Archbishop: Obama Needs To Stop 'Intruding Into Internal Life Of Church'

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
PaulinVA said:
Nope, I’m sure they didn’t.

The media has moved on since the fight is over in the minds of the pundits.
Click to expand...
Strange. If it was only liberal media there they would probably want to ignore the HHS mandate issue though because it does not make Obama look good.
 
No, that does not mean they’re covering “contraceptives.”
The issue is still religious liberty and not access to contraceptives, but some like Rep. Elijah Cummings and his pro-abortion fellow travelers at the National Women’s Law Center raised a distraction that deserves response.
Click to expand...
Call it a teachable moment, or perhaps a “nip-it-in-the-bud” moment because I can see this question coming up later.
Click to expand...
Cummings produced a list that purported to show Catholic institutions that already cover contraceptives. The obvious implication being that if these institutions already do then it must not be that big a deal.
Click to expand...
First, the question is not what any individual institution or person chooses to do of their own accord, but what can the government constitutionally force individuals and institutions to do? This is not mere semantics. It’s liberty versus coercion.
Click to expand...
The Cardinal Newman Society wrote about it on their blog. While the author over there touches on the reasons why this is a non-issue morally I asked Dr. Patrick Lee, the director of the Institute of Bioethics here a Franciscan University, if he could chime in with a more complete response.
Click to expand...
Here’s what he wrote…
Click to expand...
*A contraceptive is not a chemical or a thing, but a type of act. Most chemicals can be used for different purposes. For example, arsenic is often used as a poison to kill people. But at one time it also was used as a component in a treatment for syphilis. Obviously, physicians prescribing arsenic for treatment of syphilis were not engaging in homicide—they did not prescribe a “killing pill.” In the same way, to use the chemicals often used for contraception, but not for that purpose—instead, to treat a pathology such as endometriosis (a disorder in the lining of the uterus including inflammation)—is not contraception. And an insurance policy that covers prescriptions of drugs for such treatment are not covering contraceptives. Franciscan University’s Insurance Policy does NOT cover contraceptives though it does cover prescriptions of drugs for purposes other than contraception.
Click to expand...
Code: 
Here’s how the Pope in Humanae Vitae defined contraception, that is, the kind of act that is intrinsically morally wrong: “Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation–whether as an end or as a means.” (Humanae Vitae, #14) In other words, what defines an act as contraception–the kind of act taught to be morally wrong by the Pope here–is not what chemicals, if any, are used, but doing something either as an end or as a means, in order to prevent procreation.
Click to expand...
Code: 
Then, a few paragraphs below, the Pope added: “On the other hand, the Church does not consider at all illicit the use of those therapeutic means necessary to cure bodily diseases, even if a foreseeable impediment to procreation should result therefrom–provided such an impediment is not directly intended for any motive whatsoever.” (#15)
Click to expand...
Code: 
The latter would include taking drugs to correct a pathology, injury, or disease, including drugs in other contexts people might use for the purpose of preventing procreation. Here the prevention of procreation–if that is an effect, for if the woman is not ovulating or is not sexually active, then that would not be an effect–would be a side effect, foreseen but not intended, and could be justified if there is a serious reason to take that drug.
Click to expand...
Code: 
The same point is made by the United States bishops in the authoritative teaching in the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Facilities: “Direct sterilization of either men or women, whether permanent or temporary, is not permitted in a Catholic health care institution. Procedures that induce sterility are permitted when their direct effect is the cure or alleviation of a present and serious pathology and a simpler treatment is not available.” #53 Procedures that induce sterility as a side effect would include hysterectomies as an example, but also the taking of drugs, for the alleviation of a present and serious pathology, which cause temporary sterility as a side effect.
Click to expand...
Code: 
Thus, when the Newman Society’s blog said that, “Franciscan University of Steubenville provides coverage for contraceptives but not for the purposes of birth control,” that actually is self-contradictory—if the drug is not for the purposes of birth control then it’s not a contraceptive. Franciscan University’s insurance policy does not cover contraceptive prescriptions.*
Click to expand...
Morally speaking, what you do includes why you did it. If I hit someone in the head with a hammer it better be because it was the proportionate means available to me to prevent him from harming another and not because I feel like doing it out of anger or cruel pleasure. If a doctor prescribes chemicals for cysts, chemicals that could also prevent conception, and the insurance covers those chemicals to treat cysts, the doctor and the insurance have prescribed and covered a treatment for a medical condition.

This is not mere semantics—intentions matter. You can reject that, but you cannot reject it on my behalf.
Click to expand...

catholicvote.org/discuss/index.php?p=27887
 
 
_Abyssinia said:
The Coming Persecution by Fr. Dwight Longenecker
Click to expand...
This is a bit fanciful and gloomy but I think he’s on the right track. The coming persecution is going to be waged, first, in the courts. Recusant Catholics will be treated like criminals by the government. Whether or not the general public, much less the bulk of Catholics, will come to see things the same way remains to be seen.

But it is worth pausing to remember that one of the things (and some historians would argue the main thing) that distinguished the Nazi Holocaust from run–of-the-mill genocides (of which history is filled) was the legality of it. The Jews were not persecuted by mobs fired up to burn synogagues, they were sent to concentration camps in full due process of Nazi law.

I don’t mean to suggest that Obama is Hitler but, rather, that one should not be consoled by the form of rule of law.

If Fr. Dwight Longenecker has errred in his distopian view, I think it is in his assumption that most Americans will go along with this persecution.

“The board is set. The pieces are moving.”
 
Bubba_Switzler said:
This is a bit fanciful and gloomy but I think he’s on the right track. The coming persecution is going to be waged, first, in the courts. Recusant Catholics will be treated like criminals by the government. Whether or not the general public, much less the bulk of Catholics, will come to see things the same way remains to be seen.

But it is worth pausing to remember that one of the things (and some historians would argue the main thing) that distinguished the Nazi Holocaust from run–of-the-mill genocides (of which history is filled) was the legality of it. The Jews were not persecuted by mobs fired up to burn synogagues, they were sent to concentration camps in full due process of Nazi law.

I don’t mean to suggest that Obama is Hitler but, rather, that one should not be consoled by the form of rule of law.

If Fr. Dwight Longenecker has errred in his distopian view, I think it is in his assumption that most Americans will go along with this persecution.

“The board is set. The pieces are moving.”
Click to expand...
You make good points. My worry about your last point is that there are so many people who buy into the part with this mandate that it is, in fact, a war against women. I don’t know if they’re not thinking through it or if they just like the idea of free contraception or what the issue is. I have been able to show a couple of people that this is a violation of the constitution, but many have no desire to see it for what it is.

I realize we have a lot of churches working with us, but that’s church leadership. I am not yet seeing it filter down to the congregations. I read article after article, and see the many comments, and even get into those discussions. So many want to believe that the Church is trying to ban contraception.

That’s the part that scares me. Initially Americans will not view things like this as persecution. How much will it take for them to see it? By the time they do, will it be too late?

I’m not arguing either way. I’m just expressing concern.
 
Incomplete said:
You make good points. My worry about your last point is that there are so many people who buy into the part with this mandate that it is, in fact, a war against women. I don’t know if they’re not thinking through it or if they just like the idea of free contraception or what the issue is. I have been able to show a couple of people that this is a violation of the constitution, but many have no desire to see it for what it is.

I realize we have a lot of churches working with us, but that’s church leadership. I am not yet seeing it filter down to the congregations. I read article after article, and see the many comments, and even get into those discussions. So many want to believe that the Church is trying to ban contraception.

That’s the part that scares me. Initially Americans will not view things like this as persecution. How much will it take for them to see it? By the time they do, will it be too late?

I’m not arguing either way. I’m just expressing concern.
Click to expand...
You are right to be concerned, and I agree that there are, and will continue to be, many people who are going to side with Obama. But criminalizing an act requires more than a plurality or even a majority. For an act to be seen as criminal it needs overwhelming support. Law breakers must be successfully painted as well outside the norm. The Nazis accomplished this with the Jews, of course. I don’t think Obama has accomplished this with the bishops.

Failing that, what you have instead is something that looks more like a civil war.

A more accurate distopian view would borrow from that analogy.

How this plays out will depend greatly on how the bishops play their hand. If they protest and then meekly acquiese then you will not see many people sticking their necks out for the bishops. If, on the other hand, the bishops stand their ground then it will be very different, I think.
 
Franklin Graham would ‘break the law’: takes aim at HHS mandate

lifesitenews.com/news/franklin-graham-would-break-the-law
Regarding the last article I posted on #715

SHILLING FOR OBAMA
Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments as follows:
Click to expand...
The Catholic left is so deep in the tank for Obama that they are working publicly to undermine the bishops. First a little background.
Click to expand...
On March 2, Cardinal Timothy Dolan, speaking for the bishops, said that at a recent meeting between the bishops’ conference staff and the White House staff, the former were told by the latter that the issue of religious liberty was “off the table.” Moreover, following the February 10 Health and Human Services mandate, Bishop William Lori, the point man for the bishops on religious liberty, said there was “no prior consultation” with the bishops before the edict was issued.
Click to expand...
In a piece for the Religion News Service today, David Gibson quotes an administration official who denies all of this, effectively saying Dolan and Lori are liars. The official says, “The White House has put nearly every issue requested by the bishops on the table for discussion…only to be rebuffed.” Indeed, the operative even accuses “some bishops and staff” of politicizing the issue. [Gibson refuses to name his source. So much for transparency.]
Click to expand...
Gibson reports that “some USCCB staff members involved in the talks are veteran culture warriors” who often take “a harder line” than the bishops. But could they be more extreme than Alexia Kelley, the left-wing Catholic who presides over the near moribund faith-based programs? Before landing her White House job, she was funded by atheist billionaire George Soros; she ran a dummy Catholic entity, one that Soros greased to the tune of hundreds of thousands through his Open Society Institute.
Click to expand...
Gibson also says that “Catholic officials from other institutions” are working more quickly to resolve problems than the bishops’ staff is. Again, we have no idea who they are. No matter, not only do these activists have no official standing, there is nothing for them to resolve—they’re all shilling for Obama.
Click to expand...
catholicleague.org/shilling-for-obama/
 
_Abyssinia said:
Did the Obama admin tell the press not to ask any questions about the HHS mandate?
Click to expand...
WHAT DOES H H S MEAN. Does HHS stand for happy hippies society, henry hope slip, hot hot stud, please use the full word acroynms are so over used it is hard to know what the heck is being said.

BFCFN

now what did I just say??
 
northernstar said:
WHAT DOES H H S MEAN. Does HHS stand for happy hippies society, henry hope slip, hot hot stud, please use the full word acroynms are so over used it is hard to know what the heck is being said.

BFCFN

now what did I just say??
Click to expand...
When ‘mandate’ is after ‘HHS’ it seems to clear to me what is being insinuated.
 
**Sen. Hatch: Religious Freedom, Not Birth Control, Is The Real Issue **

cnsnews.com/news/article/sen-hatch-religious-freedom-not-birth-control-real-issue
**The Contraceptive Mandate and the Indignity of the Law **

ncregister.com/daily-news/the-contraceptive-mandate-and-the-indignity-of-the-law
SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT
Catholic League president Bill Donohue responds to a post today on the Catholic News Service (CNS) website:
Click to expand...
In a blog post today titled “Setting the Record Straight,” CNS seriously misrepresents the position of the Catholic League. CNS was taken to task by us yesterday for not listing on its website as a feature story the March 2 letter from Cardinal Timothy Dolan, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, to his fellow bishops.
Click to expand...
After fielding a complaint by CNS—they maintained that a story on Dolan’s letter was sent to its client list on March 5—we amended our news release. What is troubling, however, is the statement today by CNS that we “seriously misrepresented” this issue. We did not.
Click to expand...
Our complaint turned on one matter: the failure of CNS to post as a prominent news story on its website the controversy over Cardinal Dolan’s letter. We knew they had posted an abbreviated story in both its “News Briefs” and blog section, but that is hardly the same as listing the story in its highly featured news story section. After all, they thought it important to highlight a story on the need of pastors to spend more time on church suppers. Surely Cardinal Dolan’s fight with the Obama administration over its attempt to abridge the religious liberty rights of Catholics merits at least equal billing.
Click to expand...
I just wanted to set the record straight.
Click to expand...
catholicleague.org/setting-the-record-straight/
 
northernstar said:
WHAT DOES H H S MEAN. Does HHS stand for happy hippies society, henry hope slip, hot hot stud, please use the full word acroynms are so over used it is hard to know what the heck is being said.

BFCFN

now what did I just say??
Click to expand...
I googled BFCFN, and came up only with Black Farmers Community Food Network.

What did you get when you googled HHS? hint: it’s the first link that appears
 
I think many here are asking the wrong questions. The question should be, “Who’s interests is Obama seeking to enact?” Who is the guy working for? It certainly isn’t the American people.

Obama is a Marxist. Obama is bought and paid for by those who put him in power (Goldman Sachs, etc). Obama is a banking cartel puppet. Obama is Zionism’s best friend as well. Now what is the common power behind these three? The same group whose house was left unto them desolate and have fomented persecution of the Church in every major persecution of the Christian era.
 
**Coming Soon: No More Catholic Hospitals and Free Abortion-Inducing Drugs **

ncregister.com/daily-news/coming-soon-no-more-catholic-hospitals-and-free-abortion-inducing-drugs
Morning Bell: The Calls for Liberty Have Not Been Silenced

blog.heritage.org/2012/03/08/morning-bell-the-calls-for-liberty-have-not-been-silenced/
Obama Mandate About Helping Planned Parenthood, Not Birth Control

lifenews.com/2012/03/08/obama-mandate-about-helping-planned-parenthood-not-birth-control/
**Obama’s Contraception Spin Machine **

nationalreview.com/articles/292932/obama-s-contraception-spin-machine-george-weigel
Mandatory Contraception

nationalreview.com/articles/292872/mandatory-contraception-marc-siegel
Totally epic must-see video of priest denouncing HHS mandate

lifesitenews.com/blog/totally-epic-must-see-video-of-priest-denouncing-hhs-mandate

youtube.com/watch?v=GaWma3taEEE
 
highcalling said:
Obama is a Marxist. Obama is bought and paid for by those who put him in power (Goldman Sachs, etc). Obama is a banking cartel puppet. Obama is Zionism’s best friend as well. Now what is the common power behind these three? The same group whose house was left unto them desolate and have fomented persecution of the Church in every major persecution of the Christian era.
Click to expand...
hark.com/clips/yclvsxtpqk-satan
 
Ever since President Obama’s announced a so-called “accommodation” to Obamacare’s new contraception and abortifacient mandate on February 10, Democrats have believed the issue is a surefire winner for them–especially in liberal Massachusetts. In radio ads, op-eds, and interviews, Democratic Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren cast Republican senator Scott Brown as an extremist for supporting a conscience exemption to the mandate. “She revamped her entire campaign for the last three weeks to orient it around this issue and took on the mold of a social warrior,” a Brown campaign official tells THE WEEKLY STANDARD.
Click to expand...
The mandate dominated news for the month of February, but polls show that Warren’s contraception war hasn’t worked out as planned.
Click to expand...
Even the Boston Globe has taken notice. “*f several of the recent polls are correct, Brown may have benefited from his positions on social issues in the last few weeks, such as the one over whether Catholic institutions should be forced to provide contraception in their health care plans for workers,” Globe staff writer Frank Phillips reports.
*
weeklystandard.com/blogs/contraceptive-failure-elizabeth-warren-losing-scott-brown-massachusetts_633343.html
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top