Breaking: 43 Catholic institutions file suits over HHS mandate

posted at 12:01 pm on May 21, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

Today’s Roman Catholic calendar lists May 21st as the feast day of St. Christopher Magallanes, a martyr killed for celebrating Mass during the Cristero War in Mexico. Perhaps Catholics today may want to recall St. Thomas More — the patron saint of lawyers, who was executed for refusing to agree to a mandate that gave Henry VIII the prerogative of defining religious expression in England.  Dozens of Catholic institutions filed lawsuits today against the Department of Health and Human Services over its mandate and its narrow definition of religious practice:

Catholic archdioceses and institutions filed suit in federal district courts across the country Monday against the so-called contraception mandate, claiming their “fundamental rights hang in the balance.”

The plaintiffs include a host of schools and organizations, including the University of Notre Dame and the Archdiocese of New York. The lawsuits, though related, were filed individually.

The schools are objecting to the requirement from the federal health care overhaul that employers provide access to contraceptive care. The Obama administration several months back softened its position on the mandate, but some religious organizations complained the administration did not go far enough to ensure the rule would not compel them to violate their religious beliefs.

Kathryn Jean Lopez posts a brief statement from Timothy Cardinal Dolan, president of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops and one of the chief critics of the HHS mandate:

We have tried negotiation with the Administration and legislation with the Congress – and we’ll keep at it – but there’s still no fix. Time is running out, and our valuable ministries and fundamental rights hang in the balance, so we have to resort to the courts now. Though the Conference is not a party to the lawsuits, we applaud this courageous action by so many individual dioceses, charities, hospitals and schools across the nation, in coordination with the law firm of Jones Day. It is also a compelling display of the unity of the Church in defense of religious liberty. It’s also a great show of the diversity of the Church’s ministries that serve the common good and that are jeopardized by the mandate – ministries to the poor, the sick, and the uneducated, to people of any faith or no faith at all.

The institutions filing lawsuits don’t just comprise a few ultraconservative institutions, either.  The University of Notre Dame hosted a speech by President Barack Obama in 2009, but today insists that Obama and his administration are attacking religious freedom in their complaint:

This lawsuit is about one of America’s most cherished freedoms: the freedom to practice one’s religion without government interference. It is not about whether people have a right to abortion-inducing drugs, sterilization, and contraception. Those services are, and will continue to be, freely available in the United States, and nothing prevents the Government itself from making them more widely available. But the right to such services does not authorize the Government to force the University of Notre Dame (“Notre Dame”) to violate its own conscience by making it provide, pay for, and/or facilitate those services to others, contrary to itssincerely held religious beliefs. …

If the Government can force religious institutions to violate their beliefs in such a manner, there is no apparent limit to the Government’s power. Such an oppression  of religious freedom violates Notre Dame’s clearly established constitutional and statutory rights.

The First Amendment also prohibits the Government from becoming excessively entangled in religious affairs and from interfering with a religious institution’s internal decisions concerning the organization’s religious structure, ministers, or doctrine. The U.S. Government Mandate tramples all of these rights.

Franciscan University also filed suit, and its president Father Terence Henry published this video statement:

Noting that Franciscan University did not go looking for this battle, Father Henry said the University retained Jones Day, one of the world’s largest law firms, with whom the University has had a relationship for the past twenty years, “because it has the resources to fight the government as long as it takes, and we will settle for no less than a restoration of our First Amendment right to freedom of religion.”

Father Henry concluded, “Under no circumstances can Catholics be both in compliance with this new law and at the same time live the faith that we believe. Franciscan University will continue to stand with the Church in its opposition to this mandate. Our ancestors came to America because they knew that on these shores they would be free to faithfully live what they believed. This mandate is not only a grave infringement on religious liberty; it is a betrayal of those who sacrificed to make this country what it is today.”

All of this probably makes the New York Times’ analysis of how Obama will win Catholic votes little more than wishful thinking.  This oppressive move may well cast Catholics off from the Democratic Party for a generation.  This will be a “come to Jesus” moment for many Catholics, and a wake-up call to the USCCB about the nature of government mandates in general.

Update: The Anchoress links to the “strong editorial” of the publication Our Sunday Visitor:

It seems to us hardly a coincidence that this suit is taking place in our centennial year. Founded 100 years ago by then-Father John Noll, Our Sunday Visitor from its beginning sought to inform Catholics about the issues of the day, form them in the Faith, and defend that Faith from attack. It was Father John Noll who stood up to those who attacked Catholic immigrants as un-American and seditious. It was Father John Noll who faced down false preachers who spread slanders about the Church. It was Father John Noll who resisted the power of the Ku Klux Klan when it was such a powerful political force. And it is in his courageous spirit that we invoke as we engage in this great struggle today.

We know that many Americans — and even many Catholics — are confused about this debate. Politicians and elements of the news media have sought to make it a war against women or contraception, and they have portrayed the Church as seeking to impose its values on others or as being covertly political.

We also acknowledge that many Catholics do not understand the reasons for the Church’s moral opposition to contraception, sterilization and abortion-inducing drugs. This lack of understanding points to a significant catechetical need that the Church should address internally.

We reiterate, however, that this is not about the legality of such practices in society, nor is it about how many Catholics understand the Church’s position. It is about the Church’s right to practice what it preaches.

This is a critical moment for religious freedom in the US.  If the federal government can define religious expression, then it can control or even outlaw it.

Update II: LifeNews has a statement from Notre Dame’s president, Fr. John Jenkins, who extended the invitation to Obama in the first place:

Let me say very clearly what this lawsuit is not about:  it is not about preventing women from having access to contraception, nor even about preventing the Government from providing such services.  Many of our faculty, staff and students — both Catholic and non-Catholic — have made conscientious decisions to use contraceptives.  As we assert the right to follow our conscience, we respect their right to follow theirs.  And we believe that, if the Government wishes to provide such services, means are available that do not compel religious organizations to serve as its agents.  We do not seek to impose our religious beliefs on others; we simply ask that the Government not impose its values on the University when those values conflict with our religious teachings. We have engaged in conversations to find a resolution that respects the consciences of all and we will continue to do so.

This filing is about the freedom of a religious organization to live its mission, and its significance goes well beyond any debate about contraceptives.  For if we concede that the Government can decide which religious organizations are sufficiently religious to be awarded the freedom to follow the principles that define their mission, then we have begun to walk down a path that ultimately leads to the undermining of those institutions.  For if one Presidential Administration can override our religious purpose and use religious organizations to advance policies that undercut our values, then surely another Administration will do the same for another very different set of policies, each time invoking some concept of popular will or the public good, with the result these religious organizations become mere tools for the exercise of government power, morally subservient to the state, and not free from its infringements.  If that happens, it will be the end of genuinely religious organizations in all but name.

Indeed.  And as some have suggested, the administration’s arrogance and obstinacy in dealing with this issue raises the question of whether that’s not their preferred outcome anyway.

Update III: Replaced “its” with “Notre Dame’s” in Update II to clarify reference.


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 3 4

theCork on May 21, 2012 at 4:33 PM

Bull.

The evidence against More’s many false charges is vast and documented.

mankai on May 21, 2012 at 4:37 PM

No propaganda like old, discredited propaganda. The claims of torture were made-up during his trial. He denied them and no proof was offered.

And of the prosecution of the followers of Tyndale: That was ordered by King Henry VIII. He disliked the radically edited scripture that Tyndale produced.

theCork on May 21, 2012 at 4:33 PM

Not to mention that Huldrych Zwingli, Martin Luther, John Calvin, John Knox, and Henry VII all ordered, promoted, or condoned executions in the name of their religions. But you will rarely hear about any of that.

steebo77 on May 21, 2012 at 4:38 PM

The evidence against More’s many false charges is vast and documented.

mankai on May 21, 2012 at 4:37 PM

Because John Foxe is such an impartial authority on the subject…

steebo77 on May 21, 2012 at 4:40 PM

And of the prosecution of the followers of Tyndale: That was ordered by King Henry VIII. He disliked the radically edited scripture that Tyndale produced.

theCork on May 21, 2012 at 4:33 PM

Finally! Something that isn’t GWB’s fault!

Seriously, translating the Bible into English was a huge deal. Those in the church and monarchy didn’t necessarily want just anybody to be able to read the Bible. I went to the King James exhibit that was at Oxford and then at the Folger Shakespeare Library. Very interesting if it comes to a town near you on its tour of the United States. My particular favorite was the “Wicked Bible” who includes the commandment- Thou shall commit adultery.

Happy Nomad on May 21, 2012 at 4:43 PM

surely the approval of Popessa Nanzi and her big huge gavel/stick should be sufficient for most catholics…

while i agree that obamacare is an affront to freedom- religious and otherwise- and needs to be utterly stamped out: again-why didn’t they sue in MA over 6 years ago over romneycare? it’s the trojan horse that opened the door for this abomination.

mittens on May 21, 2012 at 4:44 PM

The evidence against More’s many false charges is vast and documented.

mankai on May 21, 2012 at 4:37 PM

Because John Foxe is such an impartial authority on the subject…

steebo77 on May 21, 2012 at 4:40 PM

Yeah, nice try.

How about More’s documented time as Chancellor? Even those sympathetic to More have to make excuses for his role in the burning of “heretics”.

mankai on May 21, 2012 at 4:44 PM

For the benefit of the ignorant: the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops doesn’t speak for the Church. Catholic health care organizations don’t speak for the Church. Catholic educational institutions don’t speak for the Church. Catholics in high office don’t speak for the Church.

Only one person speaks for the Church. He’s the guy who wrote the Catechism, soon to be available in samizdat at an alley near you.

spiritof61 on May 21, 2012 at 4:47 PM

OT-

Please, y’all who pray, take a moment to pray for the safe return to her family of one of our local girls, 21-y.o. college student Mickey Shunick.

She disappeared early Saturday after leaving to ride her bike back to her home in Lafayette, La. It’s all over the news and there’s a $10,000 reward. The radio is asking us, if we can’t join in the search team, to take a walk around our neighborhoods.

Horrible time for her family.

Thanks.

cane_loader on May 21, 2012 at 4:49 PM

do their plans cover viagra? if so, why?
why do these institutions continue to accept federal funds?

Pragmatic on May 21, 2012 at 4:30 PM

Why shouldn’t the plans cover Vi agra? Isn’t ED a medical condition? Aren’t these plans for more than just clergy, so a lay person may want to get Vi agra, if necessary? Does the church oppose Vi agra in any and all cases?

Why is this canard such a widely spread argument, since it is so stupid?

cptacek on May 21, 2012 at 4:57 PM

do their plans cover [filtered word]? if so, why?
why do these institutions continue to accept federal funds?

Pragmatic on May 21, 2012 at 4:30 PM

Why shouldn’t these plans cover that pill? Lay people who do not take vows of chastity might be covered under this insurance. The Catholic church is not against people having sex, they just teach that it should be within the bonds of marriage, and that those engaging in it should be open to children, should conception occur. The church is not against that pill, so it has no bearing on this question of law.

Why is this canard used as a counter argument so often, since it is such a stupid argument?

cptacek on May 21, 2012 at 5:01 PM

Oh what a disgrace if such a despicable and base man, who hates America and it’s constitution and all Christians and all Jews, and worships himself, should be allowed to assault a people which has the faith of omnipotent God! With what reproaches will the Lord overwhelm us if we do not promptly and fully aid those who’s conscience is being brutalized and murdered because they profess the Holy Roman Catholic religion! Let those who have been accustomed unjustly to wage private warfare against other of the faithful now all unite and go against the tyrant in a Holy Crusade and end with total victory in November!

Let those who have been in service of this tyrant against their own brothers and sisters now fight in a proper way against this tyrant. Let those who have been wearing themselves out in both body and soul in vain attempt to appease him now labor for glorious honor against him. Behold! On the one side will be the completely destroyed tyrant, on the other the fierce and righteous protectors of the Constitution and Christianity. On the one side will be the destroyed enemy of the Lord, on the other, his friends who will shout at the tyrant as they destroy him in November, “It is for the Founding Fathers! It is for the Founding Fathers! It is for the Founding Fathers!” and “It is the will of God! It is the will of God! It is the will of God!”

RasThavas on May 21, 2012 at 5:31 PM

Trying hard to feel sorry for Notre Dame after inviting the vampire into their house.

CycloneCDB on May 21, 2012 at 5:34 PM

Trying hard to feel sorry for Notre Dame after inviting the vampire into their house.

CycloneCDB on May 21, 2012 at 5:34 PM

I tried and failed, so I gave up trying.

gryphon202 on May 21, 2012 at 5:40 PM

That SOB Obama must be removed from office come the elections. This is the only solution to his reign of terror.

Down with tyranny!

Down with Obama whatever his name and wherever he comes from and whatever actual grades he got at whatever actual schools he attended and allegedly graduated from!!

Sherman1864 on May 21, 2012 at 5:41 PM

do their plans cover viagra? if so, why?
why do these institutions continue to accept federal funds?

Pragmatic on May 21, 2012 at 4:30 PM

@Prag: Viagra does not terminate life, that is the BIG difference.

It is important to differentiate between Catholics and practicing Catholics. The former, in particular, have shown that they have the ability to forgive the Democrat Party for virtually anything.

Happy Nomad on May 21, 2012 at 4:35 PM

Amen to that. Observant Catholics would never, ever support Obamacare. Forget Biden and Pelosi, who are Catholic in name only.

chai on May 21, 2012 at 5:48 PM

Only now does Notre Dame care about what Obama does. When they had a chance to distance themselves from him, they jumped at the chance to worship that false god. Shame on Notre Dame’s leader, lover of Obama! I say this aa a faithful Catholic, one who actually believes in the teachings of the Church and not the teachings of Obama.

BillCarson on May 21, 2012 at 5:49 PM

RasThavas on May 21, 2012 at 5:31 PM

And there will be trolls and rumors of trolls, and yet by their overwrought and hyperbolic language ye shall know them, and know that I am the LORD

spiritof61 on May 21, 2012 at 6:01 PM

Government shouldn’t help Catholics be good Catholics.

segasagez on May 21, 2012 at 12:53 PM

What a crock of BS. This isn’t about Government helping Catholics, this is about Government abridging their religious freedoms. These contraception requirements amount to the government forcing Catholics to be ‘Bad Catholics.’ You’ve got it backwards.

Corporal Tunnel on May 21, 2012 at 6:10 PM

We also acknowledge that many Catholics do not understand the reasons for the Church’s moral opposition to contraception, sterilization and abortion-inducing drugs.

What about IVF? The Catholic Church is as hypocritical as they come. They did not mention they are against IVF as well in this statement. IVF allows many people to have kids. The disease is infertility. IVF treatments are very expensive. They do not bring it up because it would go against their marketing message. Come on Catholics, don’t be cowards and bring up IVF as well.

ZippyZ on May 21, 2012 at 6:11 PM

Could Obama have chosen a more adamant supporter of abortion than Sebelius? Yet she is Catholic.

In 2008, Archbishop Joseph Naumann of Kansas City reportedly told Sebelius, a Roman Catholic, to stop receiving the Eucharist until she publicly recants her position on abortion and makes a “worthy sacramental confession.”

Did she do this? Has anything else been done? When will the likes of Pelosi, etc., be told this?

INC on May 21, 2012 at 6:11 PM

Make no mistake, I support these lawsuits and hope other religious groups join them; however, IMO a two-prong assault in which the Catholic Church publicly addresses nationally known Catholic politicians who are pro-abortion is also warranted.

INC on May 21, 2012 at 6:13 PM

I’ll bet my paycheck that Georgetown was not one of the 43 Catholic Institutions!!!

Natebo on May 21, 2012 at 6:32 PM

How about More’s documented time as Chancellor? Even those sympathetic to More have to make excuses for his role in the burning of “heretics”.

mankai on May 21, 2012 at 4:44 PM

Six were burned while he was chancellor. As terrible as that sounds, that was the justice of the time. How many Catholics were martyred under King Henry VIII, Cromwell and Queen Elizabeth? Which is more cruel, a death which is over in minutes (however painful), or a death which goes on for three days or more?

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Clitherow for reference

theCork on May 21, 2012 at 6:43 PM

Could Obama have chosen a more adamant supporter of abortion than Sebelius? Yet she is Catholic.

True enough, and the laxity in catechesis is the real culprit, not to mention leftist clerics and a left leaning USCCB courting “social justice” instead of “salvation” the Church’s prime mission.

Sebelius Catholic? I suppose one could argue that Judas was a hand chosen apostle too…..

Don L on May 21, 2012 at 6:45 PM

The government will argue that it has a vested interest in the health of its citizens, and religious freedom does not trump that interest.

segasagez on May 21, 2012 at 1:35 PM

Sweetie, there is nothing in the Constitution that says the government’s interest in the health of its citizens trumps religious freedom. It would appear the founders had the opposite intent.

You seem to be inanely or wilfully missing the point. The church is not trying to deny anyone contraception. The church is refusing to pay for something which violates its beliefs. See the difference yet?

Say the Democratic party decided that people should kill dogs and eat them and this was good for their health as the people would absorb the qualities of the dogs they ate, and dogmeat is a low fat protein and has lots of vitamins, etc. Then say that the government required all employers to kill dogs for their employees to eat and provide dogmeat for consumption on a daily basis. Then say an employer attempted to claim this violated their beliefs. According to you, the government’s interest in the health of its citizens gives it the right to force employers to kill dogs for their employees to eat.

The position of the Catholic church and most posters here is that people can eat dogs (use contraception) on their own if they want, but they can’t make the Catholic church kill the dogs (buy the contraceptives).

talkingpoints on May 21, 2012 at 6:48 PM

It is important to differentiate between Catholics and practicing Catholics. The former, in particular, have shown that they have the ability to forgive the Democrat Party for virtually anything.

Happy Nomad on May 21, 2012 at 4:35 PM

Good point. In my (utterly unscientific and personal) experience, the church-going Catholics I know are not of the cafeteria variety. Their views are diametrically opposite to Biden and Pelosi’s when it comes to things like the sanctity of life and gay ‘marriage’, amongst other things.

CorporatePiggy on May 21, 2012 at 7:35 PM

Does anybody have a link to a complete list of the plaintiffs? I haven’t seen one yet.

Ward Cleaver on May 21, 2012 at 12:18 PM

1. D.D.C. Lawsuit
o Archdiocese of Washington
o Consortium of Catholic Academies
o Archbishop Carroll High School
o Catholic Charities of D.C.
o The Catholic University of America

2. E.D.N.Y. Lawsuit
o Diocese of Rockville Centre
o Catholic Health Services of Long Island
o Catholic Charities of Rockville Centre
o Archdiocese of N.Y.
o ArchCare

3. W.D.Pa. (Erie Div.) Lawsuit
o Diocese of Erie
o St. Martin Center
o Prince of Peace Center

4. W.D.Pa. (Pitt. Div.) Lawsuit
o Diocese of Pittsburgh
o Catholic Charities of Diocese of Pittsburgh
o Catholic Cemeteries Association of Diocese of Pittsburgh

5. N.D.Tex. (Dallas Div.) Lawsuit
o Diocese of Dallas

6. N.D.Tex. (Fort Worth Div.) Lawsuit
o Diocese of Fort Worth

7. S.D. Ohio (Columbus Div.) Lawsuit
o Franciscan University of Steubenville
o Michigan Catholic Conference

8. S.D.Miss. (Gulfport Div.) Lawsuit
o Diocese of Jackson
o Catholic Charities of Jackson
o Vicksburg Catholic School
o St. Joseph’s Catholic School
o Diocese of Biloxi
o De l’Epee Deaf Center Inc.
o Catholic Social & Community Services Inc.
o Resurrection Catholic School
o Sacred Heart Catholic School
o St. Dominic Health Services

9. N.D.Ind. (South Bend Div.) Lawsuit
o The University of Notre Dame

10. N.D. Ind. (Fort Wayne Div.) Lawsuit
o Diocese of Fort Wayne-South Bend
o Catholic Charities of Fort Wayne-South Bend
o St. Anne Home
o Franciscan Alliance
o Our Sunday Visitor
o University of St. Francis

11. N.D.Ill. Lawsuit
o Diocese of Joliet
o Catholic Charities of Joliet
o Diocese of Springfield
o Catholic Charities of Springfield

12. E.D.Mo. (St. Louis Div.)
o Archdiocese of St. Louis
o Catholic Charities of St. Louis

http://www.catholicvote.org/discuss/index.php?p=30275

dukecitygirl on May 21, 2012 at 7:38 PM

The Catholic Church just launched multiple full spreads of photon torpedoes targeting the good ship HHS Mandate… I would expect a few to penetrate its anti-religion shields.

unclesmrgol on May 21, 2012 at 8:05 PM

do their plans cover viagra? if so, why?
why do these institutions continue to accept federal funds?

Pragmatic on May 21, 2012 at 4:30 PM

A: Yes, Viagra is offered by Obamacare. The Republicans attempted to introduce a rider to deny viagra or cialis coverage to convicted sex offenders, but the rider was voted down on a party line vote.

unclesmrgol on May 21, 2012 at 8:07 PM

Good.

The longer this stays in the news the worse it is for Obama. As long as Rush doesnt distract from the message of this, which is an attack on Freedom of Religion, then this should be an easy win for the GOP.

Blu3Yeti on May 21, 2012 at 8:27 PM

CorporatePiggy on May 21, 2012 at 7:35 PM

Catholics and Protestants have different accounting systems.

Once a Catholic, always a Catholic even if you don’t practice the faith. Protestants- You pretty much have to be practicing to claim it.

Happy Nomad on May 21, 2012 at 8:36 PM

We also acknowledge that many Catholics do not understand the reasons for the Church’s moral opposition to contraception, sterilization and abortion-inducing drugs.

What about IVF? The Catholic Church is as hypocritical as they come. They did not mention they are against IVF as well in this statement. IVF allows many people to have kids. The disease is infertility. IVF treatments are very expensive. They do not bring it up because it would go against their marketing message. Come on Catholics, don’t be cowards and bring up IVF as well.

ZippyZ on May 21, 2012 at 6:11 PM

talk about an ignorant arguement…. the catholic church is against IVF because it is during this process that MULTIPLE eggs are fertilized many of which are DESTROYED. therefore causing the death of an unborn child. yes ivf helps women get pregnant … but they fertilize 20 eggs to ensure they get atleast 3-5 usable ones to ensure the best results for pregnancy then they destroy the remaining 15 …. thats 15 DEAD BABIES. (not a doctor so used the numbers as an example so dont take those numbers for fact. just trying to make my point) so no the church is NOT being hypocritical in its stance on ivf

katee bayer on May 21, 2012 at 8:49 PM

Unfortunately a lot of truth to your comments. I listened to our Pastor in his homily yesterday state that health care is a right and that we shouldn’t have the obscenely wealthy while others are destitute. This on top of the poster in the narthex for “Social Justice” with an African mother and child imposed on a footprint and the question “who are you crushing with your carbon footprint”.
Health care should be accessible to all, but not required by law to be purchased. Who determines what is obscene when it comes to wealth? How is my carbon footprint trampling that mother and child in Africa?
That very same Pastor has no problem looking for a sizeable donation from my husband and I when he needs a new church built, renovations on the rectory, etc. My wealth cannot be both evil and good!

LynnB74 on May 21, 2012 at 1:44 PM

Find another parish in your area with a pastor who upholds traditional Catholic teachings and dispenses with the “social-justice-carbon-footprint” guilt trip BS, because that’s precisely what it is. Next, write to your bishop with your concerns and tell him exactly why you are leaving that parish. This kind of thing from some pastors enrages me no end. My guess is that he misunderstands what true social justice means in the Catholic Church and is adopting the popular misinterpretation that weds it to the current conceit of regulative and redistributive policy.

This article from First Things author Michael Novak points out how it’s been misinterpreted by none other than Fredrich Hayek: Defining Social Justice.

PatriotGal2257 on May 21, 2012 at 8:59 PM

Or they could all declare that they are Muslims and be automatically exempt from having to provide any insurance since Obamacare exempts Muslims on the basis that Muslims say buying insurance is like gambling & their religion doesn’t allow gambling…unless you are about to blow up something then you can go to Vegas, gamble & party in a strip club.

batterup on May 21, 2012 at 9:24 PM

and under your logic that would be fine, because all it’d be doing is defining the “health care” that all insurance has to cover.

BKennedy on May 21, 2012 at 1:35 PM

I never said it was right, i said it was legal.

And if mandating this is legal, scenarios exist where ridiculous things could be mandated. However, our elected officials are ultimately responsible to the people that elected them. If those people disagree with the decisions our officials have made, we can put into power new ones.

segasagez on May 21, 2012 at 1:45 PM

RU insane or RU 486?

acyl72 on May 21, 2012 at 9:35 PM

Once a Catholic, always a Catholic even if you don’t practice the faith. Protestants- You pretty much have to be practicing to claim it.

Happy Nomad on May 21, 2012 at 8:36 PM

Somewhat mischaracterized: You may be a nominal Catholic, like Nancy Pelosi. But a true and practicing Catholic does not believe in abortion or the many other sins that nominals commit, like not going to Mass weekly, etc. So if you don’t practice the faith you are obviously not well catechized and hence, don’t know what you are doing….

chai on May 21, 2012 at 9:50 PM

Sweet!

Red State State of Mind on May 21, 2012 at 10:03 PM

What about IVF? The Catholic Church is as hypocritical as they come. They did not mention they are against IVF as well in this statement. IVF allows many people to have kids. The disease is infertility. IVF treatments are very expensive. They do not bring it up because it would go against their marketing message. Come on Catholics, don’t be cowards and bring up IVF as well.

ZippyZ on May 21, 2012 at 6:11 PM

I’ll do it. I am against IVF in all cases. I faced infertility and chose a different method to conceive my son (Creighton Model NFP) and if that had not worked, I would have accepted the fact that I was not to be a mother except for the saint I have looking out for my family in heaven.

IVF is not natural and is not moral.

cptacek on May 21, 2012 at 10:21 PM

^I should have said NaPro Technology, which uses Creighton as a portion of the diagnosis.

cptacek on May 21, 2012 at 10:53 PM

ZippyZ on May 21, 2012 at 6:11 PM

.

IVF is not natural and is not moral.

cptacek on May 21, 2012 at 10:21 PM

.
Lots of legitimate solutions from Medical Science are not “natural”.

IVF within a marriage relationship (husband’s sperm, wife’s egg), I’ve got no trouble with.
But IVF using a DONOR constitutes adultery every bit as much as the act of sexual intimacy outside of your marriage.

listens2glenn on May 21, 2012 at 11:06 PM

What about IVF? The Catholic Church is as hypocritical as they come. They did not mention they are against IVF as well in this statement. IVF allows many people to have kids. The disease is infertility. IVF treatments are very expensive. They do not bring it up because it would go against their marketing message. Come on Catholics, don’t be cowards and bring up IVF as well.

ZippyZ on May 21, 2012 at 6:11 PM

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

IVF is not natural and is not moral.
cptacek on May 21, 2012 at 10:21 PM

Even though it’s not talked about much any more, and seems to have been shunted into the background, there is still adoption for infertile Catholic couples to consider.

PatriotGal2257 on May 21, 2012 at 11:07 PM

cptacek on May 21, 2012 at 10:53 PM

I didn’t know that. I will look up Creighton.

There is a guy named Desmond Hatchett who has 30 kids with 11 different women. He wants his child support reduced. Google it.

He may not be Catholic but I see that birth control and abortion are not flying with some people.

Thank goodness for the pro-life crew.

IlikedAUH2O on May 21, 2012 at 11:07 PM

It is important to differentiate between Catholics and practicing Catholics. The former, in particular, have shown that they have the ability to forgive the Democrat Party for virtually anything.

Happy Nomad on May 21, 2012 at 4:35 PM

.
Good point. In my (utterly unscientific and personal) experience, the church-going Catholics I know are not of the cafeteria variety. Their views are diametrically opposite to Biden and Pelosi’s when it comes to things like the sanctity of life and gay ‘marriage’, amongst other things.

CorporatePiggy on May 21, 2012 at 7:35 PM
.

Catholics and Protestants have different accounting systems.

Once a Catholic, always a Catholic even if you don’t practice the faith. Protestants- You pretty much have to be practicing to claim it.

Happy Nomad on May 21, 2012 at 8:36 PM

.
Somewhat mischaracterized: You may be a nominal Catholic, like Nancy Pelosi. But a true and practicing Catholic does not believe in abortion or the many other sins that nominals commit, like not going to Mass weekly, etc. So if you don’t practice the faith you are obviously not well catechized and hence, don’t know what you are doing….

chai on May 21, 2012 at 9:50 PM

.
It’s important to differentiate between those claiming to be Christian believers and those who are.

Both Roman Catholic and Protestant denominations claim to be following the God of the Bible.
I’ve no doubt that many regular Church attendees have never personally accepted Jesus as Lord, just as I know of many who have. I use to go to those kind of churches.
Relationship with the Lord Jesus and the Heavenly Father God is an individual/personal relationship, not a corporate one.

Some individual Churches, or Church organizations may have “Different accounting systems”, but the Heavenly Father does not.
And he’s The One with the final say.

listens2glenn on May 21, 2012 at 11:28 PM

Lots of legitimate solutions from Medical Science are not “natural”.

IVF within a marriage relationship (husband’s sperm, wife’s egg), I’ve got no trouble with.
But IVF using a DONOR constitutes adultery every bit as much as the act of sexual intimacy outside of your marriage.

listens2glenn on May 21, 2012 at 11:06 PM

You’ve got the right to your beliefs but IVF is streng verboten in Catholic doctrine in all forms.

To wit (from the Catechism):

2377 Techniques involving only the married couple (homologous artificial insemination and fertilization) are perhaps less reprehensible, yet remain morally unacceptable. They dissociate the sexual act from the procreative act. The act which brings the child into existence is no longer an act by which two persons give themselves to one another, but one that “entrusts the life and identity of the embryo into the power of doctors and biologists and establishes the domination of technology over the origin and destiny of the human person. Such a relationship of domination is in itself contrary to the dignity and equality that must be common to parents and children.” “Under the moral aspect procreation is deprived of its proper perfection when it is not willed as the fruit of the conjugal act, that is to say, of the specific act of the spouses’ union . . . . Only respect for the link between the meanings of the conjugal act and respect for the unity of the human being make possible procreation in conformity with the dignity of the person.”

Aquarian on May 21, 2012 at 11:30 PM

Lots of legitimate solutions from Medical Science are not “natural”.

IVF within a marriage relationship (husband’s sperm, wife’s egg), I’ve got no trouble with.
But IVF using a DONOR constitutes adultery every bit as much as the act of sexual intimacy outside of your marriage.

listens2glenn on May 21, 2012 at 11:06 PM

You aren’t Catholic and I am :) So we are both being consistent within our belief systems.

I have a few problems with IVF…the leftover frozen embryos, which is a human life in a perpetual state of nothingness, the way some embrace selective pruning (don’t know the real term, but that is how I see it), the high incidence of it not working and the embryos dieing, the way that it separates the act of sex from the act of procreating.

cptacek on May 21, 2012 at 11:41 PM

I didn’t know that. I will look up Creighton.
IlikedAUH2O on May 21, 2012 at 11:07 PM

NaPro Technology uses the woman’s symptoms of fertility/infertility to heal the body and get it to naturally ovulate (and uses hormones/drugs/mucinex, etc., as prescribed by a NaPro doctor to help), and uses blood tests and other signs to help support the pregnancy. You don’t have to be Catholic to use it, but you will probably go to a Catholic Church to get training on learning the signs.

I am happy to talk about it if you want.

cptacek on May 21, 2012 at 11:45 PM

SOOO, does Obamacare mandate coverage for Bris milah (circumcision)?

Pole-Cat on May 22, 2012 at 12:19 AM

This will be a “come to Jesus” moment for many Catholics, and a wake-up call to the USCCB about the nature of government mandates in general.

I pray that this will happen. I have never understood Catholic’s propensity to vote Democratic. Hopefully they will now see the light.

Theophile on May 22, 2012 at 1:03 AM

I have a few problems with IVF…the leftover frozen embryos, which is a human life in a perpetual state of nothingness, the way some embrace selective pruning (don’t know the real term, but that is how I see it), the high incidence of it not working and the embryos dieing, the way that it separates the act of sex from the act of procreating.

cptacek on May 21, 2012 at 11:41 PM

.
You are correct about the human embryos being left-over and esteemed as “waste”. I hadn’t considered in my previous comment the fact that multiple embryos are conceived for just one pregnancy, and whatever is “extra” gets thrown-out.
I don’t believe it has to be that way, however.

But for couples who are having difficulty conceiving, the sex-act has already been removed from their attempts at procreation. That’s why they sought medical help.
But aside from having difficulty in conceiving the usual way, there’s no reason for anyone to be pursuing IVF.

listens2glenn on May 22, 2012 at 1:45 AM

I pray that this will happen. I have never understood Catholic’s propensity to vote Democratic. Hopefully they will now see the light.

Theophile on May 22, 2012 at 1:03 AM

A misunderstanding of the true nature of charity and compassion, and Jesus’ commanding us to observe them individually as acts of free will, not government coercion.

swinia sutki on May 22, 2012 at 9:52 AM

Sadly here in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles the official word is mum. Not a peep from the pulpit or in the bulletin at my parish. I asked the pastor why, he replied that he knew nothing about the issue; he gets his news from TV news and diocesan sources. I provided him with info from the UCCB website, and he agreed that it was a serious matter. I offered to pass out UCCB information sheets at my own expense outside after Mass. No dice, it seems that nothing can be done unless a specific directive is received from the chancery; no such directive has been received. Scandalous.

tlrugit on May 22, 2012 at 10:09 AM

It has been really easy for people to misinterpret, even for the catholic clergy to mis interpret what they believe in vs. what government, and in some cases, socialism and even socialized medicine brings. Catholic hospitals were charity hospitals, but government co opted the payment systems. A tangled web, highly intellectual thought translated into sound bites.

Next question: please explain in lay terms for people who cannot articulate the difference between not being required to use medical care that is extraordinary means to prolong life, and “doctor prescribed” suicide. I think the catholic church is ripe for mis representation there too.

Catholics do not have to/are restricted to use medical care with unnatural outcomes…how is that? The subject is really complex, with questions about brain activity, breathing, feeding, resuscitation. Don’t think it is only birth control pills they should avoid, it is medicine that is not in tune with natural law.
Remember the Schiavo case?

Fleuries on May 22, 2012 at 12:18 PM

Everyone should remember that parochial schools are effected by this. Not just hospitals.

theCork on May 22, 2012 at 1:46 PM

Sadly here in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles the official word is mum. Not a peep from the pulpit or in the bulletin at my parish. I asked the pastor why, he replied that he knew nothing about the issue; he gets his news from TV news and diocesan sources. I provided him with info from the UCCB website, and he agreed that it was a serious matter. I offered to pass out UCCB information sheets at my own expense outside after Mass. No dice, it seems that nothing can be done unless a specific directive is received from the chancery; no such directive has been received. Scandalous.

tlrugit on May 22, 2012 at 10:09 AM

In San Diego & OC that’s not the case.

theCork on May 22, 2012 at 1:47 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4