Video: Archbishop Cardinal Wuerl denounces contraception accommodation on America’s Newsroom

posted at 5:25 pm on February 13, 2012 by Tina Korbe

While the administration continues to play cute with its so-called contraception mandate “accommodation,” the U.S. Catholic bishops remain unimpressed. (For that matter, so does the faculty of Notre Dame law school, as Ed reported earlier.) His Eminence, Donald Cardinal Wuerl, the archbishop of Washington, joined Martha MacCallum on America’s Newsroom this morning to explain why.

The president says his accommodation ensures that no religious employer will have to “pay for” or “provide” insurance for contraception; instead, those costs will be shifted to insurers. Ed has already thoroughly dismantled the president’s insurers-must-cover-contraception-at-no-cost-to-anyone idiocy, but Wuerl brought up another point: Many religious employers are self-insured. They have no insurance provider onto whom they can push the cost of contraception insurance.

More importantly, the president’s accommodation doesn’t address the fundamental objection to his administration’s original decision anyway: It still leaves the power to define what constitutes ministry in the hands of the federal government. That’s the real problem, Wuerl said.

“It isn’t the prerogative of the government to announce who does what ministries, what qualifies for ministry and what really defines a church,” he said.

Supporters of the president’s mandate love to toss out statistics that reveal just how many Catholics are in disobedience to the Church on this — as though that’s an excuse to trample religious liberty. Wuerl had a simple response to those supporters.

“The teachings of the Church are never determined by the polls,” he said. “That isn’t the norm for Catholic Church teaching: The Gospel is. Revelation is, not the polls.”

Indeed. In 1968, when Pope Paul VI first delivered the encyclical Humanae Vitae, onlookers were already shocked at the steadfastness of the Church, which secular forces fully expected to conform to the world on contraception. In that letter, the pope predicted that it would be a difficult teaching to accept.

“It is to be anticipated that perhaps not everyone will easily accept this particular teaching,” Pope Paul VI wrote. “There is too much clamorous outcry against the voice of the Church, and this is intensified by modern means of communication. But it comes as no surprise to the Church that she, no less than her divine Founder, is destined to be a ‘sign of contradiction.’ She does not, because of this, evade the duty imposed on her of proclaiming humbly but firmly the entire moral law, both natural and evangelical.”

The pope reminded skeptical members of his flock that following this teaching would be an unexpected source of freedom for them — and he presciently warned that its abandonment would make it easier for national governments to impose their will upon the people.

“Who will blame a government which in its attempt to resolve the problems affecting an entire country resorts to the same measures as are regarded as lawful by married people in the solution of a particular family difficulty?” the pope asked. “Who will prevent public authorities from favoring those contraceptive methods which they consider more effective? Should they regard this as necessary, they may even impose their use on everyone. It could well happen, therefore, that when people, either individually or in family or social life, experience the inherent difficulties of the divine law and are determined to avoid them, they may give into the hands of public authorities the power to intervene in the most personal and intimate responsibility of husband and wife.”

Given the pope’s prescience, perhaps now would be a good time for Catholics to review the “why” of the Church’s seemingly archaic prohibition of the pill and other artificial forms of contraception — not solely out of a sense of obedience to the magisterium, but also out of a desire to reclaim for themselves their freedom and to proclaim their dignity by self-discipline. Contrary to popular perception, Rome doesn’t ban contraception out of a primitive desire to keep women barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen. The Church seeks instead to affirm the fullness of the meaning of marriage. It’s a teaching worth exploring even just as a matter of cultural literacy — and there’s no better place to start than Humanae Vitae itself.



Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

WOMEN HATER!!! THIS IS NOT THE 17th CENTURY!!

SouthernGent on February 13, 2012 at 5:28 PM

Noticed the crocodile ate everyone else, eh?

Bruno Strozek on February 13, 2012 at 5:28 PM

Mad props to you, Tina, for basing your argument on such an incredible encyclical!

Mr. Prodigy on February 13, 2012 at 5:29 PM

IRONY ALERT.

Church that gets into bed with the Progressive/Libs over illegal immigration (to grow their parishes) gets all offended over the same BIG GOV lovers telling them what to do?

Sorry, can you trash the same people that you praise and vote for when they do something that offends you?

This whole sellout of churches and religious charities, etc. got started at the gop convention in 1988 when Progressive George Bush started talking about “a thousand points of light” and his son then took it a step further with “faith based initiatives”. Proving that you better NOT TAKE MONEY FROM UNCLE SAM or he’s gonna be your landlord.

PappyD61 on February 13, 2012 at 5:31 PM

There goes the women vote…

liberal4life on February 13, 2012 at 5:34 PM

PappyD61 on February 13, 2012 at 5:31 PM

It’s been thoroughly proven that the Catholic Church has been in bed with the Democrat Socialists for 75 years.

You reap what you sow. No sympathy for the Catholic Church on this one.

Spliff Menendez on February 13, 2012 at 5:35 PM

Wow, where is Pat Buchanan complaining about the “Amen corner” of
Catholics taking over domestic policy??????

georgealbert on February 13, 2012 at 5:35 PM

There goes the women vote…

liberal4life on February 13, 2012 at 5:34 PM

Whatever you have to say to make yourself feel better about being a Communist.

Spliff Menendez on February 13, 2012 at 5:36 PM

There goes the women vote…

liberal4life on February 13, 2012 at 5:34 PM

I’m so glad you confessed to how lowly you think of the fairer sex.

tom daschle concerned on February 13, 2012 at 5:36 PM

What’s next?

Women wearing tent’s and getting beaten by their man for not having dinner ready on time? Women not allowed to vote or own property? Maybe removing parts of their body so they won’t enjoy sex. Stoning them for showing a leg in public or adultry?

Oops, wrong religion.

acyl72 on February 13, 2012 at 5:36 PM

Really Pappy? It seems to me that that speaks to the consistency to the issues and not to the political party.

somnicide on February 13, 2012 at 5:37 PM

People can’t afford birth control? Seriously?

portlandon on February 13, 2012 at 5:38 PM

I went to the demented kos blog and they pasted there some scalia opinions on the subject of first amendment rights:

We have never held that an individual’s religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate. On the contrary, the record of more than a century of our free exercise jurisprudence contradicts that proposition.

Furthermore,

When followers of a particular sect enter into commercial activity as a matter of choice, the limits they accept on their own conduct as a matter of conscience and faith are not to be superimposed on the statutory schemes which are binding on others in that activity.

and more

If, for example, a religious adherent believes war is a sin, and if a certain percentage of the federal budget can be identified as devoted to war-related activities, such individuals would have a similarly valid claim to be exempt from paying that percentage of the income tax. The tax system could not function if denominations were allowed to challenge the tax system because tax payments were spent in a manner that violates their religious belief.

and the long shadow of US vs reynolds

We first had occasion to assert that principle in Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1879), where we rejected the claim that criminal laws against polygamy could not be constitutionally applied to those whose religion commanded the practice. “Laws,” we said,

are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices. . . . Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself.

scalia is a wise catholic judge…

nathor on February 13, 2012 at 5:38 PM

Mad props to you, Tina, for basing your argument on such an incredible encyclical!

Mr. Prodigy on February 13, 2012 at 5:29 PM

It’s an amazing document. You did your homework, Tina.

catquilt on February 13, 2012 at 5:38 PM

Has Donald Cardinal Wuerl been reported to the truth squad yet?

JPeterman on February 13, 2012 at 5:38 PM

There goes the women vote…

liberal4life on February 13, 2012 at 5:34 PM

You left out a or two word…There goes the women on welfare vote…

right2bright on February 13, 2012 at 5:39 PM

nathor on February 13, 2012 at 5:38 PM

You’re supposedly a libertarian, and you support ObamaCare.

Confusing

darwin on February 13, 2012 at 5:40 PM

Archbishop Cardinal Wuerl didn’t have much to say about the government forcing people to buy health insurance, though. It’s okay for the government to horribly abuse the Commerce Clause in a way that it was never, ever intended: just don’t force Catholics to “violate their consciences”! Any other encroachment by the federal government is fine.

Armin Tamzarian on February 13, 2012 at 5:40 PM

Obama: “Pay for others Sin.”

Catholic Church: “No.”

portlandon on February 13, 2012 at 5:42 PM

“Free contraceptives” vs. “freedom from contraceptives”.

J-Paul00 on February 13, 2012 at 5:42 PM

People can’t afford birth control? Seriously?

portlandon on February 13, 2012 at 5:38 PM

These panhandlers can’t afford what they want others to give them for free.

Bizarro No. 1 on February 13, 2012 at 5:44 PM

This Atheist is supportive of the Church on this issue. I would not ask anyone to be a hypocrite.

OldEnglish on February 13, 2012 at 5:44 PM

scalia is a wise catholic judge…

Nice Scalia quotes, I suppose, but, as an attorney, these opinions would not be on point with respect to the question at hand. With all due respect, they are nearly irrelevant to the constitutional arguments that would ensue upon an appeal of the HHS rule.

Of course, they are being trotted out by Kos, so what does one expect. Besides, Scalia is about as Catholic as Pelosi. Kennedy would probably be a better indicator. Any good Kennedy opinions that are actually on point?

guitarman67 on February 13, 2012 at 5:45 PM

A wrong is still wrong even if everybody is for it and a right is still right even if everybody is against it. Stand firm!

1 Corinthians 16:13 Be on your guard; stand firm in the faith; be courageous; be strong.

Dannyp8262 on February 13, 2012 at 5:45 PM

Obama: “Pay for others Sin.”

Catholic Church: “No.”

Obama: “Maybe that Attack Watch idea wasn’t so bad after all…

portlandon on February 13, 2012 at 5:42 PM

Finished the dialog for you.

Mr. Prodigy on February 13, 2012 at 5:46 PM

Pay for your own birth control and if you want to destroy the human life you created, pay for that also. Asking the government to pay for these things is asking the taxpayers to pay. No taxpayer should have to subsidize another person’s personal choices. And there is no constitutional basis for mandating insurance companies to pay for it out their own pockets. This whole thing is crazy.

Rose on February 13, 2012 at 5:46 PM

People can’t afford birth control? Seriously?

portlandon on February 13, 2012 at 5:38 PM

Of course they can.

darwin on February 13, 2012 at 5:46 PM

Archbishop Cardinal Wuerl didn’t have much to say about the government forcing people to buy health insurance, though. It’s okay for the government to horribly abuse the Commerce Clause in a way that it was never, ever intended: just don’t force Catholics to “violate their consciences”! Any other encroachment by the federal government is fine.

Armin Tamzarian on February 13, 2012 at 5:40 PM

Amen. There was a good article from Riccochet today that Rush mentioned on his show – about how the RCC has been in bed with the left. Good stuff.

CycloneCDB on February 13, 2012 at 5:46 PM

This Atheist is supportive of the Church on this issue. I would not ask anyone to be a hypocrite.

OldEnglish on February 13, 2012 at 5:44 PM

This Catholic appreciates your support :D

Mr. Prodigy on February 13, 2012 at 5:47 PM

I think it’s way past time for niceties. The word “Dictator” needs to start being used.

If not now, when? Do we wait until we are all in chains?

The Bishop made a very good point. If Obama can get away with dictating to religious groups what their mission will be, this is not going to be the end of it. It will be the beginning. More dictates will come.

We have clear constitutional rights. Anyone can read these. They are clearly defined. That is why they were written down. So that all of us know, all of the people know what their rights are.

JellyToast on February 13, 2012 at 5:47 PM

Anybody at the Vatican know how to do an mail merge of Excommunication letters using the list of American Catholic politicians above?

I mean, at what point do Biden, Pelosi, etc. expect NOT to be tossed from the Catholic Club?

VastRightWingConspirator on February 13, 2012 at 5:46 PM

I dunno, I’ve actually been pretty impressed with Biden during this clusterfark. Pelosi is another story altogether, though.

Mr. Prodigy on February 13, 2012 at 5:48 PM

darwin on February 13, 2012 at 5:40 PM

slander! I dare you to find any post of mine were I ever supported Obamacare. on the contrary, you will find some posts of mine disaprooving of Obamacare.

on this particular case, I said it before, what is wrong here is obama care which another bloated goverment intervention. but the goverment we have, reduced or bloated, I want it secular. The church as no constitutional right in demanding exception to their employees health insurances. the congress and goverment can provide the church with exception but they are not obliged to do so.

nathor on February 13, 2012 at 5:49 PM

Pay for your own birth control and if you want to destroy the human life you created, pay for that also. Asking the government to pay for these things is asking the taxpayers to pay. No taxpayer should have to subsidize another person’s personal choices. And there is no constitutional basis for mandating insurance companies to pay for it out their own pockets. This whole thing is crazy.

Rose on February 13, 2012 at 5:46 PM

scalia words:

If, for example, a religious adherent believes war is a sin, and if a certain percentage of the federal budget can be identified as devoted to war-related activities, such individuals would have a similarly valid claim to be exempt from paying that percentage of the income tax. The tax system could not function if denominations were allowed to challenge the tax system because tax payments were spent in a manner that violates their religious belief.

nathor on February 13, 2012 at 5:53 PM

Supporters of the president’s mandate love to toss out statistics that reveal just how many Catholics are in disobedience to the Church on this — as though that’s an excuse to trample religious liberty.

What, you’re not familiar with the “hypocrisy exception” to the First Amendment?

All these statists keep repeating that “98% of Catholic women use birth control anyway” meme as if that somehow justifies Obama’s violation of the First Amendment. Are we going to have “purity tests” for religious faith in the future? Does the First Amendment only apply when all adherents to a particular religion can demonstrate that they’ve never violated any of its tenets?

The lunacy of the statists’ arguments clearly demonstrates just how insupportable their position is.

AZCoyote on February 13, 2012 at 5:53 PM

Martha is a babe.

borntoraisehogs on February 13, 2012 at 5:54 PM

I was actually on a blog where a someone asked how far the Catholic church plans to take its’ “culture of life”. This was on a parenting website.

earlgrey133 on February 13, 2012 at 5:54 PM

This Atheist is supportive of the Church on this issue. I would not ask anyone to be a hypocrite.

OldEnglish on February 13, 2012 at 5:44 PM

I am an atheist and I think I would be hypocrite otherwise. obamacare is what is wrong here, however, the church has no constitutional right to be exempt of obamacare impositions.

nathor on February 13, 2012 at 5:55 PM

AZCoyote on February 13, 2012 at 5:53 PM

scalia words:

If, for example, a religious adherent believes war is a sin, and if a certain percentage of the federal budget can be identified as devoted to war-related activities, such individuals would have a similarly valid claim to be exempt from paying that percentage of the income tax. The tax system could not function if denominations were allowed to challenge the tax system because tax payments were spent in a manner that violates their religious belief.

nathor on February 13, 2012 at 5:58 PM

I’m still working on the absolute arrogance displayed by The Chosen One. But then, if you come from the loving Church of Reverend Wright it’s no surprise. Love is hate. Theft is fair and part of charity. Libs like to talk about “What would Jesus do?” However, you’ll note that when they talk about abortion, they never ask that question.

GarandFan on February 13, 2012 at 5:58 PM

The church as no constitutional right in demanding exception to their employees health insurances. the congress and goverment can provide the church with exception but they are not obliged to do so.

nathor on February 13, 2012 at 5:49 PM

YOu have it backwards. The government has no constitutional authority demanding business or the Catholic Church do anything.

darwin on February 13, 2012 at 5:58 PM

There goes the women vote…

liberal4life on February 13, 2012 at 5:34 PM

(If you stand close enough to lobotomy4life….you can hear the ocean!)

KOOLAID2 on February 13, 2012 at 5:59 PM

I don’t want to hear any more comments from the Catholic hierarchy.
I want to see a picture of one of them flipping JugEars the bird!

KOOLAID2 on February 13, 2012 at 6:01 PM

Anybody at the Vatican know how to do an mail merge of Excommunication letters using the list of American Catholic politicians above?

I mean, at what point do Biden, Pelosi, etc. expect NOT to be tossed from the Catholic Club?

VastRightWingConspirator on February 13, 2012 at 5:46 PM

I’d volunteer to do the mailmerge in a heartbeat. I’m really kind of surprised that these a-holes haven’t left for the Episcopal Church of their own volition. They’d be a lot more comfortable there.

Eren on February 13, 2012 at 6:01 PM

Nice Scalia quotes, I suppose, but, as an attorney, these opinions would not be on point with respect to the question at hand. With all due respect, they are nearly irrelevant to the constitutional arguments that would ensue upon an appeal of the HHS rule.

Of course, they are being trotted out by Kos, so what does one expect. Besides, Scalia is about as Catholic as Pelosi. Kennedy would probably be a better indicator. Any good Kennedy opinions that are actually on point?

guitarman67 on February 13, 2012 at 5:45 PM

I tough scalia was a one of the most conservative and pro life judges.

full scalia quotes:

We have never held that an individual’s religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate. On the contrary, the record of more than a century of our free exercise jurisprudence contradicts that proposition. As described succinctly by Justice Frankfurter in Minersville School Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Gobitis, 310 U.S. 586, 594-595 (1940):

Conscientious scruples have not, in the course of the long struggle for religious toleration, relieved the individual from obedience to a general law not aimed at the promotion or restriction of religious beliefs. The mere possession of religious convictions which contradict the relevant concerns of a political society does not relieve the citizen from the discharge of political responsibilities.

(Footnote omitted.) We first had occasion to assert that principle in Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1879), where we rejected the claim that criminal laws against polygamy could not be constitutionally applied to those whose religion commanded the practice. “Laws,” we said,

are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices. . . . Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself.

Id. at 166-167.

Subsequent decisions have consistently held that the right of free exercise does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a

valid and neutral law of general applicability on the ground that the law proscribes (or prescribes) conduct that his religion prescribes (or proscribes).

United States v. Lee, 455 U.S. 252, 263, n. 3 (1982) (STEVENS, J., concurring in judgment); see Minersville School Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Gobitis, supra, 310 U.S. at 595 (collecting cases).

Justice Scalia reminded his fellow justices of the Court’s 1982 decision in United States v. Lee, where Amish plaintiffs protested having to collect taxes for Social Security, since they didn’t believe in government support programs as a matter of conscience. In that case, Chief Justice Burger (mmm … burger …) explained for a unanimous Court:

The obligation to pay the social security tax initially is not fundamentally different from the obligation to pay income taxes; the difference — in theory at least — is that the social security tax revenues are segregated for use only in furtherance of the statutory program. There is no principled way, however, for purposes of this case, to distinguish between general taxes and those imposed under the Social Security Act. If, for example, a religious adherent believes war is a sin, and if a certain percentage of the federal budget can be identified as devoted to war-related activities, such individuals would have a similarly valid claim to be exempt from paying that percentage of the income tax. The tax system could not function if denominations were allowed to challenge the tax system because tax payments were spent in a manner that violates their religious belief.

He adds:

Congress and the courts have been sensitive to the needs flowing from the Free Exercise Clause, but every person cannot be shielded from all the burdens incident to exercising every aspect of the right to practice religious beliefs. When followers of a particular sect enter into commercial activity as a matter of choice, the limits they accept on their own conduct as a matter of conscience and faith are not to be superimposed on the statutory schemes which are binding on others in that activity.

nathor on February 13, 2012 at 6:02 PM

Nathor: war is a constitutional ability for our government. enforcing private companies to purchase goods or enforcing individuals to purchase commodities is not. so your argument fails. yes, the government can constitutionally enforce all kinds of LEGAL things: like make you obey the speed limit and get required vaccinations. but ILLEGAL things? they can’t take away your 1st amendment right because it comes from God. it’s ours to begin with. they’re meant to safeguard it on our behalf. obviously our current regime doesn’t understand that.

Steven McGregor on February 13, 2012 at 6:04 PM

Martha is a babe.

borntoraisehogs on February 13, 2012 at 5:54 PM

+∞

Bizarro No. 1 on February 13, 2012 at 6:04 PM

It’s been thoroughly proven that the Catholic Church has been in bed with the Democrat Socialists for 75 years.

You reap what you sow. No sympathy for the Catholic Church on this one.

Spliff Menendez on February 13, 2012 at 5:35 PM

One things that all of this proves is the hypocrisy we find in the Roman Catholic Church. The states that are predominately Catholic are all your blue states…. They are socialist who believe in trying to bring the Kingdom of God on earth, they are Kingdom builders.

Shain1611 on February 13, 2012 at 6:05 PM

The pope reminded skeptical members of his flock that following this teaching would be an unexpected source of freedom for them — and he presciently warned that its abandonment would make it easier for national governments to impose their will upon the people.

In this article, George Weigel expands the circle and suggests that this mandate is part of a larger movement internationally.

The Libertine Police State

PatriotGal2257 on February 13, 2012 at 6:05 PM

YOu have it backwards. The government has no constitutional authority demanding business or the Catholic Church do anything.

darwin on February 13, 2012 at 5:58 PM

of course they have.
scalia:

Congress and the courts have been sensitive to the needs flowing from the Free Exercise Clause, but every person cannot be shielded from all the burdens incident to exercising every aspect of the right to practice religious beliefs. When followers of a particular sect enter into commercial activity as a matter of choice, the limits they accept on their own conduct as a matter of conscience and faith are not to be superimposed on the statutory schemes which are binding on others in that activity.

nathor on February 13, 2012 at 6:06 PM

Nathor–if your logic worked, then tomorrow Sibelius could just mandate that everyone needs to shave their heads because it’s deemed ‘preventative care’ (the standard met for this contraception mandate) and you would start citing Scalia opinions to prove we should comply. think about that…

Steven McGregor on February 13, 2012 at 6:06 PM

Amen. There was a good article from Riccochet today that Rush mentioned on his show – about how the RCC has been in bed with the left. Good stuff.

CycloneCDB on February 13, 2012 at 5:46 PM

http://ricochet.com/main-feed/American-Catholicism-s-Pact-With-the-Devil

Also gives insight into why Pelosi et al are not ex communicated.

As I saidon the other thread i learned more from this article than I have from the sermons over the last several years.

FLconservative on February 13, 2012 at 6:07 PM

There goes the women vote…

liberal4life on February 13, 2012 at 5:34 PM

“This teaching is intolerable. Who can accept it?”

“Does this scandalize you?”

Goldenavatar on February 13, 2012 at 6:08 PM

nathor on February 13, 2012 at 5:53 PM

There is a constitutional basis for providing for the common defense, there is none for the destruction of unborn humans, or for subsidizing a persons’ intimate relationship choices.

Rose on February 13, 2012 at 6:09 PM

nathor, are you one of those people who believe that Jefferson violated the spirit of the Constitution by supporting a church in the House of Representatives, a church he visited on the same day in 1801 that he penned the “separation of church and state” letter to the Danbury Baptist Association?

Bizarro No. 1 on February 13, 2012 at 6:09 PM

Nathor: war is a constitutional ability for our government. enforcing private companies to purchase goods or enforcing individuals to purchase commodities is not. so your argument fails. yes, the government can constitutionally enforce all kinds of LEGAL things: like make you obey the speed limit and get required vaccinations. but ILLEGAL things? they can’t take away your 1st amendment right because it comes from God. it’s ours to begin with. they’re meant to safeguard it on our behalf. obviously our current regime doesn’t understand that.

Steven McGregor on February 13, 2012 at 6:04 PM

in a country with huge multitude of religions, saveguarding the religious practices of all groups might be an impossible task. sometimes, some religious groups religious practices are stepped upon by the goverment for the good of all. scalia explains why and how better than me.
you might disagree, but the US is already one of the countries in the world where more accommodations to religious rights are made.

nathor on February 13, 2012 at 6:14 PM

http://ricochet.com/main-feed/American-Catholicism-s-Pact-With-the-Devil

Also gives insight into why Pelosi et al are not ex communicated.

As I saidon the other thread i learned more from this article than I have from the sermons over the last several years.

FLconservative on February 13, 2012 at 6:07 PM

Thanks – I suck at pasting links in here.

Yes – it was brilliantly written.

CycloneCDB on February 13, 2012 at 6:14 PM

FLconservative on February 13, 2012 at 6:07 PM

.
Catholics voting for Ocommie could care less about his Pro-late term abortion stance. And they voted for him in 2008. They will vote for him again.
.
This whole anti-Catholic contraception was a BS ploy by Herr Axelfraud to splinter off as many Catholic liberals and women – and start to GET THEM BACK under Maobama’s spell binding aura.
.
And its working- and Santorum just keeps chucking coal into that fire. Ain’t Social issues grand. Next up – more Gay crap to take the FOCUS off that Commie in Chief.

FlaMurph on February 13, 2012 at 6:15 PM

nathor, are you one of those people who believe that Jefferson violated the spirit of the Constitution by supporting a church in the House of Representatives, a church he visited on the same day in 1801 that he penned the “separation of church and state” letter to the Danbury Baptist Association?

Bizarro No. 1 on February 13, 2012 at 6:09 PM

sorry I have to be more familiar with the story to give you an answer.

nathor on February 13, 2012 at 6:16 PM

Bizarro No. 1 on February 13, 2012 at 6:09 PM

Letter sent from DBA on 10/07/01; Jefferson replied 01/01/02.

I had read somewhere that Jefferson went to the House church the same day he wrote the letter, but I looked it up again and another site said he went there on 01/03/02.

Bizarro No. 1 on February 13, 2012 at 6:18 PM

Once again casual anti-Catholic folks. The Church is not the USCCB or any one bishop -no matter what they say or do. One of the first apostles was Judas. Christ didn’t close His church because or radicals – He opened it because of many of we radicals who rebel against goodness and truth.
The Church, by the way, has acknowedged the decisions oregarding immigration to be the proper business of the laity -not the business of a couple of “Justice and Peace” bishops.
Also, as thepresnt pope -Benidict XVI- also known as Cardinal Ratzinger (the man the liberals dreaded) is on record as reminding the flock of sheep every where, that national councils of bishops(got that USCCB) are not a part of the hierarchy! Only a bishop in line with the Pope is.
So when you blme the Church for a leftist bishop in the media acting…well…unCatholic, it’s not “the Church.”
Rome has exhausted itself trying to contain the the “American church” since Leo XIII in 1899(?) told them there is no seperate American Church -just the Roman Catholic Church.

Don L on February 13, 2012 at 6:21 PM

but the US is already one of the countries in the world where more accommodations to religious rights are made.

nathor on February 13, 2012 at 6:14 PM

They’re not “accomodations” … it’s called freedom of religion. When one freedom goes all the rest are sure to follow.

You’re not a libertarian … I don’t know what you are. You seem obsessed with the Catholic church, you’re an abortion advocate … not “choice”, but an advocate and you pick and choose liberties according to how they fit your view.

You’re nuts, but you’re not a libertarian.

darwin on February 13, 2012 at 6:21 PM

Good luck with this one, Obammy.

Almost all sexually active Americans have used contraception; but coincidentally, about the same percentage of Catholics oppose the federal government telling their church what’s right and wrong and what to do with the money they’ve donated.

And Catholics – cafeteria and otherwise – are the definitive swing constituency. It’s impossible to name a vote more critical to winning the Presidency: near 50/50 politically, the largest denomination, and located mainly in swing states.

Meanwhile, with this move Obama consolidates that wild card swing constituency, “Supports Obamacare and Federal Funding For Condoms and Birth Control Pills” slice of the vote.

Heck, this is so bad for Obama, it might end up being a positive, as people are just talking about religious freedom instead of the fact that the White House can now set national health policies for every American and their employer unilaterally by fiat.

HitNRun on February 13, 2012 at 6:21 PM

The letter Jefferson wrote was to assure the pastor that the government would not interfere with his church.

Rose on February 13, 2012 at 6:22 PM

The letter Jefferson wrote was to assure the pastor that the government would not interfere with his church.

Rose on February 13, 2012 at 6:22 PM

Absolutely right. He was telling them that the separation of church and state was to keep the state out of the church, not the other way around.

darwin on February 13, 2012 at 6:23 PM

There is a constitutional basis for providing for the common defense, there is none for the destruction of unborn humans, or for subsidizing a persons’ intimate relationship choices.

Rose on February 13, 2012 at 6:09 PM

see how you switch the argument from religious freedom to something else. the bottom line is, that pacifist religions are completely trounced in their central beliefs by being forced to pay taxes that pay wars.
what you are accepting is that the US laws are greater than the god ordained morals of some religions.

nathor on February 13, 2012 at 6:25 PM

When followers of a particular sect enter into commercial activity as a matter of choice, the limits they accept on their own conduct as a matter of conscience and faith are not to be superimposed on the statutory schemes which are binding on others in that activity.

nathor on February 13, 2012 at 6:06 PM

Please explain how a charitable organization set up to better administer to the poor, as an outreach of the Church, can be considered a commercial activity.

Also, please explain how this commercial activity supersedes the 1st Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

After all, you’re arguing that charitable acts, such as caring and providing for the poor, are not an exercise of the Church… even though hundreds of years of practice say otherwise.

dominigan on February 13, 2012 at 6:26 PM

There goes the women vote…

liberal4life on February 13, 2012 at 5:34 PM

I’m a woman.
You want to kill your baby in the womb?
You want BC?
FINE-YOU pay for it.
It ain’t the taxpayers responsibility to pay for your refusal to shut your legs.
And FYI: I’m a Catholic who’s against abortion but SUPPORTS BC.

annoyinglittletwerp on February 13, 2012 at 6:28 PM

see how you switch the argument from religious freedom to something else. the bottom line is, that pacifist religions are completely trounced in their central beliefs by being forced to pay taxes that pay wars.
what you are accepting is that the US laws are greater than the god ordained morals of some religions.

nathor on February 13, 2012 at 6:25 PM

Defense of the nation is constitutionally mandated. Conscientious objectors don’t have to serve.

darwin on February 13, 2012 at 6:29 PM

the bottom line is, that pacifist religions are completely trounced in their central beliefs by being forced to pay taxes that pay wars.

nathor on February 13, 2012 at 6:25 PM

The analogy is broken. This is not like doing something to which a religion objects with some of their flock’s tax money (religions themselves are not taxed, partly for this very reason).

This is like drafting the parishes and Catholic hospitals to raise an army of parishoners that will report to the President for deployment to the Middle East.

HitNRun on February 13, 2012 at 6:30 PM

This issue will be a political loser for the GOP as well as the bishops themselves. I don’t know if Andrew Sullivan is right about this being a calculated move by the President, but it will work for him anyway.

Drew Lowell on February 13, 2012 at 6:30 PM

And FYI: I’m not a Catholic because even though I’m who’s against abortion but I still SUPPORTS BC.

annoyinglittletwerp on February 13, 2012 at 6:28 PM

FIFY

CycloneCDB on February 13, 2012 at 6:31 PM

They’re not “accomodations” … it’s called freedom of religion. When one freedom goes all the rest are sure to follow.

You’re not a libertarian … I don’t know what you are. You seem obsessed with the Catholic church, you’re an abortion advocate … not “choice”, but an advocate and you pick and choose liberties according to how they fit your view.

You’re nuts, but you’re not a libertarian.

darwin on February 13, 2012 at 6:21 PM

what you fail to grasp, is that in the end, all religions and the individual morals view of all citizens of this country are somehow , merged together in our legal code. I contribute to it with my opinion and vote and I am proud of following these laws even if I advocate against some of them.
libertarians also deeply believe in the rule of law.

nathor on February 13, 2012 at 6:32 PM

what you are accepting is that the US laws are greater than the god ordained morals of some religions.

nathor on February 13, 2012 at 6:25 PM

Rights, my dear Nathor, are granted by God, not by man [which comprise virtually all governments].

PatriotGal2257 on February 13, 2012 at 6:32 PM

nathor on February 13, 2012 at 5:53 PM

Hmm. Send that one off to Cindy Sheehan, who claims not to have paid a penny of taxes since her son died.

Given that the law itself allows an exemption for religious reasons — albeit only for those who are willing to state that they will never claim Social Security or Medicare even though they pay into these plans — there’s a chink in the armor, so to speak, that the adroit Church may seek to expoit.

After all, if the Amish can have their half-assed exemption, so should the Catholics.

unclesmrgol on February 13, 2012 at 6:33 PM

FIFY

CycloneCDB on February 13, 2012 at 6:31 PM

No-you didn’t.
I had my tubal in ’97 and joined the Church in 2010.
BC is no longer an issue for me. Hasn’t been for a long time.
I was born Jewish and was raised not to blindly follow ANYONE.
Edith Stein-my patron saint-was also born Jewish.
My guess is that even in the gas chambers-she was murdered @ Auschwitz-she still retained some of the independent thought.

annoyinglittletwerp on February 13, 2012 at 6:35 PM

nathor on February 13, 2012 at 6:25 PM

Your argument is weak. There is no constitutional right for the government to collect any taxes or fees to subsidize a person’s sex life. War is a national event that affects the whole country, so there is a common cause that all must contribute to.

Rose on February 13, 2012 at 6:35 PM

sorry I have to be more familiar with the story to give you an answer.

nathor on February 13, 2012 at 6:16 PM

Jefferson’s letter mentioning the “separation of church and state” was written and/or sent on 01/01/02 (I am not gonna look it up again now.) He apparently went to the House of Representative’s church on 01/01/02 and/or 01/03/02.

Was the existence of that HoR’s church a violation of the Constitution in your opinion? If so, what does that say to you about Jefferson’s support of it?

The point I’m trying to make is that you sound like a church/state separation extremist who can’t reasonably square Jefferson’s own behavior which intertwined our government and religion with your provincial understanding of what he meant when he used the phrase “separation of church and state”. 0bamessiah’s arrogant administration got a 9-0 beatdown by the USSC last month over a similar situation – I can see it happening again over the current issue.

Bizarro No. 1 on February 13, 2012 at 6:36 PM

what you fail to grasp, is that in the end, all religions and the individual morals view of all citizens of this country are somehow , merged together in our legal code. I contribute to it with my opinion and vote and I am proud of following these laws even if I advocate against some of them.
libertarians also deeply believe in the rule of law.

nathor on February 13, 2012 at 6:32 PM

Then you approve of ObamaCare then. You’re quite the advocate for government imposing itself not only on the Catholic Church, but the public in general with it’s abortion mandates.

You’re not a libertarian. Libertarians support liberty.

darwin on February 13, 2012 at 6:36 PM

Defense of the nation is constitutionally mandated. Conscientious objectors don’t have to serve.

darwin on February 13, 2012 at 6:29 PM

conscentious objectors can escape wars but not escape the taxes that pays those wars. in the same way, the catholic church is not forced to use contraception but they cannot be exempt of being taxed or follow regulations that pay it.

nathor on February 13, 2012 at 6:36 PM

I’ll say this for Obama–when he chooses an enemy he goes right to the top. Now, is it stupidity or arrogance?

jeanie on February 13, 2012 at 6:37 PM

FIFY

CycloneCDB on February 13, 2012 at 6:31 PM

No-you didn’t.
I had my tubal in ’97 and joined the Church in 2010.
BC is no longer an issue for me. Hasn’t been for a long time.
I was born Jewish and was raised not to blindly follow ANYONE.
Edith Stein-my patron saint-was also born Jewish.
My guess is that even in the gas chambers-she was murdered @ Auschwitz-she still retained some of the independent thought.

annoyinglittletwerp on February 13, 2012 at 6:35 PM

Look – I agree with you. I believe the EXACT same thing you believe in this vane. But – for that reason alone – I CANNOT say I am Catholic any more than I can say I am young, handsome, and skinny.

Was not meant to be confrontational at all – and I can honestly say I really enjoy reading your contributions to the threads on here – but…you’re not Catholic.

CycloneCDB on February 13, 2012 at 6:38 PM

Then you approve of ObamaCare then. You’re quite the advocate for government imposing itself not only on the Catholic Church, but the public in general with it’s abortion mandates.

You’re not a libertarian. Libertarians support liberty.

darwin on February 13, 2012 at 6:36 PM

libertarians follow laws even if they dont agree with them, as almoust everyone else that believes in the rule of law. what is wrong with you!? are you an anarchist?

nathor on February 13, 2012 at 6:38 PM

Interesting reading, reflecting the current view of the Supreme Court Justices on the separation of church and state:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-553.pdf

unclesmrgol on February 13, 2012 at 6:39 PM

CycloneCDB on February 13, 2012 at 6:38 PM

I can see your point. Sorry for jumping on you.
I HAVE changed my mind on the morning-after pill.
I used to support its use-but now I don’t.

annoyinglittletwerp on February 13, 2012 at 6:42 PM

I just can’t wait to see what impact images on TV of jailing priests and nuns over opposing this HHS rule will have on the Hispanic vote in places like Nevada, Colorado, Ohio and Florida.

txmomof6 on February 13, 2012 at 6:42 PM

Feb. 12, 2012: The DAY Obama LOST the ELECTION.Yesterday after masses across the country, Bishops’ letters condemning Obama’s “accommodation. Our Bishop’s letter (posted in the link) was so strongly worded, I suspect excommunication, exorcism, or a combination of both will be the next step. And several of the parishioners didn’t think the letter went far enough!!!

Mutnodjmet on February 13, 2012 at 6:44 PM

The point I’m trying to make is that you sound like a church/state separation extremist who can’t reasonably square Jefferson’s own behavior which intertwined our government and religion with your provincial understanding of what he meant when he used the phrase “separation of church and state”. 0bamessiah’s arrogant administration got a 9-0 beatdown by the USSC last month over a similar situation – I can see it happening again over the current issue.

Bizarro No. 1 on February 13, 2012 at 6:36 PM

I would see myself as a secularist who accepts religious people being in power but not laws mandating support of any religious sect.

nathor on February 13, 2012 at 6:44 PM

a desire to reclaim for themselves their freedom and to proclaim their dignity by self-discipline

Quite pithy and succinct. A hundred years ago (and for every century before that) this would not be an issue. Given the current age’s preoccupation with reproductive technologies, people today can’t fathom how generations before us managed to endure and even thrive. Perhaps those lives were grounded in a level of dignity that we don’t even recognize as possible.

Mark30339 on February 13, 2012 at 6:46 PM

CycloneCDB on February 13, 2012 at 6:38 PM

I can see your point. Sorry for jumping on you.
I HAVE changed my mind on the morning-after pill.
I used to support its use-but now I don’t.

annoyinglittletwerp on February 13, 2012 at 6:42 PM

I think the RCC’s stance on BC is silly.

To say that a MARRIED couple using BC is a sin is to say that a married couple having relations at a time in the woman’s cycle when they are certain she will not get pregnant is a sin. There is no discernable difference.

CycloneCDB on February 13, 2012 at 6:49 PM

Mudnodmet:
The Bishop of the Diocese of Lubbock ain’t too happy either.

annoyinglittletwerp on February 13, 2012 at 6:52 PM

CycloneCDB on February 13, 2012 at 6:49 PM

What’s ironic is that the Church DOES allow things like tubals if having more children will put the mother’s life @ SERIOUS risk.
That reason could have applied to me-easily.

annoyinglittletwerp on February 13, 2012 at 6:54 PM

see how you switch the argument from religious freedom to something else. the bottom line is, that pacifist religions are completely trounced in their central beliefs by being forced to pay taxes that pay wars.
what you are accepting is that the US laws are greater than the god ordained morals of some religions.

nathor on February 13, 2012 at 6:25 PM

How odd.
Switching the argument is just what you did. Then you added the strawman of taxes and war…topped it off with the bait and switch of “pacifism”. Where did you get the idea that religion = no war? You then covered your behind by the qualifier of “some religions” Surely you can see the flaws in your reasoning?

Mimzey on February 13, 2012 at 7:03 PM

After all, you’re arguing that charitable acts, such as caring and providing for the poor, are not an exercise of the Church… even though hundreds of years of practice say otherwise.

dominigan on February 13, 2012 at 6:26 PM

i think this contraception exception is to be given to seminars, churches and maybe some charitable works. catholic hospitals and schools that employ non catholics and are definitely not charity, should have no exception.

nathor on February 13, 2012 at 7:06 PM

I think the RCC’s stance on BC is silly.

To say that a MARRIED couple using BC is a sin is to say that a married couple having relations at a time in the woman’s cycle when they are certain she will not get pregnant is a sin. There is no discernable difference.

CycloneCDB on February 13, 2012 at 6:49 PM

Since this used to be a free country, my response would have been, well fine you are free to have that opinion and exercise your beliefs religious or otherwise as you choose. Just don’t force others who have other beliefs you deem silly to violate those beliefs. See it is simple really, and why we have thrived as a pluralistic society for over 200 years. Obama seeks to change that for whatever reason and the fact that he is causing fights amongst even conservatives on a conservative blog over something that has been an accepted part of American life for decades is evidence of his destructiveness.

txmomof6 on February 13, 2012 at 7:07 PM

To say that a MARRIED couple using BC is a sin is to say that a married couple having relations at a time in the woman’s cycle when they are certain she will not get pregnant is a sin. There is no discernable difference.

CycloneCDB on February 13, 2012 at 6:49 PM

That really is another topic.
An individual has free choice.

The moral teachings of any particular religion are something else.
The 1st Amendment to the Constitution restricts the government from having any part or power in demanding a “compromise” of them.

Its really not that complicated. It can be made to appear that it is…but in the real world it is not.

Mimzey on February 13, 2012 at 7:09 PM

Perhaps someone more knowledgable than I can explicate, but my interpretation of Scalia’s ruling is that claims of exemption based on religon do not trump everything, not that they are never valid. For example, I can easily understand how the court might not uphold my right to sell narcotics to children regardless of whether I claim that my faith demands it.

In the case of national defense the argument is straightforward – national defense is a public good (non-rivalrous, non-exclusive)and so allowing a religious exemption would create a free-rider problem that could not be solved. Allowing such exemptions would make government impossible.

In the case of the Catholic Church and Obamacare, no such issue exists. The provision of abortion inducing drugs is neither non-rivalrous nor non-exclusive, so opting out does hinder the ability of government to function.

Also, the Church is not “entering into a commercial activity as a matter of choice”. The government is coercing the purchase of insurance with fines, hardly a matter of choice.

It is interesting to note that the government’s position with regard to Obamacare individual mandates is that both doing something and not doing something constitutes commerce – interstate commerce, in fact – so there is no such thing as deciding NOT to engage in commerce. So, by its lights, you are engaged in commerce regardless of your actions, and the government faces no limits (e.g. religious, in this instance) on its power to coerce those so engaged.

jl on February 13, 2012 at 7:09 PM

Comment pages: 1 2