stand in the way of a keen analysis of the events of the day.  That is one of the reasons why I stop by each day to read his Kaus Files.  The other reasons are that he is witty and concise.  Here is his take on a recent poll in the New York Times:

Here’s what the NYT‘s story on its latest poll told readers:

In recent weeks, there has been much debate over  the government’s role in guaranteeing insurance coverage for contraception,  including for those who work for religious organizations. The poll found  that women were split as to whether health insurance plans should cover the  costs of birth control and whether employers with religious objections  should be able to opt out. [E.A.]

If the Times says women were “split,” you know that must mean they  were actually narrowly against the NYT‘s preferred position. Sure enough, when asked, “Should health insurance plans for  all employees have to cover the full cost of birth control for female employees  or should employers be able to opt out for moral or religious reasons?” women favored opting out by a 46-44 margin. The margin increased to a decisive  53-38  for “religiously affiliated employers, such as a hospital or  university.”

That’s among women. Unbeknownst to those who read only the Times‘ main story, the poll asked the same question to men. They were not split. Men  favored opting out by a 20 point margin (57 vs. 37), except when a “religiously  affiliated employer” was involved, in which case the margin increased to 25  points. Combining men and women, a substantial majority (51-40) favors  allowing an opt-out–increasing to 57-36 where religiously-affiliated  institutions are involved.

These are not close results. It’s hard to read this poll and not conclude  that, contrary to some accounts, Obama wasn’t such a genius to pick a fight over  mandated contraception coverage–because he appears to be losing the public  debate on the question. That’s a conclusion the Times story effectively  hides from readers.

It’s also one possible explanation for Obama’s otherwise somewhat mystifying  overall drop in approval during the period–March 7-11–when the poll was in the  field. But not an approved explanation.

Gas prices are the official MSM explanation. Got it? Gas  prices.

Continue reading...

8 Responses to Obama Losing Public Opinion War Over HHS Mandate

  • There is hope, but not for the main stream media.

  • Donald, I like the way you refer to Kaus as a pro-abort. This should become part of our lexicon. I’m going to do my part to use this as much as possible.

    Here’s a sample:
    He’s a balding, pro-abort, Yankee fan who served in Vietnam.

    I love it.

  • daledog –
    it makes perfect sense; “I’m not pro-slavery– in fact, I’m personally opposed! However, I would never try to impose that view on my neighbor, especially not when it comes to something as deeply personal has his imported concubines.”

  • “Gas prices are the official MSM explanation. Got it? Gas prices.”

    What’s funny is how this is the same explanation for many in the GOP fiscal wing and the punditry. I recently witnessed a nice Jewish Republican lady claim that the HHS mandate was a “trap” the Dems had created for Republicans to distract from the real issues.

  • Apparently, the geniuses around Obama thought this was a facile means to twist the pro-life message to make a trap for fools. Howz that working for ya liberals?

    Libs are just too smart!

    Endless wars

    Drone assassinations

    Gitmo open

    No real jobs

    Unemployment still higher than Obama promised

    Skyrocketing food prices

    Skyrocketing gasoline prices

    Obamacare – centralized harm to 85% of Americans’ health care

    HHS mandate

    Straw meets camel’s back: HHS mandate causes Cardinal Dolan coincidentally to identify the massive feces sandwich which is Obamacare.

  • Something must be cooking to reel in that opinion for the next seven months.

    Meanwhile:

    (from the Novena to St. Anthony of Padua)
    St. Anthony’s Prayer:
    Lord Jesus, bind us to You and to our neighbor with love. May our hearts not be turned away from You. May our souls not be deceived nor our talents or minds enticed by allurements of error so that we may never distance ourselves from Your love. Thus may we love our neighbor as ourselves with strength, wisdom, and gentleness. With Your help, You who are blessed throughout all ages. Amen.

    Responsory of St. Anthony:
    Priest: If then you ask for miracles,
    death, error, all calamities, the leprosy and demons fly, and health succeeds infirmities.

    All: The sea obeys, and fetters break, and lifeless limbs you do restore.
    While treasures lost are found again, when young and old your aid implore.

    Priest: All dangers vanish at your prayer, and deepest needs are cared for, too.
    Let those who know your power proclaim, Let Paduans say, ‘These are of you’.

    Novena Prayer to St. Anthony:
    Holy St. Anthony, you are the consolation of so many people. We come to invoke your help, confident of experiencing your goodness and power. Pray for us to the Father of mercies, that we may obtain the graces we need for ourselves and for our loved ones ….

    and if we pray for miracles for our Church?

  • Pingback: THURSDAY EXTRA: OBAMA & THE CATHOLIC CHURCH | ThePulp.it
  • Pingback: Father Higgins: Remember the Ashes and Top Articles of the Week | St. Peter's List

Bishops? We Don’t Need No Stinkin’ Bishops!

Tuesday, March 13, AD 2012

 

In the spirit of the Obama Worship Day at Notre Dame in 2009, Notre Dame Professor of Philosophy Gary Cutting has a recent article in the New York Times, the high worship rag for all liberal apostate Catholics, in which he explains why Catholics should not pay attention to the Bishops and the silly fuss they are making over the HHS Mandate, which, among other things, rips to shreds freedom of religion enshrined in the First Amendment.  I was going to give the article a fisking to remember, but Christopher Johnson, a non-Catholic who has taken up the cudgels so frequently in defense of the Church that I have named him Defender of the Faith, has beaten me to it:

Roman Catholics will be interested to learn that Gary Gutting, a philosophy professor at Notre Dame and someone who claims to be a Catholic, recently discovered that the Reformation is finally over and that the Protestants won:

What interests me as a philosopher — and a Catholic — is that virtually all parties to this often acrimonious debate have assumed that the bishops are right about this, that birth control is contrary to “the teachings of the Catholic Church.” The only issue is how, if at all, the government should “respect” this teaching.

Good question since Gutting thinks that Catholics have pretty much plowed it under and sowed the furrows with nuclear waste.

As critics repeatedly point out, 98 percent of sexually active American Catholic women practice birth control, and 78 percent of Catholics think a “good Catholic” can reject the bishops’ teaching on birth control.  The response from the church, however, has been that, regardless of what the majority of Catholics do and think, the church’s teaching is that birth control is morally wrong.  The church, in the inevitable phrase, “is not a democracy.”   What the church teaches is what the bishops (and, ultimately, the pope, as head of the bishops) say it does.

The bishops aren’t the boss of us!!

But is this true?  The answer requires some thought about the nature and basis of religious authority.  Ultimately the claim is that this authority derives from God.  But since we live in a human world in which God does not directly speak to us, we need to ask, Who decides that God has given, say, the Catholic bishops his authority?

Who died and made the bishops religious leaders?

It makes no sense to say that the bishops themselves can decide this, that we should accept their religious authority because they say God has given it to them.  If this were so, anyone proclaiming himself a religious authority would have to be recognized as one.  From where, then, in our democratic, secular society does such recognition properly come?  It could, in principle, come from some other authority, like the secular government.  But we have long given up the idea (“cujus regio, ejus religio”) that our government can legitimately designate the religious authority in its domain.  But if the government cannot determine religious authority, surely no lesser secular power could.  Theological experts could tell us what the bishops have taught over the centuries, but this does not tell us whether these teachings have divine authority.

Out: cujus regio, ejus religio.  In: vox populi vox dei.

In our democratic society the ultimate arbiter of religious authority is the conscience of the individual believer. It follows that there is no alternative to accepting the members of a religious group as themselves the only legitimate source of the decision to accept their leaders as authorized by God.  They may be wrong, but their judgment is answerable to no one but God.  In this sense, even the Catholic Church is a democracy.

You know that joke I like to make about how in the future, everybody, to paraphrase Andy Warhol, will be an Episcopal bishop for fifteen minutes?  As far as Gutting is concerned, every single Roman Catholic is a bishop right now.

Continue reading...

9 Responses to Bishops? We Don’t Need No Stinkin’ Bishops!

  • Who died and made the bishops religious leaders?

    Oh, it’s on the tip of my tongue…begins with a J …. Jim… John …. Joe… Jesse… Jesus!! That’s it.

  • What I read in here is all true. There is nothing other than the Church that claims the Bishops have the authority of Christ to teach in the name of Christ. However, it is stated in the Bible (which was given to us through Tradition passed to us through the Church), that these men were given the authority by Christ himself. Of course, one would have to have Faith in order to “buy in” to that system. Otherwise, it does all become about power and autonomy and the most popular belief (as we have seen work to the great demise of most protestant faith traditions). Do I believe that the Bishops have the authority to teach and have consistently lead the Church through the past 2000 years by the direction of the Holy Spirit? Yes or No? The evidence certainly would point in favor of the constant teachings of the Church, but it still requires faith and a bit of humility. Unfortunately, those are two qualities this world despises. This professors is logically correct in his argument, saying that however, logic and reason can take you only so far. At some point, you must either ascent to the truth or you must deny it. It’s a shame so many choose to deny it, but that doesn’t make it less true.

  • Remember, the whole point of President Caiaphas’ efforts, and those of his infernal minions, is to cause the Church’s charities, medical facilities and social services to close, so they can take over.

    That makes Professor Gutting (ironic, that) a Fascist pig, since anything which does not stand in defense of the First Amendment’s Freedom of Religion clause then stands against it. Any attempt to weaken the Church or divide its members is an attack by the powers of darkness and oppression.

    Surely, a Professor of Philosophy at Notre Dame cannot be stupid enough to not see what he’s doing. Thus, it must logically follow that he has consciously and purposefully enlisted in the ranks of the Godless totalitarians, seeking by intent to ruin the Church and eviscerate America in the process. By this overt action he could, and should, be excommunicated.

    What will it take to start the excommunications en masse? What will it take to have the Bishops stand up and slice these forked-tonged serpents to tiny bits? Why so long?

  • I have recently read somewhere that these “so-called” catholics have excommunicated themselves….a pattern that has come about perhaps since Vatican 2. The article I cite did put forth the idea that the Bishops were very careful not to sound too dogmatic! ha ha…..I, for one, would love to hear a Bishop or Cardinal speak out about our high profile catholics (small c)…Let Nancy Pelosi, Kathleen Sibelius, and others of their ilk be called on the carpet…I hope I am not sounding judgemental, but it might be the one of the jobs of the hierarchy to excommunicate people. The time has come for those closest to the Lord to take a stand!

  • Pingback: WEDNESDAY AFTERNOON EDITION | ThePulp.it
  • What are Catholics to think about their bishops when they preach the evil of abortion and glad hand the purveyors of it. I’m talking about their cozy relationship with the democrats. When I witnessed Ted Kennedys funeral and the reception of his casket by the Cardinal of DC I wanted to puke. The excuse for overlooking his evil was the social justice babble. Once again they threw their weight behind the dems with obamacare and are surprised by what came out of that public financing of abortion. These are highly educated men how can they be so foolish to have trusted the radical community organizer in the white house to produce a clean reasonable bill. Do they think now that abortion is the only horror in this bill, have they not figured out that the handicapped the elderly and those babies with handicaps that were lucky enough to make it into the world will have reduced medical care as in the eyes of some of his advisors are of little use to the state. There are some good thoughtful bishops who adhere to church teaching and then there are the others unfortunately the ones usually quoted by the media are the misguided ones.

  • Is the following quote pertinent to both clerics and laity?

    “What is reprehensible is that, while leading good lives themselves and abhorring those of wicked men, some fearing to offend shut their eyes to evil deeds instead of condemning them and pointing out their malice. To be sure, the motive behind their tolerance is that they may suffer no hurt in the possession of those temporal goods which virtuous and blameless men may lawfully enjoy; still, there is more self-seeking here than becomes men who are mere sojourners in this world and who profess hope of a home in heaven.” from St. Augustine, The City of God.

  • Finite minds need infinite wisdom.

  • JANE a. Sebelius was instructed to not present herself for Holy Communion by her bishop and Pelosi was called to the Vatican. Pelosi’s meeting with Pope Benedict XVI remains private. I think Pelosi and Sebelious do so much bellowing about being Catholic because they are not Catholic and have been chained. Pelosi and Sebelius are like chained devils, rattling their chains.

Surprise! Sandra Fluke Being Run From White House

Friday, March 9, AD 2012

29 Responses to Surprise! Sandra Fluke Being Run From White House

  • It’s working . . . [gasp]

    The Catholic War and BC kerfluffle are distracting you the people from skyrocketing gasoline prices and no jobs.

    So much so that in the OK primary Obamessiah lost 15 counties and won the state-wide primary with 57% of the Democrud vote.

    Also, it’s working for Hewo of the Wevowution Ewizabeth Wawwen who is polling 10 points behind Senator Scott Brown.

    Re: Mao and Mother Teresa: Mao would say, “Let’s kill 50,000,000 people to change society.” Mother Teresa would tell you, “You won’t be going to Heaven if you vote Democrat.” “

  • “Anita Dunn is a political strategist who served as White House Communications Director from April through November 2009. She is a senior partner at SKDKnickerbocker Consulting in Washington, D.C. and has recently become a contributor for NBC News / MSNBC / CNBC.”

    The Main Stream News Media – why am I unsurprised!

    He spouse is Robert Bauer who in turn “…is an American attorney who previously served as White House Counsel under President of the United States Barack Obama…Bauer was President Obama’s personal attorney and the general counsel of the Obama for America presidential campaign prior to his appointment as White House Counsel. He has also previously served as the general counsel to the Democratic National Committee, and had advised President Obama since Mr. Obama came to Washington, D.C. in 2005 as U. S. Senator.”

    The tentacles of the Comité de Salut Public grows. Any day now we will hear the cries of Liberté, égalité, fraternité as we are shown the guillotine.

  • Instead of us being shown the guillotine Paul, the country is going to show these bizarre characters the door in November.

  • Regarding Ms. Fluke, I feel compelled to say this, which is something I feel I should have posted about earlier when the story first broke…..she did not ask for Congress to subsidize students having sex. That I would be morally offended by. What she seemed to me to be saying is that even when students had doctor’s notes saying they were using the contraceptives for help with things like cancer, they were denied coverage. From my understanding of Catholic teaching, If a person was using contraceptives for medical reasons only, AND was abstaining from sex while using said contraceptives, that would be different from using contraceptives to prevent pregnancy.

    It seems to me that the best way to counter taking her testimony as a reason to cover contraception in all cases would be to try and ensure that when a person brings a doctor’s note saying they are using the contraceptive for a limited period of time for medical reasons, they are covered.

  • Can someone explain why a 30 year old private citizen with no wage or salaried employment has any need of a public relations firm or would be inclined to fork over for one? Is she being forwarded Beyonce’s fan mail?

  • “What she seemed to me to be saying is that even when students had doctor’s notes saying they were using the contraceptives for help with things like cancer, they were denied coverage. ”

    That was thrown in as a smokescreen. She is a hard core pro-abort activist who attended Georgetown precisely to get that Jesuit school to change its policy on student health insurance not covering contraceptives.

  • “Can someone explain why a 30 year old private citizen with no wage or salaried employment has any need of a public relations firm or would be inclined to fork over for one?”

    Or how she can afford to be jetting around the nation making speeches. Additionally her law school appears to be mighty accomodating on her missing classes, although it is her third year and I do have to admit that most law students in their third year are concerned with finding employment and preparing for the bar exam with class work taking a back seat.

  • Lord Jesus, please make Donald’s prediction a reality! In the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, Amen!

  • Isn’t this Saul Alinsky’s strategy, to place an enemy in the midst of a peaceable assembly to disrupt that peaceable assembly? Isn’t this the abrogation of free speech? Isn’t Sandra Fluke bearing false witness, which, in a court of law is perjury? Perjury from the White House is treason. Obama took an oath to uphold the constitution, especially that part that says: “or prohibit the free exercise thereof.” And that part of the Obamas being community organizers for the poor with Alinsky’s philosophy of : “Take as much as you can as fast as you can” is that called working for the poor? Alinsky asked God to send him to hell and from hell Alinsky has been orchestrating our desent into hell. Mao Tse Tung said: Mind your own business. Mother Teresa said: “Give what you have to the poor and come follow me.” That woman could not keep her tongue in her mouth.

  • So if the White House is pimping her, Rush needs to take back his apology. Sure she didn’t sell her body but it’s clear she has sold her soul.

  • Limbaugh is sitting pretty. Advertisers who bailed on him are begging him to take them back:
    http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/entertainmentnewsbuzz/2012/03/rush-limbaugh-advertiser.html

    Liberal Kirsten Powers has attacked the rampant misogyny on the Left:

    http://www.mediaite.com/tv/van-susteren-and-kirsten-powers-on-media-misogyny-obama-and-super-pac-will-look-other-way-if-you-pony-up/

    Exhibit A of this misogyny is Bill Maher who routinely attacks conservative women in the vilest imaginable terms, and who recently contributed a million bucks for Obama’s reelection. Here Maher is taken to task by ShePacTv:

  • If WH organization is using her for a schill, she’s on an all expenses paid (by taxpayers or PAC’s) whirl. Her law degree will be awarded in the same way ND did for the leader of the disgrace.

  • I was watching Sean Hannity on Fox News yesterday at a friends place where this very topic was being discussed, and showed a clip of Bill Maher pouring out his vitriol.

    I simply cannot understand how 1. An audience would find his abuse amusing and laughable.
    and 2. Why the network channel allows that sort debased language and deliberate insult to go to air.
    I go to my local bar once or twice a week for a beer with a bunch of mates; a couple of them are pretty hard cases – but they would not use that sort of abusive language about women.
    Its really quite shocking, and is not what I would view to be the America, and Americans,
    that I have come to know over the years,( looking from the outside).
    But what really staggered me was that Obama seems to accept it against his opponents.
    That guy is looking increasingly shifty when he speaks publicly – doesn’t seem to have quite the self assurance of a couple of years ago. Eye contact seems to be avoided – or is that just imagination?

  • Too many Leftists Don view their opponents as evil and deserving of no shred of respect. Common decency is becoming increasingly uncommon on the port side of the political spectrum. Fun times ahead.

  • Don,

    It’s all out war and there are no rules: “no holds barred.”

    Obam is organzing prayer vigils for the SC steps when the socialized medicine case is heard. Maybe he’ll send Malia and sasha to “occupy” the SC. Somebody’s got to pay for their condoms!

    Maybe Rev. Wright is available to lead some “Goddamn Americas.”

    Today NYT published an ad calling for on Catholics to leave the Catholic Church.

    The far left hate group, Freedom from Religion, calls liberal (de facto excommunicatos) Catholics “enablers” and says it’s time to choose between the “woman-hating, sex-perverting, old boy’s club” and reproductive rights.

    May as well, commies. Either way, you’re going to hell.

  • They must be laughing up their sleeves at this new idea to defy Truth. Mind control and another excuse for getting the mob primed. Coincidentally, the sun is sending some plasma to earth tomorrow night.

  • Obama is organizing prayer vigils? remember that word “co-opt”?

  • I Hope we DO show them the door in November. There is apparently a lot of work to be done and we seem to be at a disadvantage.
    I am thinking of this consideration: had Gandhi or M L KIng not been able to appeal to a public formed by Christian conscience, they prob would not have been successful.
    Could it be now that we no longer have a nation with with a Christian conscience?
    The other side seems to have the weight of the culture, of ingrained popular opinion, constantly shaped and formed by the media/movies, music…(sigh)

  • As 2010 indicated Anzlyne, none of that trumps reality. The reality is that Obama has been an appallingly bad President, and I am confident that a majority of the American people will register their rejection of him and all his works come election day.

  • yes you are right —
    the ephemeral “hope and change” promises lose appeal with people when they are faced with reality– makes us become, ah, realists !
    keeping and building that momentum (the midterm elections) will be key

  • by the way Mr. McClarey, I like your characterization: “reject him and all his works” -it has that familiar ring– “pomps” would be nice added in there! : )

  • I am against abortion but if Fluke’s mother had one it wouldn’t have bothered me.

  • Donald McClarey: “The reality is that Obama has been an appallingly bad President,” Obama has not been a president at all. Obama has been our legislative branch of government, the Congress, writing executive orders: Rural Councils, NationaL Defense Authorization Act, Obamacare, none of which, when put to the ballot would pass. While Obama is being Congress, who is being president? Nobody.

  • If she wasn’t being run from the WH, I would have considered that a fluke.

  • You know, as crude as Limbaugh’s remarks may seem, he was actually right. What else do you call an unmarried woman who openly demands someone else to pay for her contraception? This sure strikes me as slutty. Act like one, get called one I say. I’m beginning to think Limbaugh made a huge mistake in apologizing. I think it is about time conservatives stop allowing themselves to be intimidated whenever there is backlash over pointedly stated truths. It’s time we start demonizing the demons.

    If I had a daughter who did what Ms. Fluke did, I would be so ashamed, I would probably have an emotional breakdown.

    Given Georgetown being a CINO (Catholic in Name Only) college for decades, I’m actually surprised they don’t pay for contraceptives already.

  • Obama the Apostate:

    http://spectator.org/archives/2012/03/09/obama-the-apostate

    The Church’s charitable work has been seen as a threat to the power of the state as far back as the reign of Julian the Apostate.

  • IronHammerStew-
    if that’s what she claimed, then she was flatly lying. PJTV did this crazy thing where they actually called up the college to see if such a situation was covered……

Jesuitical 13: Rush and Georgetown

Monday, March 5, AD 2012

Part 13 of my ongoing survey of the follies of many modern day Jesuits.  Georgetown University, founded in 1789, is the oldest Jesuit college in the United States.  Last week it found itself at the center of the debate over the HHS Mandate.  How the powers that be at Georgetown reacted to all of this is instructive.

On February 16, 2012 Representative Darrell Issa (R. CA), chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee held a hearing on the ramifications of the HHS Mandate in regard to religious freedom.  Democrats had the opportunity to present witnesses.  Initially they were going to have Barry Lynn, a Methodist minister and Leftist political activist, and head of the Americans United for Separation of Church and State, but for some reason that fell through for the Democrats.  They then proposed Sandra Fluke, identified as a third year law student at Georgetown.  Issa refused to allow her to testify on the grounds that she wasn’t testifying about the religious liberty issue but rather about a perceived need for contraception.  The Democrats, who realized that they were in trouble on the religious liberty issue, used this as an argument against the hearings, arguing that women were banned from the hearings as speakers.  This was a lie, as there were two panels which testified in opposition to the Mandate at the hearing.  The second panel included Dr. Allison Garrett and Dr.  Laura Champion who testified as to the dangers that the HHS Mandate poses to religious liberty.

On February 23, 2012, Nancy Pelosi (D.CA), minority leader, organized a Democrats only “hearing” at which Sandra Fluke gave her testimony.  Go here to read that testimony.  Among other statements she said that in three years contraceptives could cost a law student three grand.

The idea that someone at Georgetown Law School, an elite school that costs over 50k a year to attend, was crying poverty over the alleged cost of $1,000.00 a year, a sum about $800-$900 too high in relationship to the actual cost, to make illicit whoopee has its comedic possibilities, and this was  seized upon by Rush Limbaugh on Wednesday February 29:

What does it say about the college co-ed Sandra Fluke, who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex, what does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex. She’s having so much sex she can’t afford the contraception. She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex. What does that make us? We’re the pimps. (interruption) The johns? We would be the johns? No! We’re not the johns. (interruption) Yeah, that’s right. Pimp’s not the right word. Okay, so she’s not a slut. She’s “round heeled.” I take it back.

This caused an uproar and on Thursday March 1, John J. DeGioia, the first lay President of Georgetown, released this statement:

Continue reading...

45 Responses to Jesuitical 13: Rush and Georgetown

  • Something for nothing/free lunch: the liberal prime directive: She merely wants sex and she wants GU to pay for it. That is not a new concept.

    Let’s try to save America from disparate treatment.

    To be fair and equitable, malicious Maher needs to apologize for calling Governor Palin “Slut!”, or we DEMAND Obama return the $1,000,000 malign Maher gave him.

    History lesson for liberals: Money for sex is the “oldest profession.”

    The new concept is Liberty.

  • Disparate Treatment Command:

    You are justified when you viciously slander (add laurel for foul words) a woman because you truly hate her and she’s Republican, e.g., Governor Palin.

  • Slut or slattern is a term applied to an individual who is considered to have loose sexual morals or who is sexually promiscuous. The term is generally pejorative and often applied to women as an insult or offensive term of disparagement, meaning “dirty or slovenly.”However some women have demonstrated saying they’re proud of being “sluts”, and have given it a positive connotation.
    By either definition, Fluke would seem to fit the bill.

  • I don’t begrudge the Georgetown president’s full-throated defense of one of his students without his adding the caveat that he disagrees with her on the issue that made her famous. Such a defense generally needs to be done in a manner that is not watered down by “Howevers” and “Buts”.

    There is just something in the psyche of civilized people that reacts with horror to the thought of a man commenting upon a woman in a manner that calls into question her chastity. Now, maybe her testimony left little doubt in that regard, but still, to hear a man publicly comment upon a woman in such terms brings a visceral reaction that a line has been crossed in terms of genteel behavior.

    One thing I was always taught growing up is that a gentleman does not make comments about a woman that imputes unchastity to her. And gentlemanly behavior dictates defending a woman in such a situation, which is what Georgetown’s president was primarily concerned with doing in this instance..

  • I suspect that the sole pupose of the President’s letter Jay was to pick up some quick praise for himself from the powers that be at Georgetown, in Washington DC and in the Mainstream Media. As for Ms. Fluke, I think in other circumstances she would be the first to reject the traditional codes that have guided gentlemen and ladies in our civilization. Of course all of this misses the actual significance of Ms. Fluke’s testimony, which I think was rather the point of this whole media created tempest.

  • I find it ludicrous that this young woman who is apparently attending Georgetown with a scholarship is making this argument. First, if it was THAT important to her why did she attend a Catholic University. If I attended a Muslim University and then whined that I had to dress modestly then it would show me to be intolerant and maybe not the smartest cookie (I lived in Saudi Arabia for 3 years as a military wife and always covered when I went off compound. It was the correct and respectful thing to do).

    Second, can she NOT either abstain or ask her partner to participate in the costs of birth control?

    Third, I had to wonder about the other student she said was embarrassed and humiliated when she discovered birth control was not covered at the cash register when she picked up her birth control. Isn’t this woman a LAW student? Can’t she read her insurance policy? I only have a B.A. in Psychology but I read my policy to see what is covered BEFORE I see a doctor.

    They may not be sluts but this woman is definitely prostituting herself for the liberal democrats.

  • I listened live when he made his remarks, and even I forgot that he actually took the slut comment back almost as soon as he made it. Considering that what he said certainly crossed my mind, I can’t fault Rush for his comments.

  • “They may not be sluts but this woman is definitely prostituting herself for the liberal democrats.”

    It isn’t prostitution if it is done for love Lee anne, and I know that Ms. Fluke loves the far left of the Democrat Party unless she finds it too moderate for her tastes, which may wll be the case.

  • “She’s having so much sex she can’t afford the contraception.”

    Rush misspoke here in that when it comes to the Pill, you have to take it every day whether or not you have sex frequently. Ms. Fluke might very well be a slut, but that should not be the focus of the arguments against her. Gingrich summed them up perfectly – there is no contraceptive shortage in the US, nobody wants to take birth control away from Ms. Fluke, and the issue is who pays for it.

    It is mind-boggling to me how this issue has gotten away from us. The Dems are successfully painting this as “The GOP/Catholic War on Women” and millions of idiots appear to be falling for a completely non-existant issue. In the meantime, Iran becomes more frightening by the day and I nearly had to take out a bank loan when I filled up my tank last night. But let’s keep on talking about the sex life of a 30 year old Dem activist. It’s unreal.

    And as for the reaction of Georgetown U- well, absolutely no surprise there. I tell people my entire education up until college was Catholic – and then I went to a Jesuit university.

  • Paul, it’s one thing for it to cross your mind; it is another thing altogether to publicly give voice to those thoughts. In more genteel times, such comments (regardless of their veracity) were considered to be slander per se.

  • “As a student at Cornell and treasurer of a pro-choice organization at the school, Sandra
    Fluke helped shut down a pro-life speech on Cornell’s campus by counter-protesting.”

    Miss Fluke made no secret of her activities as an undergrad. I am astonished that of all
    the thousands of applicants for the few openings at Georgetown Law, the Admissions
    Board would give a place at a Catholic university to someone with her history.

    I suppose it can be argued that all sorts of views should be represented at a university.
    However, I’ve got to wonder if Admissions would be so complaisant if she had been an
    enthusiastic member and treasurer for a racist or anti-semitic student organization.

    It would appear that, by granting one of their few places in the law school program to
    someone like Miss Fluke, “… the teachings of the Church are of small concern to the
    powers that be at Georgetown…”.

  • Jay, I agree with your posts but would add that I do not believe for a second that Ms. Fluke was hurt or insulted by Limbaugh’s remarks. My guess is she snickered as she thought about how they would be used to her advantage.

  • I agree, Mike. No doubt she wears any insult by Limbaugh as a badge of honor.

    My objections to Rush have less to do with any imagined “damage” that might have been done to the particular woman’s reputation as they are to the damage that is done to the notion of gentility whenever a man comments in such a manner upon a woman’s chastity or lack thereof. Such comments about a woman used to merit one a punch in the nose (50-60 years ago) or a fight to the death on the field of honor (200 years ago and back to the middle ages).

  • Clinton,
    I wish I was surprised, but I’m not. As you point out the advantage of welcoming competing ideas has its limits. Think Wafen SS. A Catholic law school should be concerned with how to use law to protect our most innocent fellow human beings from intentional killing, but it appears that Georgetown has other priorities.

  • Oh I understand, Jay, and agree. Perhaps I am wrong, but I did not understand Limbaugh’s rant as asserting a genuine charge; I took it as parody, especially his comparison to a prostitute one who must be provided financial assistance as a condition to having sex. While this comparison has turned out rather poorly for Limbaugh, I don’t think any listener seriously thought Limbaugh was challenging the chastity of Ms. Fluke — for a whole bunch of reasons.

  • “…I don’t think any listener seriously thought Limbaugh was challenging the chastity of Ms. Fluke…”

    Especially since Ms. Fluke herself has answered that question.

  • Why would any man would want to talk with Ms. Fluke if she were chaste?

    Does her father own a liquor store?

  • In the classic movie “Ben-Hur”, there is a scene early in the movie in which the outgoing Tribune, Sextus, asks his replacement. Messala, “How do you fight an idea?” After a brief interruption, Messala answers him: “With another idea.” That is exactly what Obama and his cohorts are doing. They can’t win if the idea is that the federal government is violating the first amendment, so they invent their own idea, which is that Republicans are trying to take away women’s access to contraceptives. This is, of course, absurd, but to quote a line from another biblical movie, “But they (the Roman people) are believing it!” (Petronius, “Quo Vadis”). It is absolutely imperative that whoever wins the Republican nomination (looks like Romney at this point, but time will tell) press this issue. This is not a fight for contraceptive rights, but for religious rights. To paraphrase James Carville, “It’s freedom of religion, stupid!”

  • Unfortunaly Obama is framing this argument with might I say….. diabolical cunninngness…….

    Just the other day my son’s piano teacher said in passing with much gusto “I wish our parish would stay out of politics”. She was reffering to the letter our Bishop had read at all masses last week. During the reading of that letter I noticed at least on person get up and walk out.

    My mother said the same thing happened at her church all the way across the country.

  • I think Joseph’s analogy with Rome is very appropriate.

  • “During the reading of that letter I noticed at least on person get up and walk out. ”

    Frankly, those who prefer Obama to the Church probably should get up, walk out, and keep on walking.

  • Pingback: MONDAY EXTRA: U.S. CULTURE WARS | ThePulp.it
  • You are all morons if you think in today’s society calling a 30 year old woman who advocates “free” contraception a slut is insulting? Do you all live under a rock? Do you not go to the movies? Do you not listen to music? Do you not listen to people between the ages of 14 and 30 conversations? “Slut” is the mildest of words that is bantered about in today’s society. This “scandal” is a joke…brought to you by people who truly hate those that disagree with them. And Fluke is one of them.

  • Somebody with more time than me needs to research… did she go to one of those “slutwalks” that were all the rage half a year or so back?

  • I read Ms. Fluker’s statement, and what it was, was the usual liberal use of “hard cases” to make us feel sorry for someone, then to drastically change policy based on the hard cases. She speaks of women needed the Pill for control of polycystic ovaries. First of all, as a woman, I know that doctors are extremely quick to prescribe the pill for just about anything, not just as an “antidote” to fertility. If a doctor recommended the Pill, I would do a great deal of research before accepting his or her recommendation, to know what my other options are. But what the liberals are trying to do is say, “Look at these poor women who are discriminated against because they need the Pill and are insured by a Catholic institution! In order to solve this problem, we must ALL be given free birth control!” Huh? If you need insurers to cover the Pill based on certain diagnoses, then you have the insurers cover the Pill for those diagnoses. It is extremely simple. It makes no sense to argue that the reason the Pill should be covered for all is because a few people are using it for recognized medical conditions.

  • AFAIK, using the pill for an actual medical condition is treated the same as any other drug with any other off-label use– policies differ on if they’ll accept it, usually along the lines of if the medication is known to be useful for that purpose. (Like Viagra for women, especially those on anti-depressants– similar use as for men.)

    So, again, standard: they use a hard case that isn’t even accurate….

  • From the comments, I have to gather that liberal, Leftist People’s Democratic Party members and supporters will lie, obfuscate, spin and generally dissemble whatever, whenever and wherever it fits their political ends. I am (yawn) shocked.

    From “Power to the People” to Machiavelli in two generations.

  • Has Ms. Fluke been expelled from Georgetown yet? She’s bringing ill fame to the institution.

    By the way, there was a SlutWalk just last year in Georgetown. Did Ms. Fluke participate? Or did she condemn it? She does call herself an “activist,” I hear.

  • Good question. Here is a celebratory post by a participant:

    http://georgetownvoice.com/2011/08/26/lezhur-ledger-slutwalk-2011/

    Ah, yes, protesting sexism and a “rape culture” by dressing like a slut. Makes as much sense as stating that one is deprived of contraceptives if someone else is not picking up the tab.

  • The St. Augustine quote about Onan is HILARIOUS. A sperm is NOT a human being. An ovum is NOT a human being. Life begins at conception-so Onan wasn’t engaging in abortion. Sperm aren’t human. Embryos are. He needed to learn some basic biology. The Bible condemns adultery and fornication, NOT sexual techniques within marriage. He overrated Onan’s importance. I guess Augustine was of the “every sperm is sacred” ilk. Too bad Monty Python didn’t exist yet.

    For married couples, any form of sex is OK as long as it doesn’t involve artificial contraception, especially the kind that can destroy unborn life (as it says in the Didache). The Song of Songs praises sex of all kinds WITHIN marriage. When the Bridegroom speaks of tasting the Bride’s fruit, one can tell what he’s talking about… and the Bride sats something similar. Oral sex belongs within marriage.

  • No Susan you are incorrect. The sin of Onan referred to by Saint Augustine was that he “spilled his seed upon the ground” as an act of contraception. The Church has always been against contraception as the quote indicates.

    A nice article to read for people ignorant of the history of the Church prohibition in regard to contraception:

    http://catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0663.html

  • Fallacy: Appeal to Ridicule

    Also Known as: Appeal to Mockery, The Horse Laugh.

    Description of Appeal to Ridicule

    The Appeal to Ridicule is a fallacy in which ridicule or mockery is substituted for evidence in an “argument.” This line of “reasoning” has the following form:

    X, which is some form of ridicule is presented (typically directed at the claim).
    Therefore claim C is false.
    This sort of “reasoning” is fallacious because mocking a claim does not show that it is false. This is especially clear in the following example: “1+1=2! That’s the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard!”

    It should be noted that showing that a claim is ridiculous through the use of legitimate methods (such as a non fallacious argument) can make it reasonable to reject the claim. One form of this line of reasoning is known as a “reductio ad absurdum” (“reducing to absurdity”). In this sort of argument, the idea is to show that a contradiction (a statement that must be false) or an absurd result follows from a claim. For example: “Bill claims that a member of a minority group cannot be a racist. However, this is absurd. Think about this: white males are a minority in the world. Given Bill’s claim, it would follow that no white males could be racists. Hence, the Klan, Nazis, and white supremists are not racist organizations.”

    Since the claim that the Klan, Nazis, and white supremists are not racist organizations is clearly absurd, it can be concluded that the claim that a member of a minority cannot be a racist is false.

    Examples of Appeal to Ridicule

    “Sure my worthy opponent claims that we should lower tuition, but that is just laughable.”
    “Support the ERA? Sure, when the women start paying for the drinks! Hah! Hah!”
    “Those wacky conservatives! They think a strong military is the key to peace!”

    http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-ridicule.html

  • Also begging the question in that the statement that sperm and ovum aren’t people implies that killing someone is the only yardstick the Church uses in terms of sexual practices inside a marriage.

  • If Onan’s sin was so egregious, why isn’t it in the Levitical Holiness Code? It’s pretty exhaustive. Don’t sleep with a parent, don’t sleep with a sibling, etc. When the Levitical Code was given, it went into DETAIL about sexual do’s and don’ts. Onan gets only one appearance in the whole Bible-he isn’t that important. Not even St. Paul brought him up in his writings on marriage.

    Sperm and ovum aren’t human. If you say “life begins at conception”,BELIEVE it… instead of what Bill Maher said about Santorum recently.

    The Song of Songs praises oral sex within marriage-Clinton should’ve understood that.

    The Didache forbade artificial contraceptives as well as “poisons that induce abortion”,adultery, promiscuity, fornication. It didn’t describe sexual practices within marriage because it was NONE of its business.

    The Bible condemns adultery. A LOT. Jesus condemned divorce&remarriage. Where does the Bible give ANY prescriptions on sexual acts within marriage? Not many.

    “Thou shalt not commit adultery”-save sex for marriage.

    Got problems with that?

  • “If Onan’s sin was so egregious, why isn’t it in the Levitical Holiness Code?”

    Beats me. Of course there are a whole host of very serious sins not included in that Code. The Church is of course not limited by the strictures set forth in the Old Testament.

    “Onan gets only one appearance in the whole Bible-he isn’t that important.”

    Melchizedek gets only a brief appearance in the Old Testament, yet he is very important in the New. Traditionally Jewish rabbis opposed male contraception on the basis of Onan. That brief passage in the Old Testament has been very important in traditional views of contraception for both Jews and Christians until the day before yesterday in historical terms.

    “Sperm and ovum aren’t human.”

    No one has said that they are. That is not the point of the ban on contraception.

    “The Song of Songs praises oral sex within marriage”

    A debatable proposition. Sodomy has always been condemned by the Church. The Old Testament of course is not controlling over what the Church approves and what the Church condemns.

    “It didn’t describe sexual practices within marriage because it was NONE of its business.”
    Untrue. This from the Epistleof Barnabas ( circa 74 AD) ” Moreover, he [Moses] has rightly detested the weasel [Lev. 11:29]. For he means, ‘Thou shall not be like to those whom we hear of as committing wickedness with the mouth with the body through uncleanness [orally consummated sex]; nor shall thou be joined to those impure women who commit iniquity with the mouth with the body through uncleanness’”

    The Church has legislated in this area since the time of the Crucifixion. You are very much mistaken.

  • Back in my college days, I once knew a guy who made a conclusion from the Robert DeNiro/Billy Crystal film “Analyze this.” DeNiro’s mobster says he has a mistress because he can’t imagine his wife kissing their children after practicing oral sex on him. Basically, rationalizing adultery.

    If one thinks oral sex is somehow wrong within marriage,it paves the way for mistresses&adultery. Police sexual practices unreasonably within marriage-and people will DEFINITELY commit adultery.

    It’s normal, natural&human for lovers to kiss each other, even down there (especially if down there) It’s natural for a wife to want to please her husband–no wonder the Epistle of Barnabas isn’t canonical. It’s also natural for a husband to go down&please his wife. If he’s scared for her lady parts, he’s got issues. It’s not done out of malice, but for love.

    I know a pastor (non-Catholic) who’d be appalled that you condemn oral intimacy within marriage… considering he backed Prop.8 in California AND managed to stop Planned Parenthood from opening up shop in his town. He’d be headdesking.

    That passage from Barnabas is condemning oral sex OUTSIDE of marriage. Besides, it would be a buzzkill for some men if their wives wouldn’t do it. It depends on the couple.As well as consent. If done for the wrong reasons, oral sex is wrong within marriage, but if it’s consensual&loving, who are we to condemn it?

    And weasels are cute creatures.

  • If you wish to argue for approval of what the Church has condemned throughout her history Susan, you are at the wrong blog.

  • I don’t know Donald, are you really prepared to simply cede to two millenia of the teachings of Popes, Bishops, and Church Doctors when you have the brilliant philosophic insight of “Analyze This” staring you right in the face?

  • From an article by Pete Vere JCL (once available on Cathoic Exchange, 7-10-07, but I can’t find it anymore. All I hard is hard copy. The article was called “Abortion and Contraception: Old Lies”

    [The book Eve’s Herbs] answered a question that had long troubled me; I had often wonderded why Holy Scripture appeared to say so little about the grave evils of abortion and contraception….Eve’s Herbs provided me with a startling realization: in ancient and medieval times, contraception and abortion were often considered a form of sorcery and witchcraft, rather than a form of medicine. Thus, Holy Scripture may never use the words abortion and contracpetion, but the Bible is not silent on the issue. It simply condemns these practices under a different name.”

  • Just thought of something else: when I was a kid, “gay” meant “happy” (or something like that). When I got to college, it meant “homosexual.” Now my kids use the word “gay” but it isn’t always being used to mean “a homosexual.” It means something more like “stupid.” Words change over time. Our understanding of things change over time, so that gives credance to Pete Vere’s thoughts on the matter.

  • DJ-
    Here you go! (Bless TFR and their habit of having copies of all sorts of things.)

  • DeNiro’s mobster says he has a mistress because he can’t imagine his wife kissing their children after practicing oral sex on him. Basically, rationalizing adultery.

    If one thinks oral sex is somehow wrong within marriage,it paves the way for mistresses&adultery.

    No… it was DeNiro’s character thinking that oral sex is something he’s got to have that paved the way to adultery.

    Oral sex good + mouth that’s performed oral sex on him touching his children= get mouth that won’t touch his children for oral sex.

    His initial assumption was wrong, so of course his conclusion was wrong. It would be shocking if his conclusion wasn’t wrong!

  • Pingback: Surprise! Sandra Fluke Being Run From White House | The American Catholic
  • Pingback: 2012: An Elijah on Mount Carmel Year | The American Catholic

Newt Refuses to Play By Mainstream Media Rules on HHS Mandate

Sunday, March 4, AD 2012

Hattip to commenter Chris for pointing this out to me.  Newt Gingrich is a flawed candidate, but when it comes to standing up to the Mainstream Media, and refusing to allow them to set the terms of the debate over issues, he is in a class by himself.  In the video above, he takes David Gregory apart on Meet the Press today, refusing to allow Gregory to frame the debate, dishonestly, as access to contraception rather than as an assault on religious liberty.  Newt recognizes that the Mainstream Media is almost entirely an unpaid arm of the Democrat party.  He knows that they are adversaries and he treats them accordingly.  All Republicans and conservatives:  look and learn!

Continue reading...

12 Responses to Newt Refuses to Play By Mainstream Media Rules on HHS Mandate

  • It’s very obvious the new media is Democrat. Women (and men) have the right to reproductive health. It’s called, “Say NO!” No one ever died from lack of sex.

  • My hero.

    MM ‘rules’ are not for fair game or discourse, defaming their profession as journalists,
    as mouthpieces for any agenda of the democrats. Mostly, MM has forsaken objective reporting for vilifying and actually bullying (great role models) those outside the D party line. Maybe, the A list is more important than truth, liberty and life for MM people.

  • That.was.masterful.

    Newt brought it to Gregory. The most interesting part of the whole thing to me was Newt’s claim that Pres. Obama voted to kill babies. And Gregory didn’t even question it.

    Think about that: Newt said that Barack Obama was in favor of infanticide. Infanticide. If that doesn’t get a reporter’s attention, then nothing will. Yet, David Gregory doesn’t even ask Newt to defend the idea that Obama voted to allow babies to be killed. The conversation just moves on.

    The media doesn’t want a close examination of that particular item because of the details. If that story were truly aired to the general public, I don’t know how Barack Obama could stay in office. So, for the media, the strategy becomes: let the Republican “crazies” say it; ignore it; move on.

  • Yes, the other GOP candidates need to take a page from Newt’s book – challenge the assumptions of the left! When I see Romney trying to explain that, really, Republicans aren’t so very men, I want to start crying.

    The late Andrew Breitbart also refused to play by the MSM’s rules – which is the reason he will be so missed by many of us and why he was so hated by the Left..

  • Heh. That should be “mean,” not “men.”

    Although “Republicans aren’t so very men” works too – paging Dr. Freud…

  • Newt is exactly right. This false notion of denial of “woman’s reproductive healthcare” propaganda is a smoke screen and diverts the actual discussion of Obama’s disgusting record. This IS about religious liberty, period. There never was any problem with getting contraception.

    Rush Limbaugh’s words to describe Ms Fluke may not have been the best, but they were accurate. Her moral character is shameful and any decent woman would not be discussing their sexual history in front of Congress and the world. Why is she at a Catholic College in the first place?

  • Thanks for posting this Don. I just posted it to my Facebook page. Newt is definitely providing the template for how conservatives should deal with the left wing media.

  • Gingrich has a gift for that Greg, and I just hope that other conservatives learn what he is teaching in regard to the media. Too many conservatives attempt futilely to make friends with members of the media, while the wisest understand that they are simply political adversaries to be used as foils while speaking directly to the audience.

  • Mr.David Gregory of Meet the Press on Sunday morning was taken to the woodshed. While using only his tunnelvision he obviously wanted to dictate a Rush Limbaugh smear
    capaign.
    Caught blindsided he was unable to defend the medias position in this so called laughable interview with the former Speaker Gingrich.

  • Pingback: WEDNESDAY EXTRA: U.S. RELIGIOUS FREEDOM | ThePulp.it
  • Newt Gingrich is a flawed candidate…

    Sigh. Aren’t they all.

    If God called someone with Speaker Gingrich’s insights and Sen. Santorum’s image to be a candidate for president this election year, that someone didn’t answer the call.

    Moses was a flawed man and he led God’s people to freedom despite an oppressive regime.

  • As a former Democrat who voted for Kennedy and Carter, the way the media is trying to skew this issue makes me glad I left that party. All of the main stream media think and act the same way. Their Freedom of Speech is just as threatened as Freedom of Religion.

The White House Hopes For Schism

Saturday, March 3, AD 2012

Timothy Cardinal Dolan of the Archdiocese of New York has been a leader in the fight against the HHS Mandate.  Below is an update that he gave on the current status of that battle this week.  His remarks are fascinating on several grounds.  Here are a few observations:

1.  Schism.  The Cardinal believes that the White House is attempting to take advantage of a de facto schism in the Church in America and render the opposition of the Bishops harmless.  “Instead, they advised the bishops’ conference that we should listen to the “enlightened” voices of accommodation, such as the recent hardly-surprising but terribly unfortunate editorial in America.  The White House seems to think we bishops are hopelessly out of touch with our people, and with those whom the White House now has nominated as official Catholic teachers.”  Some of us have of course seen this coming for a very long time, symbolized by the Obama day of worship at Notre Dame’s commencement in 2009.  The Obama administration hopes to create their own de facto version of a “Patriotic Catholic Association” here in the US, completely subservient to the administration.

2. Religious Liberty.  The Cardinal understands the gravity of this attack on religious liberty.  And it is not just about sterilization, abortifacients, and chemical contraception.  Pure and simple, it’s about religious freedom, the sacred right, protected by our constitution, of any Church to define its own teaching and ministry.  This of course is all about Obama’s goal of making the Catholic Church in this country harmless to his ambitions, ambitions I am beginning to fear even his most ardent opponents do not truly comprehend yet.

3.   Shocked, Shocked.  Obama’s word is meaningless.  When the President announced on January 20th that the choking mandates from HHS would remain — a shock to me, since he had personally assured me that he would do nothing to impede the good work of the Church in health care, education, and charity, and that he considered the protection of conscience a sacred duty — not only you, but men and women of every faith, or none at all, rallied in protest.   Frankly I am shocked that the Cardinal was shocked, but better wise late than never.

4.  Litigation–  The Cardinal believes that the HHS Mandate can be beaten in the courts.  And the courts offer the most light.  In the recent Hosanna-Tabor ruling, the Supreme Court unanimously and enthusiastically defended the right of a Church to define its own ministry and services, a dramatic rebuff to the administration, but one apparently unheeded by the White House.  Thus, our bishops’ conference and many individual religious entities are working with some top-notch law firms who have told us they feel so strongly about this that they will represent us pro-bonoThis of course underlines one of the many reasons it is essential to defeat Obama in November.  Another four years would give him probably at least two more supreme court appointments and hundreds of lower federal court appointments.

The Bishops I think, at least the vast majority of them, are now awake to the danger posed to the Catholic Church by the Obama administration.  It is therefore a great pity that too many of them, and their predecessors, over the years, allowed underlings in the Church bureaucracy to continue to have the Catholic Church in this country act as the Democrat party at prayer, and thereby helped foster an attitude of casual indifference, or active approval, as that party embraced position after position directly contrary to Catholic teaching and thus lull most Catholics into the belief that none of this was important when it came to them casting their ballot.  The canonization   funeral Mass given to Teddy Kennedy was a prime example that members of the hierarchy in this country shared fully in this attitude.  These ecclesiastics have sown the wind and now we are all reaping the whirlwind.

Here is the statement of the Cardinal:

Continue reading...

39 Responses to The White House Hopes For Schism

  • Apropos from John Hinderacker: “Have we ever had an administration like Barack Obama’s? An administration that tries to benefit from pitting Americans against one another? An administration that uses its billion-dollar slush fund, not to mention the resources of the Executive Branch, to demonize private citizens who disagree with its policies? An administration that uses hate as an instrument of domestic politics? I don’t believe that there is any precedent in American history for the mean-spiritedness that now emanates from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.”

  • This is all well and good, but the Cardinal only in passing touched upon an important point. Religious freedom belongs not only to institutions, but even more so to individuals. Why should an individual be subjected to abrogation of his rights any more than an institution?

  • Pingback: SATURDAY EDITION | ThePulp.it
  • Yeah cmatt. They mention it along with others but only about 50% of the time. They need to make these into bullet points, internalize them, and always present them in their entirety.

  • Such a cool role model.
    Conducting a discordant orchestra.
    Mean-spiritedness down to a science.
    Kids are shooting kids. Bullying prevails over education scene.
    People speechless from confusion and fear.
    National identity crisis.
    Systematic disintegration, John Hinderacker has it.
    1. Pitting Americans against one another.
    2. $lush, Executive Branch limitle$$ budget demonizing citizens = jobs created.
    3. Hate & buzzwords to carry out agenda .
    Victims: Infants, children, elderly, working citizens, business owners, churches, and integrity.

  • a shock to me, since he had personally assured me that he would do nothing…..

    I really, really respect Cardinal Dolan. Both his office and from everything I have seen in interviews he appears like the kind of person you could sit and have a beer with (or club soda) and just talk about life.

    However, this is the second time he has been shocked and hoodwinked by politicians. The first was during the gay marriage debacle in NY when he was assured by certain people (whoever they were) that it wouldn’t go anywhere.

    In fairness without trying not to Monday morning quarterback, it seems like he needs to stop giving the benefit of the doubt these politicians and their operatives.

    Maybe a good rule of thumb is if you are dealing with a politician who thinks abortion, gay marriage and every other immoral activity is okay (for example Obama or Cumo) they shouldn’t be completely trusted at their word. Maybe irrespective of what they tell him, he should forge ahead regardless.

    We Catholics need a hero; we need someone we can rally behind to fight the good fight. I for one will offer my rosary tonight for the good Cardinal.

  • Amen to Cardinal Dolan, but in truth, I (an 84 year old woman with limited education) knew this was coming and cannot figure out how or why the Bishops, et al didn’t. It was so obvious. When Obama was running for the Presidency, you could see right through the hypocrisy and it just blew me away to think that Catholics were so Gung Ho to elect him, even our pastor. We sow what we reap. If he is re-elected – it’s all over.
    Our Saving Grace is in the Lord.

  • St. Mark 3:25

    “And if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand.”

    Read it all. Here Pharisees allege that Jesus is Beelzebub and so commands demons. Jesus teaches that there are eternal sins, i.e., sins that cannot be forgiven. These are sins against the Holy Spirit. Democrats constantly sin against the Holy Spirit.

    Social justice ever is used to rationalize eternal sin.

    Romans 14:8

    “For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; or whether we die, we die unto the Lord. Therefore, whether we live, or whether we die, we are the Lord’s.” Amen.

  • For whether we live free, we live freely unto the Lord; or whether we live in chains, we live freely in the Lord.

    Nero did not prevail over the Holy Spirit nor will Obama nor any earthly power or prince.

  • Sovereign immunity is that shield from the state’s penetrating into one’s immortal soul and taking God-given freedom from a person, sucking the marrow from his constitutional bones. The Catholic Church has been compliant with rules and regulations to help the state, such as incorporating as a non-profit or as a religious institution. This is in good will. The Church does not need to do this. The state cannot, in reality, give the Church a tax-exemption, because the state cannot tax the Church. Therefore, an exemption implies that the state may tax the Church, but is being a nice guy about generosity. Well, generosity is a virtue, a God-given virtue and the practice of religion by the state in rendering the virtue of charity through the God-given virtue of generosity to the Church. And God is left laughing.
    Sovereign immunity, like diplomatic immunity, defines the realm of the Catholic Church as being autonomous in its existence through the Catholic Church’s institution by Jesus Christ, of the Catholic Church’s creation by God, of which the state has had and may have no part.
    In redefining freedom, the state has dissolved the very foundations of its existence as constituted by the sovereign persons who have constituted the state. In violating the will of the people, the state has failed to be the state. In violating the will of God for His Catholic Church and for the people of God, the state has incited the wrath of God.
    Back to the future in the catacombs.
    As President, Bill Clinton wrote an executive order making all free lands and waters the privilege of the president. As President, Obama wrote executive order 13575 Rural Councils, making all private land the object of eminent domain, to be taken at will from all persons, but not FOR all persons, as eminent domain requires. The LOST treaty, not ratified by Congress (only Congress ratifies treaties) signed by Hillary Clinton, secretary of State with the United Nations, an atheistic entity without sovereign authority or immunity since only God gives sovereignty through the immortal soul of man, privatizes all the oceans and seas and the mineral rights under the seas to the United Nations. American citizens will now have to pay to sail the seas. The reason this is of utmost importance, is that now, when Obama nationalizes the Catholic Church and her property, there is nowhere to say Mass. Once upon a time, in Ireland, Mass was said in a goat drawn cart hauled onto the land exposed by the receding tide. This riprarian land was no man’s land. The exiled Catholic Church Mass was free to be said on this land which belonged to God. Obama has usurped what belongs to God and redefined God’s property as his own. There is nowhere for the Catholic Mass to be said, once Obama nationalizes all church property, except the catacombs, once again.

  • “Have we ever had an administration like Barack Obama’s? An administration that tries to benefit from pitting Americans against one another?”

    Actually, we have. The president in question was James Buchanan (1857-1861), who supported the Fugitive Slave Act and the Dred Scott Decision, and who did nothing to stop the bleeding in Bleeding Kansas. In fact he encouraged it by supporting the pro-slavery Lecompton Constitution that would have made Kansas a slave state. It was during his administration that Abraham Lincoln directly quoted Christ’s words about the “house divided against itself.”

  • Excellent comment by Quinlan and Voe they get it. If Obana is elected another 4 years we could very well have to go underground as a Roman Catholic Church similar to China. When I was in grade school over 40+ years ago a nun prophetically told our class that one day we will be persecuted for our faith in this country as was the case in China. I believe by this mandate the wheels have been set in motion.

  • One positive development: if this had all happened twenty years ago, would they have even fought back?

  • Quinlan –
    different baseline assumptions.
    I’m guessing you’re more to the right or libertarian side of an important world-view line– have the idea that people can and should help themselves as much as possible, and are aware that giving lots of power is like giving a psycho a knife, it can be used for good or bad.
    The Bishop– as one might guess from the way he’s a Bishop– has had a lot of exposure to the good that organizations can do, and is probably constantly running up against the “what we could fix if we had the power” situation.

    It’s hard for me to empathize with it, because my worldview is so different– lower middle class, enlisted, rural, deal with people of a wide range of motivations, and for some reason people keep mistaking me for a mouse instead of a shrew (to steal my mom’s line), so I get to see how people behave with the power they have when they don’t think they’ll be called on it, as well as seeing the on-the-ground effects of some stuff that sounds very noble. (Who could be against protecting, say, bald eagles? People who stand to lose their life’s work if some idiot sees the eagles and reports it. To make it worse, the “protection” tends to have the opposite effect if someone DOESN’T shoot, shovel and shut up.{disclaimer: I have no names of individuals who have so violated the endangered species act– it’s common knowledge that it’s done})

    I’d guess that even among politicians, there are a lot of folks who’d hesitate to lie to a priest’s face.

  • Your Eminence,

    You hold the cards – God, and parishes scattered throughout the country, and your right to speak freely from the pulpit on anything attacking the Church. You also have the right to hold Voter Registration drives after every week-end Mass giving the opportunity of the faithful to be sure they are registered to vote in this very upcoming election that will have such a major impact on the future of religious freedom in America. Words, alone, won’t change anything – actions will; that is why voter registration after the Masses is your best arrow in your arsenal in defending freedom of religion and the practice thereof. Registration drives also allow people to change their registration – and how one is registered to vote is the Holy Grail of politics.

  • Policies are negotiable-Principles are not negotiable! We support Catholic teachings!

  • I have all due respect for Cardinal Dolan, but there has been a schism in the Church for a very long time. The left leaning/ Democrat loving Bishops/ Priests have been undermining the Church as long as I can remember. I hate to say it but a lot of this mess has been the results of the Bishops and Priests not doing what they should have been doing….teaching the beliefs of the Catholic Church especially on moral issues. Instead they have largely ignored what the Church actually believes on contraception ( Humanae Vitae), sterilization, abortion, euthanasia and same-sex marriage. They allowed these things to be taught in schools, seminaries and still allow speakers and politicians who go against our beliefs in Catholic Schools/Colleges. What are they going to do now with “catholic” politicians who continue to go against the Church? There were 13 “catholic” Democrats who just voted against the Blunt amendment to protect religious liberty against the HHS mandate. Anyone looking into Obama’s past should have known his true beliefs and intentions. I’ll be praying for our Bishops, Priests and the USA….we’re going to need a lot of prayer!

  • This is why I love Newt, stuff like this. Newt at his best, wish I could wrap up Newt and Santorum together! I have not heard this articulated so well.

    Newt owns David Gregory on contraception debate

    http://www.therightscoop.com/newt-owns-david-gregory-on-contraception/

  • GHU

    I concur with everything you wrote, but now we need to do more than “just” pray – we’ve been doing that for decades and things have gotten worse. That is because actions were not implemented to go along with our faith. Now, not only is the Church under attack by this pro-abortion, pro-infanticide Democrat Administration, our country is at risk of being lost as well. We can turn this all around this November and eliminate the threat to Religious Liberty and to freedom in America if we will get active in registering people to vote at church. That action coupled with prayers in EVERY Mass for the overturn of Obama’s Health and Human Services’ order to take effect this August 1st, (just like we used to pray for the conversion of Russia) will be a major step towards recovering our country in our precious Constitutional Rights. As Catholics’ go, so goes the country. If there was EVER a reason why Catholics should remove their name identification from the Democrat Party, and stop voting for them, this IS the time. Catholics don’t HAVE to become Republicans, just register out of the Democrat Party in protest of their war, not only on the unborn, but NOW on the missions of the Church while dismantling the Constitution in the process. The should register as Independents or Decline to State. In many states, now, such Voter ID allows one to vote in any Primary Election as is evident in the “Republican” Primaries going on now.

  • Pingback: Newt Refuses to Play By Mainstream Media Rules on HHS Mandate | The American Catholic
  • Pingback: Newt Refuses to Play By Mainstream Media Rules on HHS Mandate … | Presstitution - Exposing Media Whores!
  • I believe it was H. L. Mencken who stated the Catholic bishops were the Democrat Party at prayer.

    The bishops, past and present, have been so far off the mark in dealing with a Democrat Party whose platforms, aims and goals have been so anti-Catholic. The USCCB has been blind as a bat in realizing who and what the Democrat Party is all about. The FDR New Deal died in Chicago in 1968.

    it is not just about abortion. The USCCB pays lip service to school choice. Yet, do we really have school choice in the USA? No.

    Look at the states that have enacted homosexual marriage. Certain of them, namely New York, usually are at the top of the highest number of abortions. Massachusetts, New York, Rhode Island, Maryland and Illinois have a large number of so-called Catholics, but the politicians those states elect, be they “Catholic” or not, do not reflect Catholic teaching on just about anything.

    Catholic education stunk in the 1970s when I was in Catholic school. Catholic higher education is, in most universities that call themselves Catholic, is anything but Catholic. The nuns who broke with the USCCB and supported Obamacare are another example.

    And yet, only bishop Bruskewitz and then Archbishop Burke were the only Catholic bishops who would stand up to abortion supporters. Cardinal Wuerl has gone out of his way NOT to confront such politicians. Look at the example of the poor priest from Montgomery County who did not give Communion to the lesbian at her mother’s funeral. Wuerl used to be my bishop. He approved of Teresa Heinz’ golddigging husband, John FARC Kerry (the FARC comes from Kerry’s lipservice making excuses for the Marxist narcoterrorist Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia – my wife is from Colombia and saw them commit murder).

    To top it off, the owner of the Pittsburgh Steelers, my favorite team, daily communicant Dan Rooney (I used to see him at Daily Mass at St. Mary of Mercy in Pittsburgh) supported the Abortionist In Chief. I suspect his father would have let him have it.

    I’ll be damned if I let some Marxist nitwit with the intelligence of a soap dish like Barack Obumbler and his minions make me rot in a prison cell for my faith or for any other reason. I’ll send my family to Colombia. There is a lot to fear in Colombia – drug traffickers, violent criminals, the FARC, the ELN, paramilitaries – but not the Colombian government.

  • “However, this is the second time he has been shocked and hoodwinked by politicians.”

    I love Dolan, but that statement is true. However, I blame him more for being hoodwinked by NY politicians – why would anybody expect NY politicians to be honest? Yes, Obama is a politician, but he is also the President of the United States. I can understand how a clergyman would believe that the President of the United States would not lie to his face.

  • Many years ago, a good friend pointed out to me that priests and bishops really do live in a very sheltered world, and don’t understand how bad things are for us laity in the trenches. I thought it was an interesting insight, and a good way to give them the benefit of the doubt, but I really couldn’t understand how that could be.
    Then, recently, I was talking to a new friend who’s a convert, a little younger than my father, and comes from a very conservative Presbyterian background. He, too, said that the thinks priests are kind of sheltered and don’t understand how bad our culture is.
    Then, a couple weeks ago, my Carmelite community had our annual retreat. The Carmelite priest who came down to give the retreat was talking about teaching a class a few years ago, where one of his students protested that he doesn’t think we’re right about God and free will, that he doesn’t think it can be free will if God punishes you for not making a certain choice. The priest was shocked at what the student said. Another student tried to explain to him that this is the attitude most people in our society have, and how this is what this young man had been taught in his entire education. The priest was surprised.

    So, yes, I learned, many older priests really *are* that naive.

  • John,

    Priests are sheltered in many ways. I remember the priest at one parish I was at. He had recently retired and was living for the first time in his life in an apartment. Prior to this had lived at home, seminary or rectories. He commented that it was the first time he had paid a bill. The first time. Before this he had others who had handled the accounts. Now he knew the actual cost of things. This after he retired. And he had be talking all through the years about the economy when he didn’t even know what the monthly cost of phone service or utilities were.

  • Now he knew the actual cost of things. This after he retired. And he had be talking all through the years about the economy when he didn’t even know what the monthly cost of phone service or utilities were.

    Where was this man ever posted? I am quite sure that in all the parishes I have ever been associated with, the priest/administrator was intimately familiar with the parish accounts.

  • His words Art, not mine. I am quite sure about them. If you have doubts, address it with him.

    Though familiarity is a tough concept. Another example, the pastor of another parish was “familiar” with the shaky finances. His parish finance committee constantly informed him of them. Of course one day he went out and bought a house across the street to be the parish for a youth center. Dropped the bomb on the parish finance committee that was then in a scramble to figure out how to find money .

  • After a night of thought, I realized I’ve done something much like Cardinal Dolan on a small level: online game guilds have twice royally betrayed my husband and me. Each time taught us things to look out for the next time we join up, but didn’t mean we expect EVERY member of an organization to act like the bad ones from before.

  • Yes I think there is already and has been such a schism, and that is becoming more pronounced. Rick Santorum and Obama are making the schism more visible and definite….a clear contrast. At Catholic study group yesterday we came to this conclusion: (1 Timothy 4:1 2) …”proclaim the word; be persistent whether it is convenient or inconvenient; convince, reprimand, encourage through all patience and teaching.”

  • What strikes me is that nobody seems to be pointing out the obvious: that each and every turn for the worse is coming from The Father of Lies. The Deceiver and Enemy is firmly entrenched in the Peoples’ Democratic Party leadership, including President Caiaphas, and has hoodwinked a good portion of what used to be God’s Own Party.

    He who has deceived Eve, Adam and everybody else in history except Jesus Himself has not only gotten stronger in past decades but enlisted multitudes of useful idiots to do his work for him without even knowing it. So-called “freedoms” that are nothing more than license and anarchy have been used as reasons to gut the most powerful and God-fearing political document ever written, and the singular goal is the elimination of God from our society so as to erect a Humanist-fascist worldwide dictatorship.

    When it is realized that the endgame is to set up a single, Satanic government controlling the globe, then it is also to realize just where in history we stand. It may well be generations away, but as the old saying goes, “A journey of 1000 miles begins with the first step.”

    The first step was taken some time ago; whether it’s too late to turn back remains to be seen.

  • If there exists a schism, and the liberal faction disobeys the bishops, it won’t because the church wanted it. However if some weak Catholics go that way; they ought to be handled as the church handles schismatic heretics, and excommunicated publicly by the church. In the long run a rotten apple kept in the barrel of apples spoils all and the good ones need to be protected and saved and not corrupted by the rotten ones.

  • John Hinderaker: “Barack Obama has been a terrible president in many ways, but perhaps his most poisonous legacy is his cynical fomenting of partisan hate to advance his own political interests. After three years, we have learned that ‘hope’ is not the word that we should associate with the Obama presidency.”

  • Hate and Chains!

  • Pingback: Surprise! Sandra Fluke Being Run From White House | The American Catholic
  • Pingback: 2012: An Elijah on Mount Carmel Year | The American Catholic
  • Pingback: An American Issue | The American Catholic
  • Pingback: For Greater Glory: Viva Christo Rey! | The American Catholic
  • As an aside, the communist Chinese are seeking out (and praising) the empress of the Episcopalian denomination, aka their Presiding Bishop, Katharine Jefferts-Schori. Jefferts-Schori is an ex-Catholic who misses no opportunity to trash the Catholic Church.

    If schism is indeed brought to fruition in the US, a faux ‘Episcopal’ hierarchy and liturgy are already in place for an “American Catholic church” with which to link up. Just saying.

    http://episcopaldigitalnetwork.com/ens/2012/03/14/rise-in-christians-has-chinas-churches-government-looking-for-help/

Weakness and The Truth

Friday, March 2, AD 2012

“Put you on the armour of God, that you may be able to stand against the deceits of the devil.  For our wrestling is not against flesh and blood; but against principalities and powers, against the rulers of the world of this darkness, against the spirits of wickedness in the high places. Therefore, take unto you the armour of God, that you may be able to resist in the evil day and to stand in all things perfect”  Epistle of St. Paul to the Ephesian 6: 11-13

 

Mr. Voris is exactly right.  The American bishops are asking for a fight after having failed to feed, train and arm their military.  There is no way a single letter, as well intentioned and necessary as it is, read from the pulpit on a single Sunday, urging us to call our elected representatives, is going to save our freedoms and protect our right to practice the faith that Christ handed to us.  It will not help catechize the silly young woman mentioned in the Real Catholic video, nor will it educate the nation as to why the Church teaches abortion, artificial contraception and sterilization are evils.

I hate to say this but in many ways the bishops almost deserve to be ignored. Truth be told, they have lost an immense amount of respect among the devout laity (the non-devout obviously having no respect for them). This is not a loss of respect for the position,  but for the men and the way they hold it; weak and timidly.  The result is a wasteland of liberalism and heresy that is to be found in so many parishes across our nation.  Now, after having the President of the US attempt to force them into committing mortal sin, they want the help of those few who actually believe, practice and uphold the faith to come to the rescue.

Continue reading...

16 Responses to Weakness and The Truth

  • Very well said, Walter! Ezekiel 34:1-10 comes to mind.

  • I am writing the following comment because at some point the responsibility to find the TRUTH is squarely on our shoulders and no one elses. Hopefully for her someone confronts her with love at CUA regarding these truths.

    You know what?! I am a weak Catholic and at times more than I care to count or think about I am a c-o-w-a-r-d. That’s right I am a coward. Does it make it right for me to be one to retreat into my cowardice? Do I take up a political lobby and make people embrace my cowardice? No I have no recourse but to beg God and the Saints to pray for the grace for me to do better. I need to the courage to explain WITH LOVE the wrongness of homosexuality, contraception, abortion, et al to my wife. I need the courage to tell my kids that they need to go to mass and say prayers with Daddy. I need the courage to pray on my own and go to adoration because without that I cannot and will not survive this world and in some way lead them safely to the next. In some ways it would be easy to go to the other side. But how can I pervert truth to fit what I want to believe to make it easier for myself? I have already told God once I will be right back, once. Now I have people that are (whether they know it or not) depending on me to get them to heaven. I just need men (faithful priests/other men) and God & Heaven to get me there.

  • Required: courage and humility.

    I think of Veronica who had the courage to express her love for Our Lord in the midst of a hate-filled crowd. The Sixth Station of the Cross: “Veronica wipes the Face of Jesus.”

    Pray for courage to step up and profess our loyalty to Christ.

    I was thinking of hateful Pelosi’s garbage gab about how the bishops did not enforce Church Teachings and her rat-reasoning that they ought to continue the error.

    One needs the humility to admit you were wrong.

    I have experience in this. Infrequently, in my line, I need to correct a “loose interpretation” or “inconsistent application” (heh) of a principle(s) that our people had missed. The complaint is, “You didn’t ‘ding’ us for this last year.” My answer is, “To err is human. That doesn’t make the discrepancy less wrong or mean that we can allow it to persist.” And, from then on we do it right. It is embarrassing, but they get over it and you restore your authority.

  • Michael – I hope that no one posts a comment that criticizes you for what you’ve just said.

    The first thing you need to do is return to prayer. Get comfortable with it again. If you’ve been away from the Church, go to Confession. And don’t worry about having to bulldoze your wife and kids into the understanding and practice of the faith. As it becomes more a part of your life, you’ll find yourself communicating it more through your example (and the words will start to come natural enough too).

    I don’t know if you really are a coward; it’s not cowardice that keeps me from throwing a 40-yard perfect spiral, it’s the fact that I’m out of shape. That makes it embarrasing to go out onto the practice field and work on my throwing.

    I’ve known converts and reverts over the years. I’m more of a revert myself than I’d like to admit, due to a particularly lazy stretch in college. It takes determination to get back, but more often than not it just takes a start. Don’t psych yourself out. Just do it. And please be willing to hang around this site and keep us informed. There are plenty of sites that can give you the encouragement that you’re looking for.

  • Pinky — If someone does criticize me then I will take the good from it and move on. Prayer yes I am with you. I need prayer and when I miss a day or two day I can tell that I have missed it.

    Bulldozing them with my faith…I don’t expose them to my faith, it seems to me, at all. I feel that I hide it from them for fear of the criticism…hence cowardice. I dont expect my wife to practice her faith and do pray for her and offer up all that I have for her to see more clearly (make sense?). As far as my kids they are 5 and 3. I have a duty as a father to take them to mass and pray with them but again the coward in me is a problem, and my wife is sometimes hostile to the faith.

    I am a revert and ask for the grace of perseverance to keep going and even get more couragous especially these days of “apathy to religious freedom” which breathes down my neck just a little bit more every day.

    I am determined but need other men/dads and God to give me the courage to ACT OUT/DO what is right and just. Thank you for your words of encouragement. I do like this site and have been checking it on a regular basis.

  • Michael P,

    I think you are quite courageous. As for exposing your family to the faith, shine your light before men. Sometimes the only exposure you can give is your behavior. My ex-wife is an atheist and my children are in her custody. When I returned to the faith and began to pray the Rosary every night, she fell away from me till the point of divorce came. There was and is nothing I can say, and indeed to say anything to my ex-wife only arouses great ire. And since I do not have custodianship of my children, I have very limited influence outside of my daily phone calls (because of my job, we live 800 plus miles apart, so frequent visits are not possible). The only sermon we can sometimes give is how we live our lives, which I admit I often fail at. I do what I can, and I pray the Rosary for her and for my cihildren every day. Thank God for the Confessional where I can confess my faults! I can’t make this situation right, but I can do whatever little penance might help.

  • Pingback: FRIDAY AFTERNOON EDITION | ThePulp.it
  • This is not a loss of respect for the position, but for the men and the way they hold it; weak and timidly

    You nailed it, thank you for putting into words how I was trying to reconcile this whole situation. Respecting the office while still being disappointed with how our leadership has dropped the ball.

    I would also like to add all the “Catholic” governers recently approving gay marriage in various states. Very, very disappointing…… very, very sad……..

  • Michael Voris is filling the gaping hole that the bishops abandoned in the public square and the pulpit.

    Period.

  • I think Voris is mostly right. The bishops and priests do have a responsibility to catechize, and they can speak with a voice of authority. But, the learned laity also have a responsibility to catechize our fellow Catholics. Sounds easy, but it can be very difficult for many Catholics are hard of heart. “What the Church teaches is my Sunday life. The rest of the week is mine.”

    I teach 8th grade faith formation (CCD). I know I teach the evils of contraception during the morality and sexuality series. But, I can’t make them accept the words. You can fill their heads but their hearts aren’t there. They may get older and publish an article for CNN saying how wonderful contraception is. I sow the seed, but it might be falling on rocks.

    So it is with the bishops and priests. They sow the seeds, but where are they falling? Reading assignment: Mark Chapter 4.

    I do agree with him that we need to hear more of the “why” does the Church take the positions it does. Most homilies in my parish fall in the park of “Jesus loves us.”, “Live right for God.”, and “Love your neighbor.” So much more to discuss.

  • By “bulldozing”, I mean that the first time the subject comes up it can feel confrontational, but as time goes on it will be less so. At some point, it starts to feel weird to *not* talk about one’s faith. Any time a person in a marriage is going through a major change in emotion or mindset, it’s natural to be hesitant to talk about it with the spouse, but it’s important to do so.

    While I clearly don’t know much about your situation, I can tell you that there are stories like Paul’s, but there are also stories of couples who’ve discovered or rediscovered their faith together. And plenty of stories where one spouse thinks the other one is weird, but learns to live with it. There are a lot worse sites a wife could find on her husband’s internet history than The American Catholic.

  • “I dont expect my wife to practice her faith and do pray for her and offer up all that I have for her to see more clearly (make sense?).’

    Ask her to say one prayer with you each night before you turn in. Husband and wife joint prayer can work wonders.

  • I did not hear a letter at our parish about contraception, but we attend a Byz Rite and have been absent from it off and on for about a month due to colds, or Scouting activities at another Church, etc and what not. What finally prompted me to call my Senators was a plea from a homeschooling group (a national legal group), not the bishops. Alas, my senators voted as I expected. They are all for contraception for the little people as a freebie.

  • there is hope: http://www.discerninghearts.com/?p=7128 Holy families inspire holy priests and holy priests inspire holy families.

  • Pingback: Sow & Reap « The Catholic Eye
  • Michael P-

    With apologies to all lady participants here at TAC, understanding your wife’s mind is a challenge at best and sometimes downright impossible. Over 20 years of marriage, I have determined that I cannot understand “what” my wife thinks, or mostly even “how” she thinks.

    That said, though, I can tell you this. Women of character and fortitude will respect a man who lives his faith. If you confidently and matter-of-factly say “Honey, I’m taking the kids to church. Would you like to go?” and accept her answer no matter what it is, she will see your constancy of intent in a relatively short time. Then, if you offer the traditional.,quick Catholic blessing before dinner, not expecting anybody else to participate, but just doing it like asking for the peas, this will also become less-than-weird very quickly.

    It may take some quid-pro-quo, as in “And when I get back we can go to the park together.” It may take some initial mutual-benefit explanation: “And you can have the house to yourself for the next 90 minutes.”

    But, simply doing it and not making anything more out of it than if you were going down to the corner store for a gallon of milk will communicate more than all the explanations and apologias in the world. As well, the heart of a wife and mother who sees her husband expressly doing good things for her children will soften considerably. Some of the women in my wife’s social circles say that seeing their husbands happily playing with, working with or taking the kids on errands actually gets them a little “romantic,” if you catch my drift.

    Don’t worry about any of the rest. Once you have become a person who lives his faith, loves his kids (who, at 3 and 5 will go anyplace with Dad just because Dad says “Hey, kids! Let’s go!”) and respects his wife’s decisions will find in her a willing listener when you do eventually explain your viewpoints with love and kindness.

    That is, the love and kindness that comes from doing all the previously-mentioned stuff first. Don’t worry – it may take weeks if not months, but it will happen. Trust in Jesus, pray for His words to enlighten, and for the wisdom and grace of The Holy Spirit to give you the courage to simply start. One step. The rest will follow in God’s time.

Peter Shrugged

Monday, February 27, AD 2012

 

Year in and year out, the Catholic Church in this country, as well as around the globe, is the largest single private provider of charitable services to the poor.  However, what if a government makes it impossible for the Church to carry out her mission? The Church in America with the HHS Mandate is facing just such a dilemma, and Francis Cardinal George of the Chicago Archdiocese tells us what to expect:

The Lenten rules about fasting from food and abstaining from meat have been considerably reduced in the last forty years, but reminders of them remain in the fast days on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday and in the abstinence from meat on all the Fridays of Lent. Beyond these common sacrifices that unite us spiritually to the passion of Christ, Catholics were and are encouraged to “give up” something voluntarily for the sake of others. Often this is money that could have been used for personal purposes and instead is given to help others, especially the poor.   This year, the Catholic Church in the United States is being told she must “give up” her health care institutions, her universities and many of her social service organizations. This is not a voluntary sacrifice. It is the consequence of the already much discussed Department of Health and Human Services regulations now filed and promulgated for implementation beginning Aug. 1 of this year.

 Why does a governmental administrative decision now mean the end of institutions that have been built up over several generations from small donations, often from immigrants, and through the services of religious women and men and others who wanted to be part of the church’s mission in healing and education? Catholic hospitals, universities and social services have an institutional conscience, a conscience shaped by Catholic moral and social teaching. The HHS regulations now before our society will make it impossible for Catholic institutions to follow their conscience.

 So far in American history, our government has respected the freedom of individual conscience and of institutional integrity for all the many religious groups that shape our society. The government has not compelled them to perform or pay for what their faith tells them is immoral. That’s what we’ve meant by freedom of religion. That’s what we had believed was protected by the U.S. Constitution. Maybe we were foolish to believe so.

 What will happen if the HHS regulations are not rescinded? A Catholic institution, so far as I can see right now, will have one of four choices: 1) secularize itself, breaking its connection to the church, her moral and social teachings and the oversight of its ministry by the local bishop. This is a form of theft. It means the church will not be permitted to have an institutional voice in public life. 2) Pay exorbitant annual fines to avoid paying for insurance policies that cover abortifacient drugs, artificial contraception and sterilization. This is not economically sustainable. 3) Sell the institution to a non-Catholic group or to a local government. 4) Close down.

Continue reading...

24 Responses to Peter Shrugged

  • I am so depressed in having read this. But at the recent Ignited by Truth conference in Raleigh, NC over this weekend, speaker Michael Barber of the Sacred Page reminded us that Jesus Himself lost the only election He was ever in when in the courtyard before Pontius Pilate the “peepul” cried for Barabbas to be freed. It’s interesting what Barabbas means, as Mr. Barber explained it: the son of the father. Well, we have gotten the son of the father who is the devil. The question is: will we vote for him again, crying aloud regarding Yeshua, “Crucifige Eum, Crucifige Eum.”

  • The first step should be the admission by the USCCB that they were deceived into a pact with Satan when they thought that Obamacare would ensure that “basic health care should be accessible to all in a just society.” They should recant their support for this and assert their opposition to all State-enforced systems of this sort.

    Any political study at all outside of post-modern Progressive orthodoxy will show how programs run by The State eventually destroy all competition – even honestly charitable proragms whose only mission is relief to the poor – as it demands more and more power unto itself.

    It’s a real basic decision the Bishops have to face, but their solution is among the easiest to discern:

    Mk 12:17 – “Then Jesus said to them, ‘Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s.’ And they were amazed at him.”

  • Has the Church, via the Bishops, fully and consciously participated in the Culture of Death. I read the following this morning and gasped. Please tell me it isn’t true.

    http://www.energypublisher.com/a/HDQNNMVTUF38/68919-Catholics-have-met-the-enemy-and-he-is-not-Obama

  • @WKAiken: The first step should be the admission by the USCCB that they were deceived into a pact with Satan when they thought that Obamacare would ensure that “basic health care should be accessible to all in a just society.”

    How about having to publicly admit which of them voted for this monster? I’m very sure my bishop did and he still is taking the high road with not using very strong language to teach his flock about this issue. He uses words like, “more study needs to be done” and “full implications are not clear”. How much worse does it have to get for our Bishops to stand up to the President and say “We will go to jail in order to prevent you from taking away our rights.” Cardinal George did not mention that step.

  • The only option is to disobey the order from the HHS Secretary. It is unconstitutional on its face. Make the Obumbler Misadministration enforce it. Don’t pay the “fines”.

  • Is this the proper Catholic decision? When faced with a mandate to provide a drug to employees that may (but not necessary be used to commit a sin) the Church would rather not provide charity to the poor? I am proud of the Catholic Church’s role in providing charity and the mere suggestion that we would consider placing a higher priority on the issues surrounding contraception is horrible.

  • “I am proud of the Catholic Church’s role in providing charity and the mere suggestion that we would consider placing a higher priority on the issues surrounding contraception is horrible.”

    Contraception is sin. Romans 6:23 – “The wages of sin are death.” Therefore, the wages of contraception are death. A contraceptive culture deserves neither social justice nor the common good.

    Repentance and conversion, personal holiness and righteousness come before health and prosperity, never afterwards. Matthew 6:33 – “Seek ye FIRST the Kingdom of God….” 1st Chronicles 7:14 – “If my people who are called by my name humble themselves, and pray and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin and heal their land.”

    John 6:24-27 tells about what happened when the 5000 got free handouts.

    24 So when the people saw that Jesus was not there, nor his disciples, they themselves got into the boats and went to Capernaum, seeking Jesus. 25 When they found him on the other side of the sea, they said to him, “Rabbi, when did you come here?” 26 Jesus answered them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, you seek me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate your fill of the loaves. 27* Do not labor for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to eternal life, which the Son of man will give to you; for on him has God the Father set his seal.”

    —–

    Note that they didn’t get a 2nd free handout.

    The purpose of the Church is to save souls from hell. Your job and my job as part of our repentance is to feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, comfort the sick, etc. But the Church’s job is saving souls. We are not here to create a man-made kingdom of social justice and the common good. To think that is hubris of the worst sort. We are called to do our part to save souls from the fires of hell.

    Personally, I think that maybe God is arranging things to get the Church out of the health care business and back into the business of saving souls.

  • When I saw the title I thought, “They finally ‘got it’, robbing Peter to pay Paul.”

  • The HHS mandate renders the Church incapable of accomplishing its Mission: the salvation of souls. jesus came to save souls from sin, not to end temporal suffering.

    Justice and peace fanatics insist on doing Charitable Works with other people’s money, through the coersion of government. NB: If you do it with someone else’s money, it is not Charity. Refer to the Gospel story of the “Widow’s Mite.”

  • I’m with Penguins Fan on this – isn’t that the 5th option? Civil disobedience? Don’t offer the coverage, don’t pay the fines, and take it to the mat. Imagine the news coverage – hauling religious off to prison, students blocking entrances to universities, faculties holed up on limited rations. It would make Janet Reno look like a seasoned diplomat.

  • I agree, T. Shaw with one exception: Jesus told Peter that the gates of hell will not prevail. So HHS mandate or no HHS mandate, God’s will is going to be done, and He will establish His Kingdom, not some self-appointed, self-described “do-gooder” who thinks that with just a bit more or your tax money and mine, we can provide social justice to all. Let’s have that story of the widow’s mite (Mark 12:41-44 and Luke 21:1-4).

    —–

    1* He looked up and saw the rich putting their gifts into the treasury; 2 and he saw a poor widow put in two copper coins. 3 And he said, “Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put in more than all of them; 4 for they all contributed out of their abundance, but she out of her poverty put in all the living that she had.”

    —–

    It’s interesting that in the Gospels of both Mark and Luke , right after this parable, Jesus began talking about the destruction of the Temple. I do NOT think that is coincidental. Maybe the man-made temple of social justice is about to come down.

  • Jaha,

    Reno! Anyone remember Waco, TX 1993?

    I can see the MSM painting the Church radical as they did the Branch Davidians and I can imagine Obama’s Reno clone killing . . .

    And I can envision Kmiec and all the rest nodding OKAY.

  • Elm – excellent point. I am pretty sure my parish priest did as well, in that he dances all around the issue but doesn’t come out against it directly. I would wager that we could comprise a list of “first steps” that would all make very good sense. The discernment would be to find the one (or more) that starts the effort in the right direction while keeping to Church teachings about repentance, forgiveness and propitiation.

    I have family members – obviously intelligent, composed, stable and successful – who got hooked. My own wife got hooked. We still don’t talk about that. It’s no mystery to anybody with an open pair of eyes that there is only one power behind this serpent’s tongue, and we know who that is.

    The aim is to repeal this montsrosity and remove its supporters from public life, not to abase or demean thse who may have been duped.

  • If it comes to the linking of arms to peaceably resist the arrest of those doctors, administrators and other medical people in the demosntartion that We Have Chosen Who Our Authority Is, then color me there. Martin Niemöller’s plaint will not be repeated. If they come for us first, then they will come for no more after, for they will be defeated.

    Like the song says, “We were meant to be Courageous.” The rest of the verse fits, too.

  • Pingback: TUESDAY EXTRA: GLOBAL CULTURE WARS | ThePulp.it
  • Here is the evil genius of obamacare. The IRS is the punitive enforcing agency for obamacare. It should be disgusting to a free people that the health care reform act grants breathtaking powers to the IRS, not as a taxing agency, but as an enforcer of this and many other mandates now emanating from this hideous legislation. Civil disobedience in what form? If the penalties are not paid, assets are seized….plain and simple—and no arrests are even necessary save but some protesters in the streets. The goal here is for a centralized government takeover of all civil and religious institutions through tax and regulatory fiat (aka soft tyranny), and this is just the beginning.

    Authentic charity is the instrument of our salvation. Church institutions provide a modus operandi for the pastoral work of saving souls. I once was privileged to hear a wise missionary say that he invites us to work with the poor, not so much for the sake of the poor, but to save our souls, the givers, through charity—that is our giving of time, treasure and talent. Therein is the true evil of statist mandates—it takes away the instruments of authentic and salvific charity and replaces it with the tyranny, disorder and a false god of of ‘public good’.

  • There are spiritual and religious reasons for how Catholics vote. 54% of Catholics who voted in the last Presidential election, voted for the pro-abortion, pro-infanticide Democrat candidate. Not only is the economy and foreign affairs in the tank, our country, spiritually, is in the tank as well. I was not one of the 54%. I can’t understand how any Catholic could have voted for Obama…except other than he was a Democrat. The problem with our country and the threat to our Constitution is coming from the Democrat Party…abortion, gay marriage, removal of prayer and seasonal displays in public structures and institutions, etc. The key to turning our country around is in the hands of the same people who put people into office who did this to our country. The question is: Is being a Democrat more important than to being a Catholic? Obama and his administration have shown us what being a Democrat means. Is that really who Catholics are? The bishops should find out and find out quickly. They should authorize a Voter Registration drive in every parish from now to the end of Registrations for this November election to give Catholics an opportunity to state who they are in a public way, and a legal way – by who they will give their name identification to. The result of that Voter Registration drive will pre warn the Bishops what the outcome of the election will be so they can better plan what actions they will take. Implementing the HHS regulations in August will, I’m sure, be suspended by court action until after the U.S. Supreme Court rules on Obamacare. How Catholics choose to register to vote would also be influential in that decision. I wouldn’t look for a lot of new Republican registrations because such Catholics deciding to remain Democrats all these years couldn’t emotionally make that choice. I know; I’ve been there and know how difficult that is. But I would hope that there would be a LARGE number of those Catholics who would remove their names from the Democrat Party Rolls and register as Independent, as I did years ago. If that happened, that would indicate the outcome of this Presidential Election because Catholics are the determining voting block on who becomes the President. It would tell judges what the public sentiment is of an important segment of the population which is directly impacted by Obamacare and the HHS regulations. And it would be a gut check for so many Catholics, including the clergy, as to how honest they are to what they profess to belief and pray for in the Profession of Faith and the Lord’s Prayer in Sunday Masses. Do they put God’s will before man’s?

  • “So, if you want respect for your religion, start beheading people. That’s the real message.” Instapundit

  • Is there a mandate in the Scripture that says everyone is entitled to health care or that everyone must be cured? I recall visit the sick, help the unfortunate and the poor. We are to treat them as Jesus would. He did not heal all that came to him. The real healing is the forgiveness of sin and the promise of eternal life.

  • @Stillbelieve:The question is: Is being a Democrat more important than to being a Catholic

    What is the first adjective that we put in front of our names? This can be very telling about our moral standing.

  • often from immigrants

    Savvy point from his Eminence. Obama is anti-immigrant! Hit him with his base!

    On another point, it is all well and good to be up in arms about violating the conscience of religious institutions, but last I checked the First Amendment applied to the rights of individuals at least as much, if not more so. Why should individuals be required to violate their consciences with this Obamanation?

  • Liberty of religion is more than freedom of worship. Freedom of worship was guaranteed in the Constitution of the former Soviet Union. You could go to church, if you could find one. … We fought a long cold war to defeat that vision of society.

    Oooh – the bishop obliquely named Obama a commie.

    Onward Christian soldiers!

  • Off topic: Today’s Sadie Hawkins Day: look out bachelors!

    What do you call a leader who flaunts the law? “Hitler” or “commie” will do!

    The regime orders (you must buy health insurance with these benefits/terms, and the Church must provide with these features) people around. Big brother knows better. He owns you.

    It’s worse. Anyone know the why Argentina (educated people, rich natural resources) is an economic basket case while Chile prospers?

    America is becoming Argentina: a corrupt, banana republic where the rules for commerce and property change at the whim of the regime, e.g., HHS mandate and the recent foreclosure/”robo-signing”) confiscation.

  • “America is becoming Argentina: a corrupt, banana republic where the rules for commerce and property change at the whim of the regime, e.g., HHS mandate and the recent foreclosure/’robo-signing’) confiscation.”

    It’s called Democracy, T. Shaw – two wolves and one sheep voting on what’s for dinner:

    Crucifige Eum, Crucifige Eum – that’s what liberty, equality and fraternity have always been about, from the time of Pontius Pilate through Robespierre’s revolution to Obama’s hope and change.

Jesuitical 12: America and the Bishops

Monday, February 27, AD 2012

 

Part 12 of my ongoing survey of the follies of many modern day Jesuits.  For a nano second the Jesuit rag America was on the side of every Catholic bishop in this country in opposition to the HHS Mandate.  However, where your heart is so is your treasure, and America is back on the side of Team Obama.  I was going to take the Jesuits of America to task, but Christopher Johnson, a non-Catholic who has taken up the cudgels so frequently in defense of the Faith that I have named him Defender of the Faith, has eloquently beaten me to the punch:

You Roman Catholic bishops have had your fun and put on your little temper tantrum, the editors of The REAL Magisterium Wannabe Episcopalian Weekly America write.  But the adults are here now so why don’t you all just look liturgically impressive, babble a little Latin and keep your stupid opinions to yourselves.  We’ll take it from here:

For a brief moment, Catholics on all sides were united in defense of the freedom of the Catholic Church to define for itself what it means to be Catholic in the United States. They came together to defend the church’s institutions from morally objectionable, potentially crippling burdens imposed by the Obama administration under the Affordable Care Act. Catholic journalists, like E. J. Dionne and Mark Shields, and politicians, like Tim Kaine and Robert P. Casey Jr., joined the U.S. bishops in demanding that the administration grant a broad exemption for religiously affiliated institutions from paying health care premiums for contraceptive services. Then, on Feb. 10, President Obama announced a compromise solution by which religious institutions would be exempt from paying the objectionable premiums but women would not be denied contraceptive coverage. A confrontation that should never have happened was over. But not for long.

Every single time we let the hierarchy think it’s in charge, the idiots completely screw things up.  Every.  Single.  Time.

After a nod to the White House’s retreat as “a first step in the right direction,” the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops rejected the president’s “accommodation” as insufficient. Their statement presented a bill of indictments on the fine points of public policy: It opposed any mandate for contraceptive coverage, expanded the list of claimants for exemption to include self-insured employers and for-profit business owners and contested the administration’s assertion that under the new exemption religious employers would not pay for contraception. Some of these points, particularly the needs of self-insured institutions like universities, have merit and should find some remedy. Others, with wonkish precision, seem to press the religious liberty campaign too far.

“Some of these points…have merit and should find some remedy?”  From where?  From the same people who wrote the initial rule and the transparently fraudulent “compromise?”  I can’t for the life of me understand why the bishops might be reluctant to take that offer.  Foxes, hen houses and all that.

And it’s difficult for me to see how the objections of the bishops constitute “press[ing] the religious liberty campaign too far” since forcing Church ministries to facilitate the acquisition of free contraceptives by any employee who wants them is the only option left on the table.  The idea of not being forced to provide free birth control at all seems no longer to be possible.

The bishops have been most effective in influencing public policy when they have acted as pastors, trying to build consensus in church and society, as they did in their pastorals on nuclear war and the economy. The American public is uncomfortable with an overt exercise of political muscle by the hierarchy. Catholics, too, have proved more responsive to pastoral approaches. They expect church leaders to appeal to Gospel values, conscience and right reason. They hope bishops will accept honorable accommodations and, even when provoked, not stir up hostility. In the continuing dialogue with government, a conciliatory style that keeps Catholics united and cools the national distemper would benefit the whole church.

I think you all know what’s going on there.  It’s the age-old story.  As long as the bishops are commenting on the issues that are important to the America editorial staff the right issues, we’re behind them 100%.  But once they move on to those…other issues(you know the ones America means), they are exercising “political muscle” and contributing to the “national distemper.”

On issues like nuclear war and the economy, the bishops should certainly take no prisoners and accept no compromises.  But on those relatively trivial issues that the laity constantly insists on whining about, Roman Catholic bishops need to “accept honorable accomodations,” they need to “not stir up hostility,” and, most importantly, they need to be “conciliatory.”

After all, we have the example constantly before us of the Author and Finisher of our faith who was always willing to accept honorable accomodations, who never stirred up hostility and Whose first name was Conciliatory.  Actually, we don’t have that at all.  What the heck was I thinking?

The campaign also risks ignoring two fundamental principles of Catholic political theology. Official Catholic rights theory proposes that people should be willing to adjust their rights claims to one another. It also assigns to government the responsibility to coordinate contending rights and interests for the sake of the common good. The campaign fails to acknowledge that in the present instance, claims of religious liberty may collide with the right to health care, or that the religious rights of other denominations are in tension with those of Catholics. But as Pope Benedict XVI wrote in “Deus Caritas Est,” the church does not seek to “impose on those who do not share the faith ways of thinking and modes of conduct proper to the faith.” Furthermore, the campaign fails to admit that the administration’s Feb. 10 solution, though it can be improved, fundamentally did what Catholic social teaching expects government to do—coordinate contending rights for the good of all.

Um…nuh-uh.  I have no idea what “Catholic rights theory” really consists of but I seriously doubt that “adjust[ing] their rights claims to one another” obligates Catholics to commit sins themselves or acquiesce in their commission.

As for the “contending rights” that America believes were coordinated by the Administration’s “compromise,” we have the long-established Constitutional right of Christian churches to order their own affairs versus the newly-created “right” to free birth control pills, a “right” which remains in place by means of an accounting trick.

Once again, there is no possibility of the Catholic Church not being forced to provide free birth control at all; the default position is the liberal one.  And that is not coordination of contending rights at all; it is soft tyranny.

By stretching the religious liberty strategy to cover the fine points of health care coverage, the campaign devalues the coinage of religious liberty. The fight the bishop’s conference won against the initial mandate was indeed a fight for religious liberty and for that reason won widespread support. The latest phase of the campaign, however, seems intended to bar health care funding for contraception. Catholics legitimately oppose such a policy on moral grounds. But that opposition entails a difference over policy, not an infringement of religious liberty. It does a disservice to the victims of religious persecution everywhere to inflate policy differences into a struggle over religious freedom. Such exaggerated protests likewise show disrespect for the freedom Catholics have enjoyed in the United States, which is a model for the world—and for the church.

What are you mackeral snappers complaining about?  It’s not like anyone’s burning down your churches or anything.  And you don’t have to pay for anyone’s abortion so chill out.

But here’s the problem.  A government that thinks it has the right to determine what are or are not Christian ministries is a government that can(and probably one day will) not only order Christian hospitals to provide free birth control but also order Christian hospitals and churches to provide free abortions for any staff member who wants one.

Were that to happen, what would America say?  That the bishops shouldn’t be so “wonkish” because this is yet anothern policy difference that doesn’t rise to the level of religious persecution?  That the bishops shouldn’t “provoke hostility” and need to take the lead toward cooling the “national distemper” over the fact that the Church is now being forced to participate in one of the greatest evils it is possible to conceive simply because somebody claims a right to access to it?

Continue reading...

8 Responses to Jesuitical 12: America and the Bishops

  • “Once again, there is no possibility of the Catholic Church not being forced to provide free birth control at all; the default position is the liberal one.  And that is not coordination of contending rights at all; it is soft tyranny.”

    All soft tyrannies become hard tyrannies. The cry of “Liberty, Equality and Fraternity” in France in the 1790s resulted in the murder of tens of thousands of Catholic clerics and laity alike. History will repeat itself.

  • I graduated from a Jesuit high school back in the mid-’70s. Once, when I dared contest the Godless, Marxist redistributionism of “Liberation Theology” in light of “Thou Shalt Not Steal,” I did not get a debate or even a “correction.” Instead, I was told to “shut up,” and received a disciplinary blot on my record. Such is the totalitarian bent of the Jesuits.

    Ironically, it was not until about 10 years ago that my wife and I went through RCIA and officially joined The Church. Every time I have brought up the Jesuit order during a “Stump the Priest” night at our parish, or even while we were still in formation, the replies were strained and vague. Obviously, none of the ordained is going to outrightly demean another, but it is also obvious that what restraint is shown is not out of respect for that order.

    In another vein, I have never understood how someone can claim a “right” to health care. Since when has there been that? Please tell me, o learned pastors, when it is the right of one to demand the fruits of the labors of another in any pursuit? At what point do doctors, nurses, pharmacists, therapists and all the other people whose work is in the provision of medical care become the slaves of those whose “right” it is to its access unencumbered? When will we start pressing into service unwillingly – and who will we press – when the inevitable shortages arise? And doesn’t such a right indicate that rights to the labors of farmers, well-diggers, builders and clothiers are also found somewhere? Aren’t food, water, shelter and clothing essentially much more necessary to survival than is a doctor’s visit?

    Where was this right during the 18th Century when the ideas of inalienable rights were being developed at light-speed? Was the right to leeches, cupping, bleeding and purging unquestionably argued? And if the right exists, is it not based on the idea that all health care is therefore true, beautiful and good? To what end is an inalienable right if it is for something malicious or incorrect? Speech may be hurtful or wrong, but guarantees to its freedom can never be deemed so.

    No – I will say it here. The so-called “Catholic” left is nothing more than Fascist. It cannot understand the essence of freedom or personal responsibility even while it calls for increased pastoral ministering to “the flock.”

    The last I heard, “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind”, “Love your neighbor as yourself,” and “Do unto others as you would have done unto you” seem to provide a pretty comprehensive plan, and I don’t see anywhere in there a call for Government enforcement, extortion or feticide.

  • If ever I saw an edition of “America”, I would burn it.

    I refer to it as the “society of Judas.”

    But, I suffer pangs of guilt for being unfair to Judas.

    Judas’ betrayal did not prevent anybody’s Redemption. The SJ-ers are leading many into spiritual danger.

  • Campaign poster or next issue cover?

  • Pingback: TUESDAY MORNING EDITION | ThePulp.it
  • PM: Neither: there are two crosses which will be purged for the 0 campaign and issue cover.

  • To tell if any Order or Group or Individual is a faithful Catholic, all you have to do is check to see if they adhere to the “CATECHISM of the CATHOLIC CHURCH, Second Edition”.

    “ The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I approved … and the publication of which I today order by virtue of my Apostolic Authority, is a statement of the Church’s faith and of catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, the Apostolic Tradition and the Church’s Magisterium. I declare it to be a sure norm for teaching the faith and thus a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion. “ – Pope John Paul II. (pg 5)

    “….the Catechism has raised throughout the world, even among non-Christians, and confirms its purpose of being presented as a full, complete exposition of Catholic doctrine, enabling everyone to know what the Church professes, celebrates, lives, and prays in her daily life.” – Pope John Paul II (pg xiv)

    Any Catholic who does not do his or her best to adhere to the CCC in its entirety is a heretic or schismatic. (See # 2089).
    When are we going to start calling cafeteria Catholics by their true names – heretic or schismatic?

  • Often, when I see an heretical book in my church’s library, I’ll simply take and throw it away. No permission asked for. If I see “America” for the taking, I’ll take all copies and “down the memory hole.”

    How dare they give us s _ _ _ when Jesus mandates that we proclaim the Gospel, His precious Body and Blood.

Goerge Weigel: The Betrayal of Religious Freedom by Liberal Catholics

Monday, February 20, AD 2012

 

George Weigel has a post on National Review Online regarding the betrayal by some liberal Catholics of religious freedom in regard to the HHS Mandate:

Thus “liberal Catholics” who refuse to grasp the threats to religious freedom posed by the Obama administration on so many fronts — the HHS mandate, the EEOC’s recently rejected attempt to strip the “ministerial exemption” from employment law, the State Department’s dumbing-down of religious freedom to a mere “freedom of worship” — are betraying the best of their own heritage. And some are doing it in a particularly nasty way, trying to recruit the memory of John Courtney Murray as an ally in their attempts to cover for the Obama administration’s turning its de facto secularist bias into de jure policy, regulations, and mandates. More than 50 years ago, Murray warned of the dangers deracinated secularism posed to the American democratic experiment: a warning that seems quite prescient in the light of the Leviathan-like politics of this administration, aided and abetted by baptized secularists who insist that they are “liberal Catholics.” I daresay Murray, who did not suffer fools gladly, would not be amused by those who now try to use his work to shore up their own hollow arguments on behalf of the establishment of secularism.

The HHS-mandate battle is bringing to the surface of our public life many problems that were long hidden: the real and present danger to civil society of certain forms of Enlightenment thinking; the determination of the promoters of the sexual revolution to use state coercion to impose their agenda on society; the failure of the Catholic Church to educate the faithful in its own social doctrine; the reluctance of the U.S. bishops’ conference to forcefully apply that social doctrine — especially its principle of subsidiarity — during the Obamacare debate. To that list can now be added one more sad reality, long suspected but now unmistakably clear: the utter incoherence of 21st-century liberal Catholicism, revealed by its failure to defend its own intellectual patrimony: the truth of religious freedom as the first of human rights. That liberal Catholics have done so in order to play court chaplain to overweening and harshly secularist state power compounds that tragedy, with deep historical irony.

Continue reading...

5 Responses to Goerge Weigel: The Betrayal of Religious Freedom by Liberal Catholics

  • The response of liberal (small ‘c’) catholics, “We have no King but Caesar” (Jn 19:16).

  • Excellent Marc,

    I think they would declare, “We have no religion but socialism.”

    Judas hanged himself.

    Hanging is too good for them.

  • If you have the stomach, check out the commenters at HuffPo and Daily Kos on any subject pertaining to Catholicism (or Christianity as a whole, for that matter). The Catholic Left managed the feat of overlooking and ignoring the demented, raging hatred the secular Left has for all Western religions for many years, although doing so is akin to eating a popsicle while sitting next to a wasp’s nest and imaging that you will be left alone because you’re not poking the nest with a stick. Just being there is going to get you stung. I would commend them for being charitable (if naive), but I noticed quite a while ago that that leftist Catholics never display the same charity to conservative Catholics that they to toward Obama, Pelosi, Hugo Chavez and any other tyrant who uses the term “social justice.” Those 2 magic words absolve all sins, it seems.

  • Sadly, I recently talked to someone I knew in high school– their mom was the “Sunday school” teacher. (folks who’ve heard me complain about my education in the faith know she was…well intentioned, and that’s the biggest praise I can offer)

    Basically: they love the idea of forcing someone else to buy their free-sex supplies, and can’t see how there’s any issue with it. Anything that gets trampled in the rush wasn’t worth saving, anyways.

    There’s a reason I don’t socialize with my generation all that much, and haven’t since I was forced to share a room with them for hours a day.

  • The polestar of liberal American Catholicism is opposition to Humanae Vitae. Full stop.

    They’d sacrifice social justice on that altar in a heartbeat.

Demography, Contraception and Fiscal Melt Down

Sunday, February 19, AD 2012

 

 It should be the highest ambition of every American to extend his views beyond himself, and to bear in mind that his conduct will not only affect himself, his country, and his immediate posterity; but that its influence may be co-extensive with the world, and stamp political happiness or misery on ages yet unborn.

George Washington

 

Mark Steyn at National Review Online, notes that the fiscal lunacy of the Obama administration and the HHS Mandate are linked:

 

As for us doom-mongers, at the House Budget Committee on Thursday, Chairman Paul Ryan produced another chart, this time from the Congressional Budget Office, with an even steeper straight line showing debt rising to 900 percent of GDP and rocketing off the graph circa 2075. America’s treasury secretary, Timmy Geithner the TurboTax Kid, thought the chart would have been even more hilarious if they’d run the numbers into the next millennium: “You could have taken it out to 3000 or to 4000” he chortled, to supportive titters from his aides. Has total societal collapse ever been such a non-stop laugh riot?

Yeah, right.” replied Ryan. “We cut it off at the end of the century because the economy, according to the CBO, shuts down in 2027 on this path.”

The U.S. economy shuts down in 2027? Had you heard about that? It’s like the ultimate Presidents’ Day sale: Everything must go — literally! At such a moment, it may seem odd to find the political class embroiled in a bitter argument about the Obama administration’s determination to force Catholic institutions (and, indeed, my company and your company, if you’re foolish enough still to be in business in the United States) to provide free prophylactics to their employees. The received wisdom among media cynics is that Obama has engaged in an ingenious bit of misdirection by seizing on a pop-culture caricature of Republicans and inviting them to live up to it: Those uptight squares with the hang-ups about fornication have decided to force you to lead the same cheerless sex lives as them. I notice that in their coverage NPR and the evening news shows generally refer to the controversy as being about “contraception,” discreetly avoiding mention of sterilization and pharmacological abortion, as if the GOP have finally jumped the shark in order to prevent you jumping anything at all.

It may well be that the Democrats succeed in establishing this narrative. But anyone who falls for it is a sap. In fact, these two issues — the Obama condoms-for-clunkers giveaway and a debt-to-GDP ratio of 900 percent by 2075 — are not unconnected. In Greece, 100 grandparents have 42 grandchildren — i.e., an upside-down family tree. As I wrote in this space a few weeks ago, “If 100 geezers run up a bazillion dollars’ worth of debt, is it likely that 42 youngsters will ever be able to pay it off?” Most analysts know the answer to that question: Greece is demographically insolvent. So it’s looking to Germany to continue bankrolling its First World lifestyle.

But the Germans are also demographically exhausted: They have the highest proportion of childless women in Europe. One in three fräulein have checked out of the motherhood business entirely. A nation that did without having kids of its own is in no mood to maintain Greece as the ingrate slacker who never moves out of the house. As the European debt crisis staggers on, these two countries loathe each other ever more nakedly: The Greek president brings up his war record against the German bullies, and Athenian commentators warn of the new Fourth Reich. The Germans, for their part, would rather cut the Greeks loose. In a post-prosperity West, social solidarity — i.e., socioeconomic fictions such as “Europe” — are the first to disappear.

The United States faces a mildly less daunting arithmetic. Nevertheless, the Baby Boomers did not have enough children to maintain mid-20th-century social programs. As a result, the children they did have will end their lives in a poorer, uglier, sicker, more divided, and more violent society. How to avert this fate? In 2009 Nancy Pelosi called for free contraceptives as a form of economic stimulus. Ten thousand Americans retire every day, and leave insufficient progeny to pick up the slack. In effect, Nancy has rolled a giant condom over the entire American economy.

Continue reading...

23 Responses to Demography, Contraception and Fiscal Melt Down

  • Obama — our Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning

  • You do know that our total debt as a percent of GDP fell from the end of WW2 until 1980 when our tax policy (not our spending) took a dramatic change. The percentage has since risen except for the 90’s when our tax policy briefly took a minor reversal from their current direction. The direction of the deficit and then the debt changed abruptly again as the tax policy changed in 2001. I know there are going to be many comments claiming it was all about spending, but that is not what the data shows. The relationships between tax policy and the point when the graphs of the current balance and the total debt change direction are clearly related to tax policy. The recent massive debt does have a spending component in that the severe recession we entered in 2008 did cause an increase in spending, but the larger effect was a decrease in tax collections due to the recession.

    I do disagree with the HSS ruling, but if we are going to show charts of rising debt, then we should lay the blame where if belongs. It belongs on our unwillingness to pay for the things we want. We were promised (both nationally and at the state level) that if we cut taxes we would see prosperity and increased . The lowest federal tax rate since WW2 at the federal level has brought massive deficits and the worst 10 years of employment since WW2. A 15 year recorded of increasing tax cuts in Michigan (coupled with the fall of the American auto industry) have devastated our state. At the very least we should stop seeing the claims that tax cuts will improve our economy and increase government revenues as a result since the evidence is to the contrary.

  • Justice and peace!

    Obama’s policies are destroying the evil, unjust private sector.

    It’s working.

    Pharaoh’s economic reports hide the huge decline in number of Americans with jobs.

    Mark Steyn: Obama, Romney and Santorum are talking about sex while the nation goes broke. Each day, 10,000 Americans retire but “leave insufficient progeny to pick up the slack. In effect, Obama has rolled a giant condom over the entire American economy.”

    America can’t employ more people.

    In 30 years, there will not be enough taxpayers to pay for the entitlement masses, $100,000,000,000,000.00 present value of cash flow due. Taxes won’t cover interest on the national debt.

    Then, grandpa will be left out in the cold.

    Justice and peace!

  • “The lowest federal tax rate since WW2 at the federal level has brought massive deficits and the worst 10 years of employment since WW2.”

    Complete hogwash Paul. No possible jacking up of the tax rates can possibly pay for our completely out of control entitlement spending, which is apparently insatiable. Your argument would have a tinge of merit if the European welfare states, paying higher taxe rates than we do, were not also on the same quick path to national bankruptcy.

  • And for those who might still labor under the illusion that congress and this admin-
    istration are in any way serious about this situation, please reflect on the fact that it
    has been almost three years since the federal government has had a budget.

  • No possible jacking up of the tax rates can possibly pay for our completely out of control entitlement spending, which is apparently insatiable.

    Federal spending is currently about 24% of domestic product. There is a mess of junk in the federal budget that ought to be excised, but that is a policy choice. We could certainly levy the taxes necessary to pay for it.

  • ‘The Obama administration is the perfect avatar for the all consumed in self mentality produced by a contraceptive culture that can see no further than the brief span of time this globe is occupied by those who currently inhabit it.’ Yup.

    George Washington’s quote ends with their choice – to stamp misery on ages yet unborn.

    Laughing at religion and conscience like silly jokers, talking about sex enough to train the needy national psyche away from their sleight of hand, and accommodating no one but their handlers with money.

    ‘ and leave insufficient progeny to pick up the slack. In effect, Nancy has rolled a giant condom over the entire American economy.’ As she said on the video, something like uh – more bang for the buck – er – that’s what the economists say.

  • The United States faces a mildly less daunting arithmetic. Nevertheless, the Baby Boomers did not have enough children to maintain mid-20th-century social programs.

    For the record, postwar birth cohorts have varied between 2.9 million and 4.3 million, with no secular trend in size. Our total fertility rate has been at replacement level or above for that entire time bar a brief run of years in the late 1970s. Escalating burdens of caring for the elderly have been a function of improved life expectancy, a problem which can be finessed by having the retirement age on an appropriate escalator.

  • To pay for entitlements Art would require doubling tax rates. Not only is that politically inconceivable, the impact on our economy can be imagined.

    http://www.heritage.org/budgetchartbook/entitlements-double-tax-rates

  • Since the late Fifties Art, the rate of fertility has declined from 3.8 children per woman to 2.06 today. 2.10 is considered to be the replacement rate, and since 2000 we have been at that for only one year: 2008.

  • Given the Pelosi pic, I think a better title for the post should have been– “Demography, Comtaception, and Facial Meltdown.”. After all, the Pelosi facelifts are taxpayer supported.

  • Don, please tell me what I said that is hogwash. The federal tax revenues are the lowest as a percentage of GDP since WW2. The 10 years of employment since 2001 (when the income tax rates were cut followed by tax cuts on capital gains and dividends) are the worst since WW2. I could give you numerous links including the federal government’s budget page. Also, do you deny that our budget was in surplus before the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003?

    As for entitlements, the problem continues to be Medicare, yet every proposal to fix the problem by doing what has been successful in every other country is rejected in this one.
    As compared to the European welfare states please the chart below. The data is sorted by the larges Debt as a percentage of GDP by country. Of the welfare states in Europe that have economies comparable to the US, you could only rank Italy as having a higher debt burden than the US. And only the UK has come anywhere close to the US in the increase of debt from 2000 to 2010 (I included the 2009 numbers to demonstrate that this did not all occur under President Obama). The problem in Europe is that they decide to include countries like Greece in the Euro zone and Germany absorbed East Germany. These actions are close to the US agreeing to a common currency with Mexico, this might help Mexico but would be a significant burden.

    National debt as a percentage of GDP
    2009 2009-2000 2010 2010-2000
    Japan 197 66 220 89
    Italy 109 2 119 12
    United States 67 22 94.36 49.36
    Germany 73 14 83.96 24.96
    Canada 65 -6 83.95 12.95
    France 80 21 82.33 23.33
    United Kingdom 59 17 75.5 33.5
    India* 66 -4 71.84 1.84
    Brazil* 66 -2 66.84 -1.16
    Spain 56 -7 60.12 -2.88
    China* 32 9 3 3.83 10.83
    South Korea 31 18 33.44 20.44
    Russia* 5 -14 11.75 -7.25

    Sorry to be so long winded in a com box, but I felt the need to respond.

  • Sorry, I spent 20 minutes trying to format the chart and then the columns still did not line up.

  • The pig’s not getting any cleaner Paul. A more pertinent list is that of the total national debt as a percentage of the country’s annual gross domestic product. Go to the link below to view the list.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_external_debt

    The numbers for most of the European nations are especially shocking when consideration is given that they spend next to nothing on defense as compared to the US.

    The idea that the solution to this problem is to raise taxes is simply wrong. The only solution is to radically slash government spending and such a solution will come, probably after the financial crash the West is inevitably headed for.

  • Integrity I wish Obama had some.

  • Don, Still you said my original post was hogwash and make the claim that the answer is not raising taxes. Although I agree the answer is not just raising taxes. Anyone who would claim that the federal government (or any other institution) could not improve it’s efficiency would be silly. However, you have yet to answer what part of The current take of the federal government being the lowest since WW2 or the decade of job performance since the taxes were dropped were “hogwash.” Plus you avoid commenting of the fact that we had a surplus before taxes were cut in the early 2000’s.

  • We did not have a surplus under Clinton Paul. We had the dot.com bubble, a Republican Congress and blue smoke and mirrors with social security funds.

    http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16

    If the Bush tax cuts were completely repealed, we could expect to have around 200 billion a year in additional taxes. The deficit for this year is estimated to be 1.327 trillion dollars. Increasing taxes isn’t even a bandage on the underlying problem of run away entitlement spending.

  • Yes Don, unfortunately when the social security taxes were doubled in the 1980’s President Reagan insisted that SS funds were counted in the deficit calculations. And that did allow the issue that the article points out. It is also true that President Clinton had the advantage of the computer industry expansion and dot com bubble to the income side. But Pres. Clinton does deserve credit for stopping his party from spending the money and he stopped the Republican party from issuing tax cuts instead of responsibly reducing our deficit during good times. If you don’t believe this draw a graph of the current balance of the federal government from 1980 through 2010. It has a point of inflection at two points. In 1993 it changes from constantly going more negative to going less negative. In 2001 it changes from constantly going less negative to going more negative. The curvature did not change when congress changed from Democratic to Republican in 1995, nor did it change when the congress went back again in 2008. It changed when President Clinton gained control of the budget process and it changed again President Bush gained control of the process. There is a lot President Clinton did I do not agree with, and some things I find abhorrent, but if the data does not show you that he was responsible for the improving current balance of the federal budget during the 1990’s than you are choosing not to look.

    By the way, you still have not pointed which of my original comments are “hogwash.” Since this is a nice way of saying I am lying, I wish you would at least attempt to support the claim in some way.

  • To pay for entitlements Art would require doubling tax rates. Not only is that politically inconceivable, the impact on our economy can be imagined.

    Heritage is an advocacy group. They are not necessarily going to be terribly explicit about it that when they speak of the federal income tax they are not discussing the whole menu of federal or state taxes. The federal income tax comprehends about half of all federal tax collections and about a quarter of all tax collections.

    As we speak, the ratio of federal tax collections to domestic product is 0.149. I believe that is lower than it has been at any time in the last 50-odd years. However, there was a revolution in state and local expenditures during the years running from about 1965 to 1975, so total tax collections are not so low, but not abnormal in context.

    Currently, federal expenditures amount to about 24% of domestic product, just a wee bit higher than they were in 1984. (Federal tax collections as a share of domestic product are lower than they were, so public sector borrowing is at this time 9% of domestic product rather than 6% of domestic product). All things being equal, the relative size of the public sector (beyond a certain baseline) is inversely related to measures of economic dynamism. There is a cost to be paid in static utility and in economic vibrancy each time you expand the public sector’s take and that cost has to be taken into account in assessing any proposed program.

    Now, how are we financing this expenditure? We are financing it through a mix of taxation and public sector borrowing. One might expect that it does diminish utility to finance an activity from coerced contributions (taxation) rather than voluntary contributions (borrowing). Keep in mind that the diminution of utility would be some fraction of 9% of domestic product, perhaps expressed in anemic growth rates experienced as the tax increase is imposed (recall that the money is not being invested, but parked in Treasury issues). That is not what you want, but it is not economically devastating either).

    If you wish to make an argument against a particular manifestation of public expenditure, make that argument; there’s plenty to choose from. If you wish to argue that there are perverse incentives encoded into entitlement programs, make that argument. If you wish to make an argument that optimal public expenditure is of a particular dimension, make that argument. What you really ought not to do is contend that it would be economically devastating to maintain a public sector of a given relative size when we have in fact done so for 35 years or more (and other countries have maintained larger such sectors for longer periods).

  • The idea that the solution to this problem is to raise taxes is simply wrong. The only solution is to radically slash government spending and such a solution will come, probably after the financial crash the West is inevitably headed for.

    I think it might benefit you if you have the time to review the Appendix to the Budget of the U.S. Government and the analytical tables (not the executive summaries, which can be misleading). There are clunky pdfs available online. Review it with two notions in mind.

    1. You cannot welsh on debt service;

    2. The elderly and disabled have very limited capacity to adjust to reduced economic circumstances; diminution of benefits to these sectors (that would be Social Security, Medicare, and that portion of Medicaid which finances nursing homes) has to be undertaken quite gradually and is not going to net you much over the course of the next several years.

  • And I would suggest Art that you contemplate the deficits for the last five years and consider this truism: “Something that can’t go on forever will not go on forever.” National public debt is currently at 99% of GDP. Our capacity to finance the government by conjuring money out of thin air is coming to an end and probably sooner rather than later due to an increasing realization that we can never pay off this amount of debt, at least not with a currency that has anything close to its present value. Slow motion debt repudiation, hyper inflation, currency devaluation, whatever it is called, it is eventually going to occur with severe damage to our economy.

  • I am perfectly aware of the problem. However, cessation of public sector borrowing requires:

    1. More revenue; and

    2. Less spending.

    My complaint about your posts on this matter is a deficit of specificity as regards the latter and your insistence that the former cannot occur. There’s quite a mass of bilge in the federal budget. There are roughly 55 independent agencies you could shut down with little damage to the public interest; two cabinet departments that could be shut down with like consequences; a third department which could have its budget cut by >90% with like consequences; and another that could use a 22% cut. The thing is, you pump out the bilge and you still have problems.

    A. Reducing the bloat derived from the structural defects in entitlement programs takes time;

    B. Removing excess spending in legitimate programs requires intensive attention to granular details or requires you make an arbitrary cut and tell the agency chiefs to figure out the details.

    C. Some sorts of cuts will induce or exacerbate fiscal crises in state and local government. Liquidated programs are properly partially replaced with formulaic revenue sharing.

  • Medusa, the Gorgon, is Nancy Pelosi. Medusa had snakes for hair. Nancy Pelosi has snakes (lies) for hair. The sight of Medusa turned men to stone. Nancy Pelosi turns men to stone. Nancy Pelosi gives her son a stone when he asks for a loaf of bread and a snake when he asks for an egg. As a public servant, all citizens are constituents of Nancy Pelosi. We, the people, are her public, her national community. Yet, Nancy Pelosi consistently gives us, her constituents, a stone, when we ask for a loaf of bread, and a snake when we ask for an egg. If untruth, or perjury in the public court of law is permissible, then, Nancy Pelosi has handed us, her constituents, a stone when we ask for a loaf of bread and a snake when we ask for an egg.
    In Greek mythology, Perseus slew the vile Medusa by viewing her in the mirror of his shield for if he had looked at Medusa straight away, he would have been turned to stone. Medusa had snakes for hair, the sight of which turned men to stone. Perseus, son of the Greek king of gods, Zeus, separated Medusa’s ugly snake-generating head from her body with his sword. Separating Nancy Pelosi from her snake-generating lies with our vote in November will free us, her constituents, from turning into stone.
    St. Patrick drove the snakes out of Ireland. It is time to drive the snakes out of the United States Congress.

Gerry Connolly: Former Seminarian-Democrat Congressman-Anti-Catholic Bigot

Friday, February 17, AD 2012

Hattip to Chris Johnson at Midwest Conservative Journal.  Johnson is a non-Catholic who has taken up the cudgels so frequently for the Church that I have named him Defender of the Faith. 

Gerry Connolly, (D.VA.), graduated from Maryknoll Preparatory Seminary in Illinois in 1971.  Rather than becoming a priest, he, fortunately for the Church, became involved in politics.  In 2008 he was elected to the House.  In 2010 he was re-elected by fewer than a thousand votes.  (Better luck to the unfortunate constituents of Mr. Connolly this year.)  Although he purportedly is a Catholic, he has routinely engaged in Catholic bashing as a political tool.  In his race for the House in 2008 he played the anti-Catholic card against his Republican opponent:

House minority leader John Boehner is urging Democratic leaders to stop a vicious anti-Catholic smear campaign against Republican congressional candidate Keith Fimian, who is challenging Democrat Gerry Connolly for a rare open seat in Virginia’s 11th District. All 157 Catholics currently serving in the House, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi, should join their 25 Catholic colleagues in the Senate to denounce this vile attempt to denigrate their fitness for office.

Postcards mailed to voters on behalf of Connolly by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) portray the Fairfax County businessman as anti-women because he sits on the board of Legatus, a group of traditional Catholic CEOs founded by Domino’s Pizza magnate Tom Monaghan and endorsed by the late Pope John Paul II. Catholic League president Bill Donohue condemned the scurrilous ads as blatant “Catholic bashing” and demanded that Connolly publicly denounce them. Instead, the Democrat repeated the smears on TV.

It goes without saying of course that the CINO (Catholic in Name Only) Connolly is a complete pro-abort and a big supporter of Planned Parenthood.  Connolly can always be relied upon as a tame Catholic to defend the Obama administration from critics pointing out obvious anti-Catholic bias.

Thus it was no surprise that Connolly, at yesterday’s hearing on the HHS Mandate, belittled the witnesses who appeared to protest the infringement of the Mandate on religious liberty:

Continue reading...

7 Responses to Gerry Connolly: Former Seminarian-Democrat Congressman-Anti-Catholic Bigot

  • I noticed quite a while ago that the most venomously hateful anti-Catholics are those raised Catholic. The Jews have the phenomenon of the “self-hating Jew” but I don’t know that we can speak of “self-hating Catholics,” since the Catholic anti-Catholics seem to have very high opinions of themselves. (Unlike us, they “see though” the Church.) Really, I’ve heard one-time Catholics go off on tirades that make Jack Chick sound like Little Mary Sunshine. Unfortunately, because the bigots were raised Catholic, outsiders can get the idea that they know what they are talking about.

  • Why are Obama and Connolly talking about contraception, ending the health care scourge that are children, “why I hate Catholics”, etc.?

    Because they don’t want you to notice America is going bankrupt until there’s nothing left for them to steal.

  • I know the following is Godwin’s, but I can’t resist:

    “But he was a seminarian!”

    “So was Stalin.”

  • “…we were denied, on this side of the aisle, any witness who might have a differing point of view. And I think that’s shameful.”
    Did he stomp his foot too? What a whiner.

  • If Obamacare could heal the sick and raise the dead, participation must still be freely chosen to acknowledge the free will of the individual person to say: “THANK YOU, NO” Persons whose free will is not acknowedged are enslaved. Slaves are not citizens and do not vote. Remember to vote against your slave master.

  • ‘ to testify about your rights being trampled on — an overstatement if there ever was one — while you’re on a panel, and your participation on the panel makes you complicit in of course the trampling of freedom, because we were denied, on this side of the aisle, any witness who might have a differing point of view. And I think that’s shameful.” ‘

    Just like a trained attack dog. And they had to listen to what he thinks, not call him on what he’s doing to bring them there. Bailouts were the first order of business back when, causing spin enough to get minds too dizzy to watch where the cash waves crashed. Now, passions for the 1st Amendment problem will leave little left for the rest of coming Constitutional and financial trouble. God help those who try to stem the tide by ‘depriving’ anyone. Exec Branch has cried foul over any opposition creating stalemates to build its reputation for getting things done. They call the legislative branch do nothings. Now they scorn Religion on the front burner, while doing what with mammon.

  • Pingback: SATURDAY EDITION | ThePulp.it

HHS Mandate: Good Politics for Those Who Oppose It

Thursday, February 16, AD 2012

Hattip to Ed Morrissey at Hot Air.  Sarah Steelman is running in the Missouri primary to get the Senate nomination against the incumbent Senator, Claire McCaskill (D.Mo).  I believe this is the first campaign commercial that attacks a Democrat on the HHS Mandate.  I trust that it is the first of many.  There is a political price to pay for anti-religious in general, and anti-Catholic in particular, bigotry, and any Democrat who stands behind Obama and the HHS Mandate must be made to pay that price.

Continue reading...

9 Responses to HHS Mandate: Good Politics for Those Who Oppose It

  • Former Governor Tommy Thompson has been running an anti Obama & Tammy Baldwin ad in Wisconsin for a few weeks now based on HHS mandate

  • Good news Catholic Lawyer! I hadn’t seen it below the Cheddar Curtain.

  • Another beautiful conservative woman telling it like it is. Have you ever noticed there are no beautiful liberal women?

  • Great news indeed. It’s enough to make me consider defecting to the West (of the Mississippi) just to vote for her…

    This should serve as a timely reminder that the POTUS race isn’t the only one to pay attention to this year. I believe there are enough vulnerable incumbent Dems in the Senate (of which McCaskill is one) and enough open seats (from Dems retiring) that the Senate could flip to GOP control. This will, if Obama should be reelected, provide a much-needed restraint on his leftist excesses, particularly with regard to Cabinet and SCOTUS appointments.

    Also, everyone should double check their Congressional races because many districts have been redrawn from the 2010 census. I recently received a new voter registration card indicating that I have “moved” from a safe Republican district into a more competitive district with primary races in both parties. I’m sure the same thing has happened to others.

  • On a related note, one of my favorite bishops, Archbishop Chaput, has released a statement on this issue. He’s not pleased. His statement might be worthy of its own American Catholic entry.

    But the HHS mandate, including its latest variant, is belligerent, unnecessary, and deeply offensive to the content of Catholic belief. Any such mandate would make it morally compromising for us to provide health-care benefits to the staffs of our public-service ministries. Moreover, we cannot afford to be fooled – yet again – – by evasive and misleading allusions to the administration’s alleged “flexibility” on such issues. The HHS mandate needs to be rescinded.

    Critics may characterize my words here as partisan or political. These are my personal views, and of course people are free to disagree. But it is this administration – not Catholic ministries, or institutions, or bishops – that chose the timing and nature of the fight. The onus is entirely on the White House, which also has the power to remove the issue from public conflict. Catholics should not be misled into accepting feeble compromises on issues of principle. The HHS mandate is bad law; and not merely bad, but dangerous and insulting. It needs to be withdrawn – now.

    Read it here…
    http://www.lifenews.com/2012/02/13/archbishop-chaput-obama-hhs-mandate-insulting-dangerous/

  • CatholicLawyer: I haven’t seen the ad either and I’m in Milwaukee. Good to know, though!

  • It has been running on 1130 WISN; not on TV/Cable

  • I hope this ad makes my yellow-dog Democrat siblings in MO squirm. Beautiful woman, beautiful message. This is a good comparison to why Catholics should never use SSA and Marriage in the same sentence. When we do it gives clout to the perverted idea of men/men and women/women. Do not give them any ground. Do not use their language. Words have power. It is a religious rights issue. It can be called nothing else.

The Catholic Left Falls Into Line

Wednesday, February 15, AD 2012

It was inevitable that most of the Catholic Left, in any confrontation between the Church and Obama Caesar, would side with the Messiah from Chicago.  A petition making the rounds indicates how quickly this process has played out. 

 

Today the Obama administration announced an important regulation that will protect the conscience rights of religious organizations and ensure that all women have access to contraception without a co-payment. We applaud the White House for listening carefully to the concerns raised by religious leaders on an issue that has provoked heated and often misinformed debate. This ruling is a major victory for religious liberty and women’s health. President Obama has demonstrated that these core values do not have to be in conflict.

 

Specifically, this new regulation guarantees that no religiously affiliated institution will have to pay for services that violate its moral beliefs or even refer employees for this coverage. Instead, if a woman’s employer is an objecting university, hospital or other religious institution, her insurer will be required to offer her coverage at no cost. This is a sensible, common-ground solution.

 

In recent days, sound bites and divisive rhetoric have too often pitted the faith community against sound science and public health.The previous regulations caused an unnecessary conflict between the administration, the Catholic Church and other religious institutions. We are encouraged that the Obama administration has developed a substantive solution that addresses the concerns of the many constituencies involved. We look forward to bringing the same level of passion displayed in this debate to other pressing moral issues that face our nation.

Continue reading...

23 Responses to The Catholic Left Falls Into Line

  • Any people in this list who are Catholic should be publicly excommunicated.

  • These are brilliant and well-educated people but you realize that they’re not the magisterium.

  • Oh I understand that Mike. I am not at all certain that the Catholic signers of this piece of tripe understand that however.

  • These brilliant and well educated people have “been done educated into imbecility.” I realize that’s a quote from Fr. Corapi, and he sadly fell off the wagon as it were. Nevertheless, in this case, it’s correct.

  • Our first acts of civil disobedience should be protesting at the DNC in Charlotte this September.

  • They know what to think.

    They do not know how to think.

    I’m imagining Tokyo Rose propaganda broadcasts . . .

    Peace and justice!

    It’s okay to lie and cheat to advance peace and justice.

    And, to provide political support to those killing 45,000,000 unborn humans . . .

    Peace and justIce!

  • They are not educated.

    They are indoctrinated.

  • Donald, I should have said, “we realize that they’re not the magisterium.”
    Paul, that’s an oldie but a goodie.

  • T Shaw,

    I stand – er, sit – corrected.

    BTW, while I have mentioned this before, perhaps it bears repeating. I know of a very intelligent man who runs a pro-nuclear energy blog site and he is thoroughly liberal (which is oxymoronic given that liberals have fought nuclear energy tooth and nail for 40+ years). He (and most of his readers) know far more about science, engineering, and technology than I ever will. But they BELIEVE in that godless man of sin, Obama, hook, line and sinker. They look at us as hate criminals. The division between “us” and “them” couldn’t be greater. They twist around history to say what they want it to mean. They hate Israel, love Iran, and object to everything the US has done in world affairs since WW II. They openly despise the Church, and where they claim to follow the Gospel of Jesus Christ, it isn’t holiness and righteousness that matter to them but what T. Shaw pointed out: “peace and justice” nonsense. They won’t look at the actual statistics regarding the real reasons for abortion given at Priests for Life or the USCCB web sites. They won’t even consider that life begins at conception, physical evidence be damned. The obviousness that homosexual behavior is contrary to natural law is sneered at. And these are SCIENTISTS of the highest order! I just don’t get it. I never will. How can someone be so smart – far, far smarter than many others at this blog, myself included – and be so abysmally deceived? Despair is a sin and I am sinful.

    🙁

  • Great! Where do I sign? Second question, why is this pen drawing blood from my hand?

  • This ruling ….

    That says it all, doesn’t it? Presidents are not supposed to rule; kings and Caesars are.

  • I don’t doubt that these are smart folks (both the ones who signed and the one to which Paul alludes). For that reason, I find it very hard to accept that they are duped, indoctrinated, etc. What I do not find hard to accept is that they deliberately ignore these teachings because they simply want contraception/abortion (or whatever). They know; they just don’t care.

  • Now, this “when does life begin thingy” hits close to home.

    Our first grandchild is scheduled to make her debut in early July.

    Our daughter-in-law has emailed us sonogram pictures since early as God Almighty began forming in her mother’s womb our granddaughter.

    That is clearly a human on those pictures.

    Re: the sad social justice crowd. It’s not me. I know next to nothing. My education is clearly lacking. It’s St. Augustine. He dealt with such error in the early 400’s anno domini Rome.

    “The only evils these people recognize are having to endure hunger, disease, and murder. It is as though man’s greatest good were to have everything good, except himself.”

  • I sincerely believe there is an emotional disorder that transcends intelligence or level of education, wherein the victim has an underlying sense of insecurity, bordering on phobia, necessitating a strong political figure in which to invest. This insecurity then blinds the victim to inconsistencies or outright contradictions in his or her belief system, making the inherent synthesis imbalanced and objectively invalid.

    It may be due to lack of a strong father-figure in youth. Perhaps Dad was there, and even loving, but lacked principle and steadfastness. It may be that, as they grew and were being ‘taught,’ that there were no teachers or other intellectual figures of authority that drew out the aspects of critical thinking necessary to make rational decisions that all follow common principle in logical order.

    Regardless of cause, it is quite evident that a foundation of concept and process that produces ideas of a stripe in one area but contradictory ideas elsewhere exists. There needs to be an object within which to rationalize that inequality, so that it can be contained, and that object is then The Leader, who spins fact and fancy into a complex web of duplicitous confusion, allowing the imbalanced person the ability to simply “follow the leader” instead of confronting the intellectual contention within.

    Contradiction is a rock in the shoe of the critical mind and it will be ejected when it becomes intolerable. That such an ejection is not happening in the minds of people like the above signatories, it leads me to believe that they are in fact just stable enough to retain positions of influence, but would crumble if made to explain such inconsistencies in a logical, orderly fashion. Of course that leads to the “subjective truth” tripe that the Left falls upon when challenged, and that’s another conversation.

  • I agree that insecurity and inferiority feelings are the culprits– these are very bright capable people and as we continue to seek the way to evangelize them we need to respect their intellect and their will to do the good– teachers know demeaning a pupil doesn’t work, but building on what is good and enlarging it does–
    we need not to polarize more within our church… and cause our cause to fail– But instead find a way to haul them into the boat (barque) -highlighting contradictions while respecting their intellectual commitment to truth might be a way to do that

  • ANYONE that supports Obama does NOT support being Catholic, or even Christian.
    As I keep stating Where is the Christ in his action? You cannot claim to be Catholic if you are willing to compromise the teachings of the Church, the mandates of the Pope, or the teachings of the Bible. Murder is Murder. no matter what name you give it. Sin is sin no matter how you wish to wrap it. The devil comes in many forms. Sins provides many options. If a criminal was coming to rob you would he ask for in invitation to take your possessions? Your soul is open for the taking once you close it to the will of God!

  • Half of the list doesn’t claim to be Catholic.

    The half claiming to be Catholic here replace Teachings of the Church/objective truth with satanic opinions. That, by definition (look it up, Doogie), is heresy.

    Christ did not come among us to save us from suffering or to create Heaven on Earth.

    Jesus Christ came to save us from our sins, and by His Life, Death and Resurrection to purchase for us the rewards of eternal life.

    I see a couple of them have “S.J.” in their handles. Every one on the list ought to put “S.J.” behind their name: “Society of Judas.”

    While there is time, they must repent, confess, do penance, amend their lives, and through good works glorify God.

    Otherwise, I’m pretty sure none on the list will be getting into Heaven.

  • Well indoctrinated liberals perhaps but brilliant no. Brilliant is when Churchill pithily grasped the criminal folly of the Kaiser:

    “The Germans took a somber decision. Upon the western front they had from the beginning used the most terrible means of offense at their disposal. They had employed poison gas on the largest scale and had invented the ‘Flammenwerfer.’ Nevertheless, it was with a sense of awe that they turned upon Russia the most grisly of weapons. They transported Lenin in a sealed train like a plague bacillus from Switzerland into Russia.”

    Anyone who has thought about this knows that the HHS compromise is nothing but ‘plague bacillus’, even worse than the original requirement, in that it will destroy the moral integrity of the Catholic Church in the US, infecting everything she touches. This is Pharisaic at its worst – the Catholic Church does not accept birth-control and knows that abortion is murder – but is willing to look the other way as insurers, PP and Warren Buffett keep the muck off her hypocritical hands. Obama must be counting on a lot of stupid Catholics.

  • so I guess my idea about trying to evangelize the Catholic Left is right out. : /

  • Some lovely groups represented on that list: Sojourners, NETWORK, Evangelical Partnership, DJAN. These are alynsky progeny and closely working with the DP. I trust they are not receiving CCHD funding but would be curious.

  • Paul, do you remember this Prayer?,,”….I thank You, Father for hiding these things to the learned and revealing them to mere children…..”. “….The Wisdom of God is Foolishness to the World…” These Truths were given to us 2000+ ago and they sure ring true today from what I have just read in this Post.

  • Who was the first “social justice” Christian?

    In other words, who was the first follower of Christ turned his back on the salvation of souls and gave precedence to a worldly agenda?

  • Perhaps the answer to T Shaw’s question is in John 12:1-7:

    1* Six days before the Passover, Jesus came to Bethany, where Lazarus was, whom Jesus had raised from the dead. 2 There they made him a supper; Martha served, and Lazarus was one of those at table with him. 3 Mary took a pound of costly ointment of pure nard and anointed the feet of Jesus and wiped his feet with her hair; and the house was filled with the fragrance of the ointment. 4* But Judas Iscariot, one of his disciples (he who was to betray him), said, 5 “Why was this ointment not sold for three hundred denarii * and given to the poor?” 6* This he said, not that he cared for the poor but because he was a thief, and as he had the money box he used to take what was put into it. 7* Jesus said, “Let her alone, let her keep it for the day of my burial. 8 The poor you always have with you, but you do not always have me.”

Archbishop Chaput: HHS Mandate Dangerous and Insulting

Tuesday, February 14, AD 2012

 

 

Archbishop Charles Chaput of the Philadelphia Archdiocese has never been one to mince words, and he does not disappoint in regard to the Mandate and the “compromise”.

 

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services refused on Jan. 20 to broaden the exception to its mandate that nearly all Catholic employers must cover contraception, abortifacients, and sterilization in their health-care plans.  

 

An “accommodation” offered Friday by the White House did not solve the problem. Instead, it triggered withering criticism from legal scholars such as Notre Dame’s Carter Snead, Harvard’s Mary Ann Glendon, Princeton’s Robert George, and Catholic University of America president John Garvey, along with non-Catholic scholars including Yuval Levin, the religious liberty law firm the Becket Fund, and numerous Catholic and other organizations.  

 

Many Catholics are confused and angry. They should be.  

 

 Quite a few Catholics supported President Obama in the last election, so the ironies here are bitter. Many feel betrayed. They’re baffled that the Obama administration would seek to coerce Catholic employers, private and corporate, to violate their religious convictions.  

 

But it’s clear that such actions are developing into a pattern. Whether it was the administration’s early shift toward the anemic language of “freedom of worship” instead of the more historically grounded and robust concept of “freedom of religion” in key diplomatic discussions; or its troubling effort to regulate religious ministers recently rejected 9-0 by the Supreme Court in the Hosanna Tabor case; or the revocation of the U.S. bishops’ conference human-trafficking grant for refusing to refer rape victims to abortion clinics, it seems obvious that this administration is – to put it generously – tone deaf to people of faith.  

 

 Philadelphians may wish to reflect on the following facts: The Archdiocesan Secretariat for Catholic Human Services spends $278 million annually on services to the community. About 4,000 employees make up our secretariat’s workforce. Catholic Social Services is the largest social-service agency in Pennsylvania and the largest residential care/social-service subcontractor with the Department of Human Services of the City of Philadelphia.  

 

There’s more. Archdiocesan Catholic Health Care Services is the largest faith-based provider of long-term-care services to the poor and elderly in the five-county area, and the seventh-largest nationally. And our Nutritional Development Services ministry serves more than eight million meals a year to schoolchildren, summer programs, and child-care centers. It also provides 2 million pounds of nonperishable food to needy families and the elderly through its Community Food Program.  

 

Much of the money used by these ministries comes from public funding. But of course, the reason these ministries are trusted with public funding is that they do an excellent job. The service relationship works well without compromising the integrity of either the government or the Church. In fact, in a practical sense, government often benefits more than the Church.

Continue reading...

13 Responses to Archbishop Chaput: HHS Mandate Dangerous and Insulting

  • I believe that those who use contraception actually have lower medical costs than those who don’t. A couple who has 6 children will have used resources for 6 pregnancies and 6 newborns, which is more expensive than a couple who has 5 children and 10 years of contraception, or 5 children and sterilization. If a woman has a medical condition that would be exacerbated by pregnancy, contraception also reduces medical expenses. Be careful what you ask for. The current ruling has the expenses of choosing TO reproduce distributed among those who choose not to.

  • As usual, Abp. Chaput is on the money. I disagree, however, with one sentence:

    “The White House response on these points is ambiguous and weak.”

    The WH is responding very clearly and firmly. It will lie, obfuscate and try to distract us from its consistent position. But it will not be moved.

    We are at war. The thing is we’ve always been at odds; the bishops just thought the situation could be tolerated. But tolerance only works in one direction with the Left. This situation is reminiscent of the film Braveheart. The heads of the clans thought their situation was tolerable with the English. But of course, it was always going to end in war. I know it’s not very Catholic of me, but now that both sides are facing each other, like William Wallace, I’d kinda like to go “pick a fight.”

  • Gail-

    I think I understand . . . if you could explain who the “you” is in “Be careful what you ask for.” If it’s the current administration, then I snicker alongside you. If not, then perhaps some exposition to further develop this interesting idea.

    Thanks.

  • “At its heart is a seemingly deep distrust of the formative role religious faith has on personal and social conduct, and a deep distaste for religion’s moral influence on public affairs. To say that this view is contrary to the Founders’ thinking and the record of American history would be an understatement.

    The HHS mandate is bad law; and not merely bad, but dangerous and insulting. It needs to be withdrawn – now.”

    This time the Philistines are on the Hill in our Capitol are loading dangerous and insulting weapons of distrust, distaste with a vengeance barely disguised behind reasonable presentations:
    on the internet wideworld to children and adults, …children
    on the productions of MSM,
    on school curricula,
    on entertainment venues,
    and on the appearances/statements of their catholic ‘co-workers’.

    This with public funds they don’t have.
    They’ll use all their insinuations to destroy knowledge of good and bad in the name of inclusivity.

  • I wonder if Abp Chaput will finally stop crawling into bed with the radical illegal alien lobby like Rep Guitierrrez demanding children of illegal aliens get instate tuition. IOW, he think taxpayers ought to help finanace the breaking of our immigration laws. Maybe he will stop showing contempt for legitimate Catholic viewpoints on issues like immigration and capital punishment. Make no mistake Chaput is part of the problem.

    Lest anyone think this has nothing to with the present problem. Think again. It has everything to do with it.

  • I wish people would stop and think a minute…this is a First Amendment Freedom of Religion Issue. It’s not a special “Catholic” issue or “Evangelical” issue. It’s not a “contraception/abortion” issue, either. The freedom to practice religion is a large part of the reason why America exists. And is still the reason why so many continue to come here. Freedom of Religion was so important to our Founding Fathers that they put it first in the Bill of Rights. Doing an end-run around it by the diktat of unelected officials is extremely dangerous, setting precident for other end-runs around the Bill of Rights. So, this is something ALL Americans need to be concerned about.

    Further, and just to quantify, by nature the Christian faith is evangelical. We are required as part of our Baptism to go out and live the Gospel. It’s an active Faith. It’s not like a coat where you put it on and take it off depending upon the climate. It’s more like a second skin. Something that is deeply a part of a person. So, it is offensive to Christians, and all people of faith, when the government tells us how we are now going to have to practice our Faith or be punished if we don’t acquiesce. This mandate is completely antithetical to Christianity because it is hampering our ability to live the Gospel as we are called to do. To serve others in need, no matter who they are or what they believe.

    Catholics wake up! It’s St. Jude time.

  • Excellent historical discussion about why the church is where it is at now.
    http://ricochet.com/main-feed/American-Catholicism-s-Pact-With-the-Devil

  • Pingback: WEDNESDAY RELIGIOUS LIBERTY EXTRA | ThePulp.it
  • People keep talking about what percent of Catholics agree or whatever. Even if ONLY ONE Catholic thought that God didn’t want him to pay for abortifacients, he would have the RIGHT not to do that. Even if I made up my own religion tomorrow, and I thought God did not want me to bathe, I should have the right to refrain from that.

  • CatholicLawyer, Wow. Powerful article with many truisms.

    I am not sure I entirely agree with saying the bishops embraced Obamacare. The bishops always expressed disapproval based on inadequate respect for pro-life issues and a lack of conscientious objection. But, the article’s overall point is in agreement with mine. Even with pro-life and conscientious objection considerations, Obamacare is poison. A Church of the past the articles describes would recognize it as so.

  • Pingback: Catholic Phoenix

George Will: This Is What Liberalism Looks Like

Tuesday, February 14, AD 2012

George Will on ABC’s This Week last Sunday made three points in regard to the HHS Mandate “compromise” that are undeniably true:

 

 

Three points.

As Paul Ryan said to you, this is an accounting gimmick that they’ve done that in no way ends the complicity of Catholic institutions and individuals in delivering services they consider morally abhorrent.
Second. You asked the question, ‘How did this come about?’ George, this is what liberalism looks like. This is what the progressive state does. It tries to break all the institutions of civil society, all the institutions that mediate between the individual and the state. They have to break them to the saddle of the state.
Third. The Catholic Bishops, it serves them right. They’re the ones who were really hot for Obamacare, with a few exceptions. But they were all in favor of this. And this is what it looks like when the government decides it’s going to make your healthcare choices for you.

Continue reading...

11 Responses to George Will: This Is What Liberalism Looks Like

  • I hope the Bishops have learned a lesson now about the dangers of the Church getting into bed with the Welfare State, but I doubt it….What the Obama administration has done in regard to contraceptives and abortifacients was as predictable as the sun rising in the east and setting in the west.

    C’mon, Donald. Thomas E. Dewey did not institute this policy. Edmund Muskie did not institute this policy. Jimmy Carter did not institute this policy. It is a decision local to the current cohorts of soi-disant social reformers. We have had federally financed medical care for 46 years and had a network of municipal and veterans’ hospitals for decades prior to that. The sort of arrogance incorporated into the Administrations latest crime is not a structural feature of common provision of medical services.

  • C’mon Art. Modern liberalism, since the 1990’s, as feminists and gay rights advocates became increasingly influential, has had a hostility to Christianity in general, and Catholicism in particular, that was not overtly present in earlier manifestations of that creed. What the Obama administration did was not only predictable, but inevitable. Increase the power of the State, and the Church is always at peril that individuals who bear the Church undying animosity will eventually control that power.

  • Yes. I’m glad Will called the bishops on their support for “universal health care.” I suppose I should admire their lack of guile, but honestly. Why would anyone think that any state which sets itself up as the sole proprietor of your healthcare would do otherwise? The land of nice, Canada, prohibits people from paying for their own healthcare. Why would the U.S. do differently, if given the chance? I sincerely hope the bishops have learned that freedom is best preserved in smaller, more local institutions.

  • What the Obama administration did was not only predictable, but inevitable.

    No, it was not. It was a clear policy choice and a bad one.

    Modern liberalism, since the 1990?s, as feminists and gay rights advocates became increasingly influential, has had a hostility to Christianity in general, and Catholicism in particular, that was not overtly present in earlier manifestations of that creed.

    True, but that is a cultural factor, not a structural one.

  • A mythic committee set out to improve on the race horse. They invented a camel.

    You can’t have a committee deciding on objective truth. What you get are loose interpretations and inconsistent applications.

    The USBBC (conference/committee) set out to improve health care. The salvation of souls is so yesterday. They invented Obamacare and abortion/birth control mandates.

    That is why we have the Pope.

    If in 2008 the majority of US bishops (supposed to be our shepherds) had preached the Pope’s “Four Non-negotiables”, they might not be in their current embarrassing fix.

    Will is right. When the shepherds gave the state the corporal works of mercy, they ceded their moral authority in that area.

    They subordinated the salvation of souls to peace, justice, and aiding and abetting cynical political posturing.

  • “No, it was not. It was a clear policy choice and a bad one. ”

    And a policy choice that was inevitable Art given those who were going to make it. Obama didn’t put Sebelius in charge of HHS by accident.

  • Like I said before, until the bishops take responsibility for their part in bringing this about all their cassock ruffling over teh HHS mandate is not going to have the crtedibility it needs to have.

  • The principle of Subsidiarity is too easily abandonned.
    That’s what western societies have been doing for the past 100 years or so – of course secularists will grasp the opportunity to impose more and more control over the people.

    Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind.

  • The Bishops forgot this:
    “A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take everything you have.”
    Thomas Jefferson

    Here’s another article on this very subject:

    http://wdtprs.com/blog/2012/02/well-heres-another-nice-mess-youve-gotten-me-into/

  • Let’s talk about the root of the problem: “Faithful Citizenship” from the USCCB which
    listed multiple issues worthy of consideration.

    It did say that a person could not vote for a pro-abort IF they were doing so to promote
    abortion. It should have said a Catholic could NOT vote for a pro-abort/choice candidate
    period – St. Louis Bishop Robert Hermann told Catholics to vote pro-life and after the
    2008 election wrote that if one made the mistake of voting for a pro-abort they should go to Confession. “FAITHFUL CITIZENSHIP” needs to withdrawn yesterday. Bishops should tell priests and laity to vote pro-life in the Primaries. Their silence is deafening!