Andy McCarthy:
"What I personally find most offensive about the HHS mandate is the shock with which it has been met. Why? This is who Barack Obama is. There is no reason to be surprised by this. He is not being pulled to extremes by his base — he is the one doing the pulling.
McCarthy then gives the reason that I for one, will never even watch that monster speak, or read anything he has written, let alone do anything so insane as trust him on any issue at all:
Obama’s abortion extremism is such that, as a state legislator, he opposed protection for — I’ll use his words here — 'that fetus, or child — however way you want to say describe it' when, contrary to the wishes of the women involved and their abortionists, there was 'movement or some indication that, in fact, they’re not just coming out limp and dead.' Babies were inconveniently being born alive, self-styled health-care providers carted them off to utility rooms where they would be left to die. That is infanticide, plain and simple. In Illinois, people tried to stop this barbarism by supporting 'born alive' legislation. Barack Obama fought them all the way....
McCarthy points out that this was completely common knowledge at the time of the 2008 election:
Again, this is not new news. The transcript is from ten years ago. He has done nothing since but confirm — by his positions, speeches, associations, and presidential appointments — that he is still exactly the same guy. Obama’s horrifying stance in favor not only of abortion but of infanticide was known when 54 percent of Catholics and 53 percent of Protestants supported him for election in 2008, and when such leading Catholic institutions as Notre Dame and Georgetown welcomed him with open arms.
That's Jenkins, that's Kmiec, that's Michael Sean Winters, that's Sr. Carol Keehan, that's the whole sick crew. Now they object, apparently when it involves them personally, but when that monster was voting to leave babies to die, no problem.
That is what we ought to find shocking. Obama, by contrast, should no longer shock anyone. Obama is simply doing what he came to do; what he said he was going to do when he promised to 'fundamentally transform the United States'; and what anyone with a shred of common sense would have predicted he’d do upon scrutinizing his record."
Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney
Friday, February 10, 2012
Thursday, February 9, 2012
The Obama Mandate to Catholics
Let’s keep the heat on Washington and on our “catholic” reps: Nancy Pelosi, Seellius, President Obama, etc. etc....Dr. Paul Kengor writes in CATHOLIC EXCHANGE:
America’s Catholic bishops are princes of diplomacy, highly educated, erudite, men of tact, propriety. They’re asked to shepherd the flock with a long historical timeframe—like, say, eternity. They tend not to have knee-jerk reactions to issues of the moment.
And so, it’s not often when a paragon of decorum, namely, Pittsburgh Bishop David Zubik, publishes a letter in his diocesan newspaper with a title like, “To hell with you.”
Gee, what could have provoked that? The answer is the Obama administration via its horrendous mandate to Catholic institutions to provide contraceptives, sterilization, and abortifacients—that is, birth-control drugs that induce abortion. The Catholic Church defines these things as “evil.” The Church and its members are now being told they must provide them. By fiat, the Obama administration has issued that decree.
It sort of flies in the face of that old freedom of religion thing we’ve always had in America. And it’s certainly of concern not merely to Catholics but all Americans.
Speaking of social justice, didn’t Notre Dame University give an honorary degree to President Obama? Maybe it’s time for Notre Dame to revoke that degree. Does Notre Dame—and especially its trustees—have the moral courage to do that?
America’s Catholic bishops are princes of diplomacy, highly educated, erudite, men of tact, propriety. They’re asked to shepherd the flock with a long historical timeframe—like, say, eternity. They tend not to have knee-jerk reactions to issues of the moment.
And so, it’s not often when a paragon of decorum, namely, Pittsburgh Bishop David Zubik, publishes a letter in his diocesan newspaper with a title like, “To hell with you.”
Gee, what could have provoked that? The answer is the Obama administration via its horrendous mandate to Catholic institutions to provide contraceptives, sterilization, and abortifacients—that is, birth-control drugs that induce abortion. The Catholic Church defines these things as “evil.” The Church and its members are now being told they must provide them. By fiat, the Obama administration has issued that decree.
It sort of flies in the face of that old freedom of religion thing we’ve always had in America. And it’s certainly of concern not merely to Catholics but all Americans.
Speaking of social justice, didn’t Notre Dame University give an honorary degree to President Obama? Maybe it’s time for Notre Dame to revoke that degree. Does Notre Dame—and especially its trustees—have the moral courage to do that?
Fr. Z Calls on AB. Niederauer, Card. Wuerl to Tell Pelosi NOT to Present Herself For Communion
It's been more than five years since Fr. Malloy wrote:
"Yes, Nancy, we would all like it if you were not so vocally pro-choice , i.e. pro-death. Until your choice is in line with Catholic doctrine, please, Nancy, do not receive the Eucharist when you attend Mass."
On Tuesday, the good Fr. Z urged Archbishop Niederauer and Cardinal Wuerl to say the same thing:
Nancy Pelosi considers it consistent with what Catholics do to take a stand against the bishops in favor of a policy that would force Catholic institutions to violate the teachings of her Church.
Pelosi, as a highly public figure, there are few more visible. She is committing the mortal sin of scandalizing the faithful in a matter which unquestionably grave matter. There has been all manner of discussion concerning her and the issues of abortion, contraception, when life begins, etc. She can’t plead ignorance of the Church’s teachings. She continues to be openly, publicly, scandalous in these matters.
Now, she is taking an open stand against the American bishops – precisely claiming her catholic identity – in favor of a manifest attack on the Catholic Church by the most aggressively pro-abortion President we have ever seen."
Canon Lawyer and Referendary of Apostolic Signatura, Dr. Ed Peters agrees:
"As a canon lawyer, my view is that Nancy Pelosi deserves to be deprived of holy Communion as the just consequence of her public actions; as her fellow Catholic, my view is that Nancy Pelosi deserves to be deprived of holy Communion to bring home to her and to the wider faith community the gravity of her conduct and the need to avoid such conduct altogether or, that failing, at least to repent of it. Quickly."
That is certainly correct. But even if they do tell her not to present herself, my opinion is she will anyway.
Gibbons J. Cooney
Wednesday, February 8, 2012
Members of Congess Join US Bishops in Attack on UnConstitutional HHS Mandate
From Catholic News Agency:
Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-Ohio) vowed Feb. 8 to use legislative means to fight the Obama administration’s controversial contraception mandate.
In a rare speech on the House floor, Boehner said that the recently announced mandate “constitutes an unambiguous attack on religious freedom in our country.”
He warned that if President Obama does not reverse the mandate, “then the Congress, acting on behalf of the American people and the Constitution we are sworn to uphold and defend, must....
Boehner, who is Catholic, spoke about the mandate on the same day that Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.) announced that he plans to advance legislation “to reverse the controversial decision and restore longstanding conscience protections.”
Upton, who serves as the chair of the U.S. House Energy and Commerce Committee, said that he is “deeply disappointed with the recent decision” by the Obama administration, which he called a violation of the First Amendment."
Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney
Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
No Surprise: Ninth Circuit Undercuts Self-Government
UPDATE: Carrie Severino elaborates on our point in a column titled "The Ninth Circuit's Attack on Self-Government":
"This ruling effectively says that any attempt by the people of California to check their state courts’ liberal activism violates the United States Constitution. That proposition is not only legally laughable but is constitutionally backwards and may be the most serious attack on self government since the era of poll taxes and literacy tests. They have not only disenfranchised those who are poor or Black, they have effectively disenfranchised an entire state’s citizenry."
The most overturned judge on most overturned court in the land rules against the will of the people and Proposition 8--as we predicted.
This case can't get to an adult court soon enough.
"This ruling effectively says that any attempt by the people of California to check their state courts’ liberal activism violates the United States Constitution. That proposition is not only legally laughable but is constitutionally backwards and may be the most serious attack on self government since the era of poll taxes and literacy tests. They have not only disenfranchised those who are poor or Black, they have effectively disenfranchised an entire state’s citizenry."
The most overturned judge on most overturned court in the land rules against the will of the people and Proposition 8--as we predicted.
This case can't get to an adult court soon enough.
Monday, February 6, 2012
Archbishop Niederauer's Letter on Obama's HHS Mandate
His excellency released this statement this afternoon:
Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ:I write to you concerning an alarming and serious matter that negatively impacts the Church in the United States directly, and that strikes at the fundamental right to religious liberty for all citizens of any faith.
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services promulgated a new and radical interpretation of religious freedom last week when it announced new regulations regarding health insurance coverage of reproductive services which will be mandatory for employers in the United States.
For the first time in federal law, the government has determined that religious institutions such as Catholic hospitals, Catholic Charities and Catholic Relief Services are not truly religious employers because they do not have as their primary purpose “the inculcation of religious values” and do not primarily limit their services to those of their own faith.
In other words, the religious activities of our Catholic hospitals, our social services to the poor, and our outreach to the hurting and the marginalized in our society are not truly religious activities protected by the First Amendment because they enshrine the Catholic belief -- shared by virtually every religious community in the United States -- that religious communities are called to reach out to feed the poor, shelter the homeless, and heal the sick precisely as a religious activity.
The implications of this insidious new legal and policy principle, if allowed to stand, are chilling. Once it is accepted that religious institutions that serve the poor, the sick and the elderly do not enjoy the full protections of religious liberty, future administrations could compel religious hospitals and service organization to pay for insurance and other policies that mandate abortion or euthanasia. In addition, such a principle would likely create crises of conscience for religious institutions of virtually every faith, so that over time they would be forced out of the mainstream of the social fabric.
We cannot – we will not – accept this unjust redrafting of the principle of religious liberty which our Founders so rightly saw as an inalienable gift of God. People of faith cannot be made second class citizens. And faith based service to those in need in our society cannot be classified as non-religious by our national government. We are already joined by our brothers and sisters of many other faiths as well as others of good will in this important effort to regain our religious freedom. Indeed, many journalists across the political spectrum, both supporters and opponents of the present administration, have called for a reversal of this policy.
Therefore, I ask for your help. Please email or write the White House and your representative in congress to call for a reversal of this new regulation. The addresses are listed below. Finally, please join me in prayer for our Church and for the wider religious community engaged in this struggle.
May God bless you and your family, and keep you always in His loving care.
Sincerely yours in Christ,
Most Reverend George Niederauer
Archbishop of San Francisco
You can find the contact information for your Senator or Congressman here.
You can sign a White House "We the People" petition opposing the mandate here.
Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ:I write to you concerning an alarming and serious matter that negatively impacts the Church in the United States directly, and that strikes at the fundamental right to religious liberty for all citizens of any faith.
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services promulgated a new and radical interpretation of religious freedom last week when it announced new regulations regarding health insurance coverage of reproductive services which will be mandatory for employers in the United States.
For the first time in federal law, the government has determined that religious institutions such as Catholic hospitals, Catholic Charities and Catholic Relief Services are not truly religious employers because they do not have as their primary purpose “the inculcation of religious values” and do not primarily limit their services to those of their own faith.
In other words, the religious activities of our Catholic hospitals, our social services to the poor, and our outreach to the hurting and the marginalized in our society are not truly religious activities protected by the First Amendment because they enshrine the Catholic belief -- shared by virtually every religious community in the United States -- that religious communities are called to reach out to feed the poor, shelter the homeless, and heal the sick precisely as a religious activity.
The implications of this insidious new legal and policy principle, if allowed to stand, are chilling. Once it is accepted that religious institutions that serve the poor, the sick and the elderly do not enjoy the full protections of religious liberty, future administrations could compel religious hospitals and service organization to pay for insurance and other policies that mandate abortion or euthanasia. In addition, such a principle would likely create crises of conscience for religious institutions of virtually every faith, so that over time they would be forced out of the mainstream of the social fabric.
We cannot – we will not – accept this unjust redrafting of the principle of religious liberty which our Founders so rightly saw as an inalienable gift of God. People of faith cannot be made second class citizens. And faith based service to those in need in our society cannot be classified as non-religious by our national government. We are already joined by our brothers and sisters of many other faiths as well as others of good will in this important effort to regain our religious freedom. Indeed, many journalists across the political spectrum, both supporters and opponents of the present administration, have called for a reversal of this policy.
Therefore, I ask for your help. Please email or write the White House and your representative in congress to call for a reversal of this new regulation. The addresses are listed below. Finally, please join me in prayer for our Church and for the wider religious community engaged in this struggle.
May God bless you and your family, and keep you always in His loving care.
Sincerely yours in Christ,
Most Reverend George Niederauer
Archbishop of San Francisco
You can find the contact information for your Senator or Congressman here.
You can sign a White House "We the People" petition opposing the mandate here.
Ninth Circuit Proposition 8 Decision Expected Tomorrow
The Ninth Circuit is expected to rule tomorrow on the Proposition 8 case. As we have said many times before, given the court's makeup, we expect the Ninth Circuit to uphold Judge Walker's ruling, and we equally expect their decision to be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Time to Speak Up
At least 142 U.S. Catholic bishops, representing almost 80% of America’s dioceses, have strongly denounced the religious persecution expressed in the rules promulgated January 20, 2012 by Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of the U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services (HSS), in connection with the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, popularly dubbed “Obamacare.”
How about joining the Bishops and demand freedom of conscience?
Obama's office will take calls.
How about joining the Bishops and demand freedom of conscience?
Obama's office will take calls.
Saturday, February 4, 2012
Catholic Institutions Can't Be Catholic Anymore
But the big political news of the week isn't Mr. Romney's gaffe, or even his victory in Florida. The big story took place in Washington. That's where a bomb went off that not many in the political class heard, or understood. But President Obama just may have lost the election.
The president signed off on a Health and Human Services ruling that says that under ObamaCare, Catholic institutions—including charities, hospitals and schools—will be required by law, for the first time ever, to provide and pay for insurance coverage that includes contraceptives, abortion-inducing drugs and sterilization procedures. If they do not, they will face ruinous fines in the millions of dollars. Or they can always go out of business.
In other words, the Catholic Church was told this week that its institutions can't be Catholic anymore.
I invite you to imagine the moment we are living in without the church's charities, hospitals and schools. And if you know anything about those organizations, you know it is a fantasy that they can afford millions in fines.
There was no reason to make this ruling—none. Except ideology.
The conscience clause, which keeps the church itself from having to bow to such decisions, has always been assumed to cover the church's institutions.
Now the church is fighting back. Priests in an estimated 70% of parishes last Sunday came forward to read strongly worded protests from the church's bishops. The ruling asks the church to abandon Catholic principles and beliefs; it is an abridgment of the First Amendment; it is not acceptable. They say they will not bow to it. They should never bow to it, not only because they are Catholic and cannot be told to take actions that deny their faith, but because they are citizens of the United States.
If they stay strong and fight, they will win. This is in fact a potentially unifying moment for American Catholics, long split left, right and center. Catholic conservatives will immediately and fully oppose the administration's decision. But Catholic liberals, who feel embarrassed and undercut, have also come out in opposition.
The church is split on many things. But do Catholics in the pews want the government telling their church to contravene its beliefs? A president affronting the leadership of the church, and blithely threatening its great institutions? No, they don't want that. They will unite against that.
The smallest part of this story is political. There are 77.7 million Catholics in the United States. In 2008 they made up 27% of the electorate, about 35 million people. Mr. Obama carried the Catholic vote, 54% to 45%. They helped him win.
They won't this year. And guess where a lot of Catholics live? In the battleground states.
There was no reason to pick this fight. It reflects political incompetence on a scale so great as to make Mitt Romney's gaffes a little bitty thing.
There was nothing for the president to gain, except, perhaps, the pleasure of making a great church bow to him.
Enjoy it while you can. You have awakened a sleeping giant.
By PEGGY NOONAN
The president signed off on a Health and Human Services ruling that says that under ObamaCare, Catholic institutions—including charities, hospitals and schools—will be required by law, for the first time ever, to provide and pay for insurance coverage that includes contraceptives, abortion-inducing drugs and sterilization procedures. If they do not, they will face ruinous fines in the millions of dollars. Or they can always go out of business.
In other words, the Catholic Church was told this week that its institutions can't be Catholic anymore.
I invite you to imagine the moment we are living in without the church's charities, hospitals and schools. And if you know anything about those organizations, you know it is a fantasy that they can afford millions in fines.
There was no reason to make this ruling—none. Except ideology.
The conscience clause, which keeps the church itself from having to bow to such decisions, has always been assumed to cover the church's institutions.
Now the church is fighting back. Priests in an estimated 70% of parishes last Sunday came forward to read strongly worded protests from the church's bishops. The ruling asks the church to abandon Catholic principles and beliefs; it is an abridgment of the First Amendment; it is not acceptable. They say they will not bow to it. They should never bow to it, not only because they are Catholic and cannot be told to take actions that deny their faith, but because they are citizens of the United States.
If they stay strong and fight, they will win. This is in fact a potentially unifying moment for American Catholics, long split left, right and center. Catholic conservatives will immediately and fully oppose the administration's decision. But Catholic liberals, who feel embarrassed and undercut, have also come out in opposition.
The church is split on many things. But do Catholics in the pews want the government telling their church to contravene its beliefs? A president affronting the leadership of the church, and blithely threatening its great institutions? No, they don't want that. They will unite against that.
The smallest part of this story is political. There are 77.7 million Catholics in the United States. In 2008 they made up 27% of the electorate, about 35 million people. Mr. Obama carried the Catholic vote, 54% to 45%. They helped him win.
They won't this year. And guess where a lot of Catholics live? In the battleground states.
There was no reason to pick this fight. It reflects political incompetence on a scale so great as to make Mitt Romney's gaffes a little bitty thing.
There was nothing for the president to gain, except, perhaps, the pleasure of making a great church bow to him.
Enjoy it while you can. You have awakened a sleeping giant.
By PEGGY NOONAN
Friday, February 3, 2012
"Get Over it, or Get Over Church Teachings": Hugh Hewitt's Open Letter to America's Bishops
"To the Members of the United States Catholic Conference of Bishops:
It may have taken a few days to sink in, but by now you should all have realized that President Obama has opened a massive assault on the Roman Catholic Church in America the likes of which none of you have ever experienced and for which few of you have prepared.
My guess is only a handful of you believed it could come to this. This is America, after all, where the "first freedom" listed in the First Amendment is religious freedom. When next you gather you might usefully conduct a poll as to how many really believed such a thing could happen.
Most of you are good men, and some extremely good men, but you have never been in a struggle with the government the likes of which your brothers in other places have endured. The American government has always been at least an ally of the Church's social teachings, right? Sure, there is the problem of some Democrats pushing for late-term abortions, and of some academics arguing that the tax exempt status of all churches is an unconstitutional "establishment of religion."
But you just laughed off the idea that the government could actually threaten your very existence...."
Read the whole thing, which includes an excerpt of Mr. Hewitt's interview with Senator Rick Santorum.
It may have taken a few days to sink in, but by now you should all have realized that President Obama has opened a massive assault on the Roman Catholic Church in America the likes of which none of you have ever experienced and for which few of you have prepared.
My guess is only a handful of you believed it could come to this. This is America, after all, where the "first freedom" listed in the First Amendment is religious freedom. When next you gather you might usefully conduct a poll as to how many really believed such a thing could happen.
Most of you are good men, and some extremely good men, but you have never been in a struggle with the government the likes of which your brothers in other places have endured. The American government has always been at least an ally of the Church's social teachings, right? Sure, there is the problem of some Democrats pushing for late-term abortions, and of some academics arguing that the tax exempt status of all churches is an unconstitutional "establishment of religion."
But you just laughed off the idea that the government could actually threaten your very existence...."
Read the whole thing, which includes an excerpt of Mr. Hewitt's interview with Senator Rick Santorum.
Komen Caves To Democrat/Planned Parenthood Pressure
We're back to where we were a few days ago with Komen.
But the light of truth has shone upon that organization, upon Planned Parenthood, and their allies in the culture of death--the Democratic Party. More than 20 Senators, all members of the Democratic Party, wrote to Komen, protesting their plan to cut off funding to the abortion business.
But it's still a good sign. If you have to lose a battle, it is a lot better to lose it on the enemy's turf than on your own.
Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney
But the light of truth has shone upon that organization, upon Planned Parenthood, and their allies in the culture of death--the Democratic Party. More than 20 Senators, all members of the Democratic Party, wrote to Komen, protesting their plan to cut off funding to the abortion business.
But it's still a good sign. If you have to lose a battle, it is a lot better to lose it on the enemy's turf than on your own.
Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney
Thursday, February 2, 2012
Ninth Circuit on Prop 8 Videos: Judge Walker Lied, Abused Discretion
So ruled the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals today.
"The record clearly shows that Chief Judge Walker did make a commitment not to permit the public broadcast of the recording," Judge Stephen Reinhardt wrote for a three-judge panel."
Following his "commitment" he played a clip of the videos during a lecture at the University of Arizona! Following this, U.S. District Court Judge James Ware (the same one who ruled that Walker did not need to recuse himself for not disclosing he was in a long-term partnership with anther homosexual man) ruled the videos were public record. What a pair. Prop 8 backers appealed to the Ninth Circuit, resulting in today's ruling:
"The 9th Circuit agreed Thursday that Walker had abused his discretion in playing the tape, overturning Ware's ruling to unseal the recordings."
To the extent that Chief Judge Ware did believe that his predecessor's decisions were solemn commitments to the parties, but concluded nonetheless that they did not bind him, his abuse of discretion was even more serious: he failed to appreciate the importance of preserving the integrity of the judicial system..."
I repeat: what a pair. The great Ed Whelan weighed in on the decision:
"As I’ve said before, in the grand scheme of things Walker’s shenanigans on the video recording pale in comparison to his outlandish decision on the merits. But they are part and parcel of Walker’s broader course of misconduct in what deserves to be recognized as the most egregious performance ever by a federal district judge.
Alas, given the fact that Reinhardt and his fellow arch-liberal Michael Hawkins are two of the three judges on the panel, there is zero reason to imagine that this ruling offers any sign of hope for Prop 8 proponents on the other two appeals."
That's right. Reinhardt, who should have recused himself (see here, here, and here), and the others will almost certainly uphold Walker's ruling. Then, on to the Supreme Court!
"The record clearly shows that Chief Judge Walker did make a commitment not to permit the public broadcast of the recording," Judge Stephen Reinhardt wrote for a three-judge panel."
Following his "commitment" he played a clip of the videos during a lecture at the University of Arizona! Following this, U.S. District Court Judge James Ware (the same one who ruled that Walker did not need to recuse himself for not disclosing he was in a long-term partnership with anther homosexual man) ruled the videos were public record. What a pair. Prop 8 backers appealed to the Ninth Circuit, resulting in today's ruling:
"The 9th Circuit agreed Thursday that Walker had abused his discretion in playing the tape, overturning Ware's ruling to unseal the recordings."
To the extent that Chief Judge Ware did believe that his predecessor's decisions were solemn commitments to the parties, but concluded nonetheless that they did not bind him, his abuse of discretion was even more serious: he failed to appreciate the importance of preserving the integrity of the judicial system..."
I repeat: what a pair. The great Ed Whelan weighed in on the decision:
"As I’ve said before, in the grand scheme of things Walker’s shenanigans on the video recording pale in comparison to his outlandish decision on the merits. But they are part and parcel of Walker’s broader course of misconduct in what deserves to be recognized as the most egregious performance ever by a federal district judge.
Alas, given the fact that Reinhardt and his fellow arch-liberal Michael Hawkins are two of the three judges on the panel, there is zero reason to imagine that this ruling offers any sign of hope for Prop 8 proponents on the other two appeals."
That's right. Reinhardt, who should have recused himself (see here, here, and here), and the others will almost certainly uphold Walker's ruling. Then, on to the Supreme Court!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
