The American Spectator : This Conscience Thing

Text Size

This Conscience Thing

By W. James Antle, III on 1.30.12 @ 6:08AM

Catholic leaders object to an Obama administration rule on contraceptive coverage, but will Americans listen?

Has President Obama’s Department of Health and Human Services awakened a sleeping giant?

In pews across America, Catholics listened yesterday to letters from their bishops denouncing an HHS requirement that forces virtually every employer in America to pay for health insurance that covers contraception, sterilization, and abortifacients.

As Nancy Pelosi complained during the health care debate, many of her coreligionists have “this conscience thing” concerning the sanctity of human life. Now the executive branch of the federal government is telling them to drop dead.

There is technically a small religious exemption, but it doesn’t apply to most activities engaged in by communities of faith. For now, a church doesn’t have to buy condoms for monks or the pill for nuns. But religious schools, hospitals, and social service providers will have to comply with the regulation.

Oddly, the best way for religious leaders to follow their conscience without running afoul of the government is to not serve or employ people outside the faith. “Sectarian self-segregation is O.K., but good Samaritanism is not,” observes the columnist Ross Douthat. “The rule suggests a preposterous scenario in which a Catholic hospital avoids paying for sterilizations and the morning-after pill by closing its doors to atheists and Muslims, and hanging out a sign saying ‘no Protestants need apply.’”

The American Catholic bishops have pointed out that even Jesus and his disciples might not have qualified for the narrowly tailored religious exemption. The practical result may be to force religious traditionalists out of charitable activities, much like the Catholic Church has been pushed out of the adoption business in Massachusetts.

According to some folks, that’s perfectly fine. “Perhaps the Catholic Church should divest itself from activities that are not 100 percent religious in nature,” was one typical reader response to an article about the controversy.

Never mind that caring for the sick, feeding the poor, and clothing the naked are considered religious activities in many faiths. Forget that no one is forced to work for a Catholic hospital or Baptist college. Pay no attention to other ways such workers could affordably obtain these services if they so choose. Under the HHS regulation, the coverage is required even if the employee objects.

Religious communities in contemporary America are voluntary. No one is forced to attend or support any church, profess any doctrine or creed. Government, however, upholds community norms at gunpoint.

You don’t have to look very far to find comments suggesting that this rule is a good way to stick it to churches whose social teachings are deemed too reactionary. Even many American Catholics disagree with their church on birth control. But the regulation does raise interesting questions for people of many political stripes.

Will libertarians defend the freedom of conscience not just for the “individual who wants to sell lemonade, paint his or her house purple, hop on an airplane, ingest intoxicants, or marry someone from the same sex,” but also the individual who doesn’t want to fork over her money to help pay for activities that offend her faith?

Will conservatives who backed the Bush-era “faith-based initiatives” see the risk inherent in allowing administrations with different values to fund and regulate the missions of organizations guided by faith?

Will the Catholic left see how allowing the federal government to force people to buy health insurance they do not want can have unintended consequences?

This move could prove to be detrimental to a president whose reelection fight may well hinge on the outcome in a few states with large Catholic populations. Or it could reveal that in our tolerant age, many Americans possess little tolerance for values that are not their own.

About the Author

W. James Antle, III, author of the new book Devouring Freedom: Can Big Government Ever Be Stopped?, is editor of the Daily Caller News Foundation and a senior editor of The American Spectator. You can follow him on Twitter @jimantle.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (167) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

c. j. acworth| 1.30.12 @ 7:03AM

While the Roman church may be seen as having the most at stake in this, I can assure the Mr. Antle that those of us in the Evangelical community are aware of the hazards here. If this rule is allowed to stand, no aspect of your faith will be out of reach of government control. It also points out why I was always suspicious of Bush's "faith-based initiatives" idea. Once you take Ceasar's coin, you have to play by Ceasar's rules.

Jack in Wi.| 1.30.12 @ 7:26AM

The Church should just refuse to obey such rules. If Obama made Othodox Jews or Muslims violate their religious priciples by ending circumcision what would happen? Or made Evangelicals do some act to violate their faiths as well. the religious communites must stand up to the government. It was a big mistake to ever close down the Catholic adoption agencies in Mass. over gay adoptions. Let them try and do it with the police and see what would happen. Romney was no help on that issue as well.

Timothy L. Pennell| 1.30.12 @ 10:22AM

I thought that the 1st amendment was CLEAR, about these things? I thought that the Establishment Clause was there, to prevent a STATE RELIGION?

Does ANYONE believe that the Muslim, would put such demands on any Muslim Organizations?

There are Serious RED FLAGS coming out of this Administration. To our good friends at the Secret Service: Have you noticed that his Interior Secretary, his Energy Secretary, and his Solicitor General, FORGED DOCUMENTS dealing with the Findings of a Commission, that this Administration set up, regarding the necessity of a Drilling Moratorium? Do you know that he is in CONTEMPT of a Federal Court, regarding his Drilling Moratorium?

He disregards the Separation of Powers, by doing End Runs around Congress, using his EPA and NLRB, to get Cap and Trade, and Card Check. He disregards the Constitution when he Proclaims that HE will decide when the Senate is in Recess. HE will Act, when Congress Refuses. HE will decide who the CHURCH will employ. HE will determine the Health Care Benefits that the CHURCH will provide.

He has Trampled on the Federal Courts. The Separation of Powers, and now he tramples on the 1st Amendment, concerning the Power of the State vs. the Freedom of the Church. And, soon, he's preparing to Accept his Party's Nomination at the Reichstag. (I know it's not really the Reichstag, but it might as well be.)

All the SIGNS are there. A Madman, drunk with Power, intoxicated by the sound of his own voice, and in love with what he sees in his Mirror. Protected by the Useful Idiots in the Media. Adored by the Over Educated, and the Illiterate, at the same time. By the Glamorous, and the Downtrodden. By the Very Rich and the Very Poor. And, all of them, for reasons of their own, clamoring for him to be MORE Divisive. MORE Bold. And MORE Ambitious, in his efforts to circumvent the Restrictions, put in his way, by a Dusty old Piece of Paper, written 250 Years ago, by a buncha Rich, White, Slave Owning, 1%ers.

I understand that you Boys have been looking in to a Target, with Hussein's face on it, that's been riddled with bullets. I guess that's your job. But, your OATH is to make sure that the CONSTITUTION doesn't get RIDDLED by "Any Enemy, either Foreign or DOMESTIC".

I wonder what it's gonna take? A total opening of our Borders? A total Unilateral Disarming of our Military? All of our Businesses, going somewhere else?

Or will it be, like it's always been? Will you finally understand it, AFTER it's too late?

SIEG HEIL! SIEG HEIL! SIEG HEIL!

Look at that, Jack. We agree.

Mimi| 1.30.12 @ 2:35PM

Things have finally reached the GET READY FOR IMPEACHMENT stage.
For some time now we all knew he'd slip up and go after the FREEDOM of the wrong crowd...NOW it's the CATHOLIC BISHOPS that is leading the way....This will be a job for the SUPREMES!

Occam's Tool| 1.30.12 @ 7:39PM

The best way to deal with these things is to take care of them before they become problems. Hence the anticircumcision proposal was taken off the ballot in Frisco before it became a huge story.

Finesse, Jack. I know that working in the soup kitchens all day and being the Saint that you are tends to keep you from learning subtle knife moves, but it would do you well. For example, the Catholic Church in Chicago ought to use its huge number of contacts and find out if Obama really DID belong to a Gay Men's Club. Then this annoying situation could be "disappeared." It's the Chicago way.

Margaret Twining| 1.30.12 @ 9:25AM

Some 98 percent of sexually active Catholic women in the United States have used contraceptive methods banned by the church.

A report from the Guttmacher Institute, the nonprofit sexual health research organization, shows that only 2 percent of Catholic women, even those who regularly attend church, rely on natural family planning.

The latest data shows practices of Catholic women are in line with women of other religious affiliations and adult American women in general.

Catholic leaders (read MEN) object to rule on contraceptive coverage.

I, a Catholic woman, do not object.

J.J.| 1.30.12 @ 9:29AM

In my book, contraception and abortion are the same. They are both murder.

Madge| 1.30.12 @ 9:33AM

You've expressed my thoughts on the matter exactly, J.J.

A woman releases an unfertilized egg every month.

If it is murder to prevent conception or impregnation, every woman who refrains from having "physical relations" for the duration of a single menstrual cycle would be a murderer.

Fred Y.| 1.30.12 @ 9:36AM

If you killed a bunch of tadpoles would you consider it murder ?Albeit they are not from a human source but some people would consider if you killed a frog that it is murder well it could have been a prince..But to be serious killing things other than human beings is not officially murder, and a fetus is not a human being.

out & about| 1.30.12 @ 9:38AM

There are some wacky readers of AmSpec. I swear I think I might be crazy sometimes. So I click on this blog and breathe a sigh of sweet relief.

I'm not the one who's crazy. It's the bloggers on this crackpot site.

old white guy| 1.30.12 @ 9:44AM

you haven't been out and about very much have you.

Dmac| 1.30.12 @ 9:44AM

Margeret and Madge, you seem to be missing the point, especially you Margaret. You say you are a Catholic, then follow what the church teaches. Currently the Church teaches no contraceptives. Remeber, if you are luke warm I will spit you from my mouth. Inother words, you either are or are not, you either believe or you do not, you are either Catholic or you are not. It doesn't work both ways.

Father Bryan| 1.30.12 @ 9:42AM

Contraception is anti-life!

Passages from St. John Chrysostom, St. Thomas Aquinas, the Si Aliquis canon (part of the Church’s canon law from the mid-thirteenth century until 1917), The Roman Catechism, and the Reformer, John Calvin, illustrate the long Christian tradition stressing contraception’s character as an anti-life kind of act.

Contraception is the gateway to abortion.

Father Bryan| 1.30.12 @ 9:46AM

The woman George W. Bush appointed to oversee family planning programs at the Department of Health and Human Services thought "contraception is a part of our culture of death,” and that requiring health insurance plans to cover contraception wasn't about health, but about making “everyone collaborators” in that culture of death.

Susan Orr was a Family Research Council alum and a big supporter, naturally, of the billion-dollar boondoggle that was abstinence-only education.
Remember Susan Orr?

Mimi| 1.30.12 @ 2:26PM

And guess what FREDDIE....you were once a fetus....an unborn....a baby...a child... a grown-up.....ARE you now a HUMAN BEING
SMILE...your mother must have been PRO-LIFE !

Nick| 1.31.12 @ 12:19AM

Fred Y.,

Human biological life begins at conception. A fetus (unborn baby in Latin) has every right to his life as do you and I.

spike59| 1.31.12 @ 6:47AM

so...a fetus is not a human being...although it has its own unique human DNA 'signature' and was created from the combination of human sperm and human egg? so, what is it...a golden retriever? a spaghetti strainer? a nimbus cloud? what?

Seek| 1.30.12 @ 1:16PM

You'll have very few people reading your book, even within the Church.

Occam's Tool| 1.30.12 @ 7:41PM

Depends on the means of contraception. If it prevents egg and sperm from joining, no human life has been created.

SeymourGlass| 1.30.12 @ 11:04AM

Margaret Twining: I'm guessing more than 98% of Catholic women commit sin on a regular basis. Otherwise, why do we have the Sacrament of Reconciliation.

Does that mean we should make sin - and let's leave it at venial sins - mandatory?

Your logic is flawed.

StephenF| 1.30.12 @ 12:01PM

98%? Really? A statistic like that screams sham.

The Guttmacher Institute is a research arm of Planned Parenthood, set up by PP. So to suggest that don't have a dog in the fight is ridiculous.

Anthony M| 1.30.12 @ 12:47PM

Nice catch, Stephen. Although I think, by the low number of Catholic kids, most probably have gone over to the Protestant side of the argument and use contraception.

Catholic father of 8| 1.30.12 @ 2:47PM

I dispute Guttmacher's figures, but even if 100% disregarded the Church's teachings, still wouldn't make it right...

Derek Leaberry| 1.30.12 @ 3:51PM

Exactly. Even if a majority of Americans, or conservatives, or nominal Catholics support contraception, it doesn't make it right. And contraception is intrinsically wrong and a mortal sin for whoever practices it.

I would make an obscure comparison. Franz Jagerstatter was the only voter in the Austrian town of St. Radegund to vote against the incorporation of Austria into Germany in 1938. He saw the Nazis as immoral. In 1943, he refused to serve in the German army and was executed by guillotine by the Nazis. But does anyone dispute that Jagerstatter was right and the 99 % majority of St. Radegund was wrong?

StephenF| 1.30.12 @ 6:09PM

Thanks Anthony. PP would just love it if 98% of all Catholic women were using contraceptive. Talk about neutering their staunchest opponent if that were the case..
You are correct unfortunately that many Catholics (not 98%) do not follow Church teaching on this manner.

Carolyn| 1.30.12 @ 2:56PM

Sham or not, I am a Roman Catholic with many RC women friends, and we have discussed contraception, and we have all used it.

I live in a large metro area with a heavy concentration of Roman Catholics.

JP| 1.30.12 @ 3:46PM

I think the poll that many do or did refer to was a poll done in the 1990s (I think the USCCB paid for it. The numbers were not pretty. About 85% of married Catholic couples polled admited to using artificial birth control on a regular basis. Almost all no longer considered it a sin despite what the Magesterium teaches. For those who cared, this was not surprising - the days of the 6-10 children Catholic families were long gone. What the poll also showed was that Catholic women aborted thier children at about the same rate as non-Catholic women. Obviously the Catholic identity is no more.

Nick| 1.31.12 @ 12:26AM

Carolyn,

Then you, and your friends, are not living your Catholic Faith.
I suggest you find an orthodox priest, i.e, one who is in union with the Holy See, and confess your sins, sincerely, so that you may receive absolution from Christ.
God Bless!

Tony in Central PA| 1.31.12 @ 10:10AM

Why do you remain Catholic ? Nobody compels anybody to be Catholic or even Christian in America, and if I understand this Administration's aims, it appears that any sort of orthodox Christianity will eventually be prohibited.
If you really believe you and your friends are so right and the Church is wrong, why don't you have the courage to quit ?

Clint| 1.30.12 @ 3:46PM

" The Guttmacher Institute is a non-profit organization which works to advance reproductive health including abortion rights.

The Guttmacher Institute in 1968 was founded as the "Center for Family Planning Program Development", a semi-autonomous division of The Planned Parenthood Federation of America. The Center was renamed in memory of Alan Frank Guttmacher, an Ob/Gyn and former president of Planned Parenthood. "

Skippy| 1.30.12 @ 5:10PM

Guttmacher supports any and all abortions.
They are the official abortion apologists and justifiers.
They never met an abortion that they did not admire.

Felix G| 1.30.12 @ 7:54PM

Many contraceptive methods cause spontaneous abotions as they prevent the zygote from implantation. The pill only prevents ovulation 90% of the time. The other 10% of the time an egg is released, but if fertilized the hormones prevent implantaion. Hence, the pill is an abotifacient. BTW, the reason given for 90% of all abortions is contraceptive failure. Life begins at conception. When an egg is fertilized, a soul is assigned for that person. You may wonder why God would create a soul for someone who will never walk the Earth. Yet, all will be raised from the dead. Even those who were merely a zygote. There will be a new Heaven and a new Earth as Christ has psomised. Heaven and Earth will be united at that point. If you are present at that time, you may get to meet the children you never knew you had.

Nick| 1.31.12 @ 12:12AM

Miss Twining,

You are not a Catholic. You reject a teaching which comes from the Magisterium. There is no debate on the subject. Using contraceptives involves grave sin. It is contrary to the natural order established by Almighty God.

Also, my sister, who had her EIGHTH child a year ago, would disagree with your premise. So would my other sister, who we just found is going to have her FIFTH baby! Praise the LORD!

There are plenty of Catholic women out there who actually follow the tenets of the Catholic Church. I pray that you someday see the error of your ways.
God Bless!

old white guy| 1.30.12 @ 9:43AM

the church has one option and that is you do not follow such orders. the scotus should be bound by the constitution to overturn this edict.

Alan Brooks| 1.30.12 @ 3:32PM

The Church has more pull than evangelicals because the Church isn't as smarmy. Carter is an evangelical- and that is bad news in my book.
Same problem w/ Protestantism as with Islam: the church is 2000 years old, Islam is 1,300, and Protestants only go back 500 years--
the Church has more experience and tact.

Alan Brooks| 1.30.12 @ 3:35PM

"The Church has more pull than evangelicals because the Church isn't as smarmy"

Who are the televangelists? Catholics? no.
Forbes called Pat Robertson "a toothy flake", and Robertson responded, "I am not toothy!"

Alan Brooks| 1.30.12 @ 3:51PM

it is said the Jews (with help from Pontius Pilate) killed Christ; didn't Protestants (with help from Henry VIII) kill Sir Thomas Moore, the greatest man of his age?

Alan Brooks| 1.30.12 @ 3:53PM

More, not Moore.
At any rate, you gore your oxes, and let Jack gore his!

h & b snacks| 1.30.12 @ 6:20PM

From today's ABC News:

Doctors in Peru said they would operate today on a 3-year-old boy to remove the body of his would-be twin.

Isbac Pacunda has the body of his twin inside his stomach – bones, eyes and even hair on the cranium. Dr. Carlos Astocondor, a plastic surgeon at the Las Mercedes Hospital in Chiclayo, told the Associated Press that the partially formed fetus weighs about a pound and a half and is 9 inches long. He and a team of 12 doctors will surgically remove the tissue from the boy’s stomach today.

Quick, oh ye sages, is this abortion? Is it murder?

h & b snacks| 1.30.12 @ 6:20PM

IS IT MURDER?

Nick| 1.31.12 @ 12:41AM

h & b snacks,

Did you miss this part: "'In this kind of situation, because it was inside the other boy, it wasn’t able to survive,' Fanaroff said."
An abortion is the deliberate killing of a fetus (unborn baby in Latin.) If the twin was already dead, then it is not murder, Einstein.

How can you kill someone who is already dead?

You'd better stay in the shallow-end, and not venture into the deep-end, with the grown-ups, until you have a little more experience, okay?

Appleby| 1.30.12 @ 7:06AM

One thing it may usefully do is bring the topic of the "cafeteria Catholic" back to the forefront and trigger more serious discussions among adult Catlholics (and CINOs) about the necessity to obey ALL the strictures of the Church, not just those you feel like obeying, at this particular moment. His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI has shown himself very good at explaining the difference between saying "I am a Catholic" and BEING a Catholic; local Archbishops are on board explaining to their congregations on a one-to-one basis (our Archbishop is about the be elevated to Cardinal and no doubt is sound on these doctrines) and Bishops will be heading to local congregations to engage them in words of one syllable. Kanukistan, of course, has many more serious issues, chiefly that there are absolutely no laws against abortion up to and including the moment before Baby takes her first breath, and consequently the large amount of Medical Tourism here from countries where ultrasounds and abortions go hand in hand and girl babies are dumped in Canadian trash cans accordingly.

God uses these things for our good sometimes. Perhaps this ham-fisted action by Satan's agent will finally trigger a serious discussion among Catholics as to what being a Catholic actually means.

nister| 1.30.12 @ 7:29AM

Did a quick check of Canadian and American abortion rates; the US rate is higher.

Mr. Bible By My Side| 1.30.12 @ 3:01PM

How about WITHDRAWAL y'all.

The closest that Scripture comes to condemning birth control is Genesis chapter 38, the account of Judah's sons Er and Onan.
Er married a woman named Tamar, but he was wicked and the Lord put him to death, leaving Tamar with no husband or children. Tamar was given in marriage to Er's brother, Onan, in accordance with the law of levirate marriage in Deuteronomy 25:5-6.
Onan did not want to split his inheritance with any child that he might produce on his brother's behalf, so he practiced the oldest form of birth control, withdrawal. Genesis 38:10 says, “What he did was wicked in the LORD's sight; so He put him to death also.”

Birth Control is wicked. Thus sayeth the Lord.

Margaret Twining| 1.30.12 @ 3:04PM

Lovely story, Mr. Bible.

The Bible also says something about spilling your seed on the ground.

Another lovely tidbit from the great book.

I DO hope none of today's readers have practiced masturbation! God forbid!

Margaret Twining| 1.30.12 @ 3:06PM

Whoa! Do I detect sarcasm from our resident bitch, Ms. Twining.

Margaret Twining| 1.30.12 @ 3:08PM

Who placed my name on this crude remark? I did not write the above. Was it Clint? Keith?

Al Adab| 1.30.12 @ 4:08PM

The issue group is about the mandate, not about the morality of a particular practice. The mandate is what is immoral.

What might be the next mandate?
Sterilization of the mentally impaired?
Mandatory abortion of Downs syndrome?
Purchse of Chevy Volt?

With every mandate we accept or aquiese to, we put nails in the coffin of Liberty. We must stand firmly, as against the health care mandate, reject the governments claim to authority (like the fugitive slave law) and state, "Whatever the courts may rule, I will not comply". We may have to pay a price, but here it is.

John Navratil| 1.30.12 @ 6:31PM

Al Adab,

Regardless of one's views of contraception and addressing, solely, your question of what is the next mandate, I observe that we have gone from contraceptives being illegal to now being free. I understand that Massachussets has a $50 co-pay for abortions. Making that cost-free is a small next step.

The arguments for the above is that is saves the cost to society of an unwanted child whom, it is claimed, deserved to be born into a family which wants him or her. It's no intellectual stretch to suggest that those on assistance must be compelled to have an abortion. How extreme will it be to suggest that those with insufficient financial resources to raise a child will not be permitted to have one?

Seek| 1.30.12 @ 4:27PM

It was probably someone among that small portion of the U.S. population who never once have masturbated in their lives. Think of them as the "1 percent."

Walt| 1.30.12 @ 4:32PM

Count me in the 1%. I have always had someone do it for me with their lips.

Common Decency!| 1.30.12 @ 4:35PM

We need a MONITOR to delete the filthy posts! I see no humor in vulgarity.

Coyote Pete| 1.30.12 @ 4:36PM

Oral sex is also condemned by the Catholic church as well as the Bible. It's an abomination in the eyes of the Lord.

op ed| 1.30.12 @ 4:38PM

It's only gays who do the oral thing. It would never cross a straight couple's mind to perform such perversion!

Zing! What a feeling!| 1.30.12 @ 5:57PM

Surely you jest.

Jeamar| 1.30.12 @ 9:43PM

Unfortunately, common decency has become as uncommon as common sense.

Occam's Tool| 1.30.12 @ 7:44PM

Most likely Clint, as he is our resident homo neanderthalus.

MainerDoc| 1.30.12 @ 7:06AM

Abortion (not auto accidents, heart disease or diabetes) is the number one killer in the United States today.

nister| 1.30.12 @ 7:08AM

Seems to me that the Church is free to do what it has always done; make its position on abortion and contraception known from the pulpit. Many other pulpits will agree somewhat on abortion, less so on contraception. What of them?

JP| 1.30.12 @ 7:44AM

nister,
How many more strawmen do you intend to put up today? The issue isn't making positions known from the pulput. The issue is forcing Catholic institutions to provide services to its employees or people under its care that it considers evil and or immoral.

But, I should point out that most Catholic Bishops and superiors vocally backed ObamaCare. They were promised that this very thing would not come about (I'm skeptical that they didn't realize that the President and his allies were fibbing). Most conservatives warned them of the bait and switch. But they were called uncaring.

nister| 1.30.12 @ 8:04AM

JP, insurance coverage is not intrinsically immoral. BTW, who are the people in the Church's "care"?

JP| 1.30.12 @ 9:38AM

The insurance coverage is negoicated by the Church (or its institutions) and contraception and abortion (or sterilization services) are not part of the package.

And the people under the Church's care include all hospitals and clinics run by various Holy Orders. HHS is demanding that hospitals run by either the Church dioceses or orders begin providing abortion and sterilization services as dictated by new HHS rules. All Church organizations have until the end of 2013 to comply.

nister| 1.30.12 @ 12:46PM

Piffle. Insurance is mandated, not abortions.

I'm totally for contraception, it reduces unwanted pregnancies. Wanted babies aren't aborted.

JP| 1.30.12 @ 1:29PM

Nister,
If you are going to debate an issue at least pay attention to what's going on. The HHS is forcing all companies and insitutions to cover and pay for abortions and contraception when offering health insurance to thier employees. In case you are not aware of it, businesses negociate with insurance companies what kind of coverages are covered and what are not. The HHS explicitly mandated that sterilzation, abortions, and contraception be included in all health insurance plans. The RCC has until 2013 to comply. And of course, the insurance companies will charge for these extra mandates.

JP| 1.30.12 @ 1:31PM

And in case you are not aware of it, businesses or organizations that offer health insurance pay a large portion of the premiums. What the employee pays is usually a fraction of the businesses pony up.

Indy| 1.30.12 @ 8:06AM

Agreed, I was voicing the same points, the Church was pushing for ObamaCare and it was obvious to anyone really paying attention, the bait and switch would come, it was only a matter of time.

Dr. X| 1.30.12 @ 7:40AM

Will Catholics wake up and spurn a Democratic administration? Ha! What a joke!

Someone -- maybe Ann Counter?-- once described the Catholic clergy as "the Democratic Party in robes." Ain't never gonna happen. Catholic clergy might bitch and moan about the birth control policy, but Catholics will continue to vote Democrat. The fact is that the WORST, most anti-Catholic politicians are all Catholics: Cuomo, Biden, Mikulski, Pelosi, Kennedy, Kerry, et al.

The Catholic Church is finished in this country because it sold out to the Welfare State. It discovered that it's much easier to use the government's tax dollars to care for the poor and downtrodden. Now it complains when the government spurns its theological and ethical teaching.

Indy| 1.30.12 @ 8:08AM

I miss Pope John Paul II, coming from Poland, he understood the danger of the marxist influence in the Church, I doubt he would support the direction of the Church.

Clint| 1.30.12 @ 8:38AM

Bull Crap Dr.X-Lax.

Catholic Charities USA, $793,815,584

Oldefarte| 1.30.12 @ 11:02AM

'....But the understanding of poverty as often inseparable from moral and cultural considerations disintegrated in the late 1960s. Swept up in the decade's tumult and encouraged by the modernizing spirit of the second Vatican Council, Catholic Charities rejected its long-standing emphasis on personal responsibility and self-reliance and began to blame capitalist society rather than individual behavior for poverty and crime. It now looked to the welfare state to solve all social problems. Today, through a continual whirlwind of policy statements and lobbying, and by fostering countless activist community organizations, Catholic Charities has become, as Richard John Neuhaus, a priest and editor of the esteemed religious journal First Things, puts it, "a chief apologist for a catastrophically destructive welfare system, and it stands in the way of developing alternatives to help people break out of dependency and take charge of their lives."Catholic Charities first announced its politicization in a wild-eyed manifesto that invokes such radical sixties icons as Malcolm X, Gloria Steinem, Herbert Marcuse, and—above all—the Marxist-inspired Liberation Theology movement that (to put it crudely) equates Jesus with Che Guevara. Ratified at Catholic Charities' annual meeting in 1972, the so-called Cadre Study totally abandoned any stress on personal responsibility in relation to poverty and other social ills. Instead, it painted America as an unjust, "numb" country, whose oppressive society and closed economy cause people to turn to crime or drugs or prostitution. Moreover, the study asserts, individual acts of charity are useless. We must instead unearth "the root causes of poverty and oppression" and radically reconstruct—"humanize and transform"—the social order to avert social upheaval.This radical shift in thinking had two practical ....'

Clint| 1.30.12 @ 3:22PM

SAO PAULO, Brazil — In the early 1980s, when Pope John Paul II wanted to clamp down on what he considered a dangerous, Marxist-inspired movement in the Roman Catholic Church, liberation theology, he turned to a trusted aide: Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger.

Now Cardinal Ratzinger is Pope Benedict XVI, and when he arrives here on Wednesday for his first pastoral visit to Latin America he may be surprised at what he finds. Liberation theology, which he once called "a fundamental threat to the faith of the church," persists as an active, even defiant force in Latin America, home to nearly half the world's 1 billion Roman Catholics.

As cardinal, Ratzinger once called the movement a "fusing of the Bible's view of history with Marxist dialectics," and other critics complain of what they see as its emphasis on direct collective action in Jesus' name over individual faith.

As John Paul II put it early in his papacy: "This conception of Christ as a political figure, a revolutionary, as the subversive of Nazareth, does not tally with the church's catechism."

Certainly at the upper levels of the church hierarchy, liberation theology has been forced into retreat. Bishops and cardinals who supported and protected the movement in the 1970s and 1980s have either died or retired, succeeded by clerics openly hostile to such communities and the values they espouse.

"Base communities can only thrive in areas where there are bishops to encourage them," said Margaret Hebblethwaite, a British religious writer whose books include "Base Communities: An Introduction" and "The Next Pope." "If you take away the support of the bishop, it becomes very difficult for them to get anywhere."

Dr. X| 1.30.12 @ 12:05PM

$793 million is a pittance compared to what the government spends annually-- $3.7 trillion, with 70% of that going to non-defense "social" spending. (Including, I might add, aid to Catholic hospitals).

Fact is, people in this country know that they are going to get their welfare, their social security, and their medicine from the government, not the Church (it's even worse in Europe) and this fact is very largely responsible for the significant decline in believers in both Europe and the U.S.

Clint| 1.30.12 @ 3:08PM

Let's See Your Religion's Numbers. Sport.

Oldefarte| 1.30.12 @ 3:47PM

'.....Under its pugnacious current president, Jesuit Fred Kammer, a lawyer (who attended Yale Law with Bill Clinton) and author of Doing Faithjustice, a widely used textbook that gives a leftist twist to Catholic social thought, the organization has expanded and professionalized its advocacy work. The 40-member central headquarters in Alexandria, Virginia, assembles a legislative agenda, lobbies Congress and the White House, and, through weekly "Advofaxes," alerts member agencies and subscribers to impending federal and state legislation on social policy. But as Marvin Olasky, author of The Tragedy of American Compassion, an influential book on charity, remarks, "This isn't charity at all. When you take away dollars that you could spend helping people and spend them on lobbying, you're robbing the poor to give to the lobbyist."Worse still, the policies that Catholic Charities advocates in its lobbying activities also hurt, rather than help, the poor. Take four examples. First, Catholic Charities was the nation's loudest opponent of the 1996 welfare-reform law, lobbying hard on Capitol Hill and meeting with the president to derail it. Kammer prophesied that the new law would be "a national social catastrophe. . . . No one will be spared the consequences." But today, with the welfare rolls plummeting 50 percent in just three years and anecdotal evidence suggesting that many former recipients are happy to be liberated from dependency and in control of their own lives, Kammer's dire predictions seem ludicrous.
Second, Catholic Charities has lobbied to boost the minimum wage above $6 from the current $5.15. Most reputable economists point out, however, that such a hike would cost the nation hundreds of thousands of entry-level jobs, hurting just the people—immigrants, inner-city youths, or former welfare recipients rejoining the workforce—whom Catholic Charities says it cares most about. Catholic Charities seems not to grasp that minimum-wage positions are usually first jobs—most minimum-wage earners are teens, and only 2.8 percent of minimum-wage earners are over 30.Third, Catholic Charities vociferously opposes the privatization of Social Security. In 1998, Kammer's deputy for public policy, Sharon Daly, shared a podium with Jesse Jackson, Patricia Ireland of the National Organization of Women, NAACP head Kweisi Mfume, and John Sweeney of the AFL-CIO—a rainbow coalition of prominent leftists—to denounce the idea. Asks Cato Institute tax specialist Stephen Moore, why would an organization dedicated to helping "the poorest among us," as Catholic Charities' motto goes, urge Congress to reject a proposal allowing the poor to opt out of a system that offers them a dismal return on their tax dollars? Private retirement accounts, Moore argues, would give those few individuals making the minimum wage for their entire lives a retirement income 50 percent to 100 percent higher than what Social Security promises. Given this evidence, Moore ruminates, the opposition to private accounts must be ideological: "Some people are simply predisposed to favor big government," he sighs.
Finally, Catholic Charities tirelessly argues that racism "is a root cause of the economic and social oppression in our society," as Vision 2000, a key recent policy paper, asserts. Speaking to me in his cluttered Alexandria office, Kammer explains: "Race remains at the heart of the social question in America—and as a southerner, I really believe that." He has installed a trendy "diversity officer" at the national headquarters to keep race front and center in the organization's activities.This unrealistic view of race distorts the whole organization's thinking about black crime. Catholic Charities lobbies hard in favor of requirements that force states to provide detailed explanations for why so many blacks are behind bars—the presumption being that racism is to blame. Catholic Charities believes that if black ten- to 17-year-olds are only 15 percent of the population but 26 percent of all juveniles arrested and 46 percent of all juveniles doing time, this is prima facie evidence of racism. But if black youths have, as they do, a far higher rate of criminal activity than white kids, why would anyone expect them not to be arrested and convicted at a higher rate?At bottom, Catholic Charities appears to suspect that, for black kids, crime is somehow justified. Kammer, writing in 1996, asserts, "If young men turn to crack and crime because there are no jobs and no hopes, then you and I become addicted with them." In other words, in an unjust, racist society, poor kids have no recourse but to rob and do dope. But doesn't this only justify thuggery and self-destruction, exactly the message inner-city kids don't need to hear?Following the lead of the central office, some 90 percent of Catholic Charities' local agencies lobby in state legislatures. Patrick Johnson, director of Hartford, Connecticut's Catholic Charities agency, enthuses: "We have one of the largest social-justice advocacy programs in the country, with a lobbyist on staff, actively lobbying the state legislature in the area of welfare reform, against the death penalty, juvenile justice—the social-services agenda, if you will." As Johnson, a prominent member of Catholic Charities' national board, sums up, "Charity is never enough; you have to do other stuff."....'

Dr. X| 1.30.12 @ 5:27PM

Those ARE my religion's numbers. I am Catholic. And I'm totally disgusted at how the Church has sold out for the filthy lucre of the government. That's how Ted Kennedy got a funeral Mass concelebrated by seven priests after having killed someone, cheated on his wife, and championed abortion for 40 years.

Mark MacInnis| 1.31.12 @ 1:13PM

True dat. My mother (God rest her soul...she passed away in August at the age of 80)....voted for Obama. When I asked her how, as a faithful and diligent catholic, she could justify voting for Obama, whose Obama-care plan would pay for abortions, eventually even late-term abortions, she just said, "NO, Obama is not for abortion. I heard him say so!" Later, when it proved to be true that Obama care would in fact provide federal dollars for abortions, she demurred, denying that it was Obama's fault, saying he had to include it to get it passed, and that OVERALLL, he was good for the country....

Orwell had it right....Doublethink. The ability to simultaneuously believe two mutually exclusive truths.

John Rice| 1.30.12 @ 8:00AM

The most powerful act Pope Benedict can do is loudly, openly and powerfully ex-communicate Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, Mario Kuomo, et al. Pushback would come of course. I truly believe the message would ignite a powerful return to values of life and expose the tyrants. They are openly "Culling the Herd" and must be exposed and stopped. This must be done now or all is lost to the eugentics proponents.

Dmac| 1.30.12 @ 9:47AM

I totally agree. For too long all the churches have been to silent, either LEAD your flock or step down. Accept the challenge that has been laid before you and do what is right. LEAD your flock!

Mimi| 1.30.12 @ 2:48PM

They sure are on this one ! Obama is toast! When have you seen all the Bishop's act , like they have on this....They are 1. Refusing to obey Obama's LAW..2 They are leading 25% of the people and many of the JEWISH faith and other Christian denominations to not comply.
Congress will get enough flake in the coming months to change this BAD LAW....or the Dems are done in by the Catholic Bishops fighting back!

Nick| 1.31.12 @ 12:58AM

Mr. Rice,

The responsibility for excommunicating San Fran Nan Pelosi, J.F. Kerry, Godfather Cuomo, et al, belongs to their respective bishops, not the Holy Father.

But, I do believe their bishops have had enough time to privately admonish them not to publicly contradict the teachings of the Church. If they have continued in their errors, then the bishops should excommunicate them.

The time to expel these heretics has long since past, in my opinion. But, that's easy for me to say, I'm not a bishop.

Just remember, Christ rules His Church and the Holy Spirit protects Her. The most powerful thing that we, the laity, can do....is PRAY!
God Bless!

NHCryptoConservatives| 1.30.12 @ 8:08AM

Sad to say, those in the pews are having a hard time taking the words of the indignant bishoprics seriously. They have a strong and much more 'vocal' record of favoring and catoring to politicians embracing restricted abortion by the likes of Senator Jeanne 'All for Abortion' Shaheen, HHS head and ex-gov of Kansas Kathy Sebelius, Nancy Pelosi, the entire Kennedy clan, etc. Let's not forget Fr. Jenkins at Notre Dame University honoring President 'let's kill the babies that survive abortion attempts' 0bama as he had arrested and prosecuted anti-abortion protestors at his 'Catholic' university. We were subjected to multiple sermons on the need for 'social justice' urging us to embrace 'hope' and not fear 'change'. Well the hierarchy got who they wanted in the WH and they will have to live with the consequences.

POST American| 1.30.12 @ 8:44AM

WE thought the long, long, long infiltrations
by the Rockefeller 'Eck --YOU--MEN--ICK
----ALLLL-ists' had done its work regarding
theie fave 'X-termination of the unborn'
cultural degradation op.

ALAS

Derek Leaberry| 1.30.12 @ 8:47AM

Most Roman Catholics who obey and live the church teachings on items like birth control need little explanation from the bishops on the issues of the day. Most are politically conservative. However, most traditional Catholics realize that much of what constitutes modern politics is pointless and that the Republican Party will always let them down. Moreover, most Catholics realize that the church hierarchy is not only politically impotent but cowardly.

SeymourGlass| 1.30.12 @ 11:06AM

Yes. Correct.

Robert Bové| 1.30.12 @ 8:52AM

Our pastor in Brooklyn, NY did not read the letter nor did my mother's in Bergen County, NJ--nor is it clear at this moment if the bishops here and there sent a letter out to parishes. The faculty and administration of Catholic college where I teach did not raise the issue when Sebelius first pornounced the regime's dictat. Not surprising, given that the former president of the school received profound silence when he queried same faculty and adminstrators on their position re Catholic identity. I hope against the conclusion that these Catholics will again vote for Obama in great numbers. The regime has removed the velvet glove has been removed from its iron fist, softy tyranny hardens, and we are discovering some hard truths about our coreligionists and fellow citizens.

David W| 1.30.12 @ 8:59AM

As one "minister" said, the "chickens have come home to roost." Many Catholics (and other supposedly religious individuals and groups) made a deal with the devil to help the poor (though the help is very similar to the help the Black community has been receiving for decades, and look what that has done for them). I don't know if it is a belief in the good of humanity that causes these people to believe the obvious lies from government. Whatever it is, they now have to live with what they caused.

Timothy L. Pennell| 1.30.12 @ 9:01AM

I thought that the 1st amendment was CLEAR, about these things? I thought that the Establishment Clause was there, to prevent a STATE RELIGION?

Does ANYONE believe that the Muslim, would put such demands on any Muslim Organizations?

I wonder what it's gonna take? A total opening of our Borders? A total Unilateral Disarming of our Military? All of our Businesses, going somewhere else?

Or will it be, like it's always been? Will you finally understand it, AFTER it's too late?

SIEG HEIL! SIEG HEIL! SIEG HEIL!

Dmac| 1.30.12 @ 9:54AM

Timothy,
What you say is true, and we hear you. The problem is that both parties are so damn corrupt with money and power they really don't care what you or anyone else has to say. I've been saying for two years now the only thing that will ever change our current political situation is a revolution. I still believe that. The proof is in the pudding. Here's my pudding, John Boehnor, has he led or done one thing other than give lip service? Has he led any drive to expose this President for what he is? Has he done anything to try and impeach this scoundrel that currently sits in the White House? Has he done one thing to prove or disprove the Obama is even a legal citizen of this country, much less legally qualified to be President? Nope, not one thing has he done to protect the country or the Constistution. Both parties have shown me they are the traitors. God help us, but we are either getting ready to be serfs, or we are getting ready to see blood in the streests within 3 years.

Dan Martin| 1.30.12 @ 9:04AM

RE: "Oddly, the best way for religious leaders to follow their conscience without running afoul of the government is to not serve or employ people outside the faith. "

Absent these stipulations, the diktat would not be Sharia compliant.

jay hoenemeyer| 1.30.12 @ 9:08AM

It is time for the Catholic 'leadership' to actually stand for something . The very public refusal to give Communion to the Pelosi's of the world and to stand up again very publicly explain why is long long over due . I doubt they will due so . If a Reagan comes along once in a lifetime , it takes a milennium to produce a Pope John Paul .

Dmac| 1.30.12 @ 9:11AM

Some people seem to be missing some of what is going on here. Obama wants the Church to throw up its hands and drop out of any and all social work. If he can get Catholic hospitals to close or abandon their beleifs the he has achieved what he wants. What he wants is to close down all charities and hospitals run by the church, any chursch. He sees the church as competition to his socialist agenda. His desire is to have one and only one charitible oganization in the United States, the government.
All churches of all religions and denominations need to come together on this and defend your positions. All pastors's, rabbi's, priest, and ministers must join together and get busy on the pulpit and getting your flockes involved. The war is at hand. Recognize it for what it is, it is the battle for the hearts, minds and souls of all Americans. Your job is to save those souls and see to it that some day they will be delivered to God. So do what you know is right to do, fight for those souls. They belong to God, not Obama or the government of the United States.

William Z| 1.30.12 @ 9:20AM

If this government gets its way, soon it will mandate the number of children per family. Think China and Obama thinks it's great.

Whitey O'Carr| 1.30.12 @ 9:30AM

Begorrah what you're seeing is the effect of all of the "LIBERATED CATHOLICS" who got into power now taking control. These people are the baby boomers who betrayed the Church back in the sixties and now demand to be called Catholic! Do not be deceived by them! Call them Charlatans! If you need clarification on the doctrines of the Church, talk to a priest or a lay minister but do not allow these people to advance their agenda any further.

If these people think it is so great to advance their ideas by force, why not force Jewish people to give up their dietary restrictions? Hey, lets force Muslims enjoy the company of dogs and other animals against their will. If they are going to allow the adherence to the dictates of religion for everyone except White Christians, then that creates a disproportionate impact! I believe the barristers of the TAS readership will know what that entails! Just remember the Southie Busing Riots! Except on a national Scale! Long Live Louise Day Hicks!

Silver Bullet| 1.30.12 @ 9:56AM

As a believing Catholic --- I accept what the Church teaches -- I nonetheless have no sympathy for the Bishops. For decades, most Bishops and priests have purposely refused to preach the "difficult truths," and the majority of the (remaining) church-going Catholics have all too willingly ignored what wasn't taught. The "elephant in the room" these last 44 years, since the promulgation of Humane Vitae, has always been the Church's official rejection of contraception and sterilization -- everyone knew it was there but refused to pay it any mind. The bishops, scandalously so, the "faithful" taking the view that it can't be that important because nothing was said (publicly) from the pulpits.

Several bloggers comment upon Pope John Paul, and he was remarkable in his espousal of the culture of life. Many people believe, in fact, that his "Love and Responsibility," published in the late 1950's, served in large measure to persuade Pope Paul VI of the necessity of upholding 20 centuries of Christian teaching against contraception.

(All you Protestants out there: upon what basis was 19 centuries of Christian teaching, beginning in the 1st and 2nd centuries, against contraception rejected, beginning at the Anglican conference at Lambeth in the 1930's? Hmmm? Why is it that what was universally condemned for 1900 years suddenly became -- not just 'okay' -- but even virtuous, to "control" offspring so you have only as many as you can "afford"??)

However, when it came to issues of Church governance, JPII was very much reluctant to call dissenting Bishops on the carpet, much less to relieve dissenters of their posts. Even JPII flinched -- when faced with the possibility of "overt" schism, he opted for allowing "covert" schism, hoping that the next generation would heal the breach. One Protestant Reformation was one too many; JPII didn't want an "American" schism to lead to permanent, further division within Christendom.

Most of the American hierarchy these last 4+ decades has opted for the social(ist) gospel, ignoring the "hard truths," ignoring even the mention of "sin," and ignoring the reality of the Devil's machinations to ruin souls. Instead, drunk with the earthly power of government monies, these bishops egotistically congratulated themselves for their supposed "charity," measured in earthly dollars awarded to social-service programs by our Caesarist overlords.

Even now, I would argue that the majority of American Bishops still don't recognize the threat to our freedom to practice Catholicism-as-Catholicism; and they probably don't care, because they long-since gave up actually believing what the Church teaches, thinking that some future "church" will eventually come around to their way of thinking -- namely, socialism dressed up in religious garb. When people point to the 80 or so bishops who openly condemned Notre Dame's scandal of awarding an honorary degree to the murderer-in-chief (Obama), I point out that there were 170+ other bishops who said absolutely nothing. Probably 170 bishops voted for Obama and are going to do so again this year!!

Now that the Bishops' support for Democrat-Socialist politicians' ruinous policies has come back to bite us on the rear-end, I can't help but have a bit of schadenfreude at the prospect of seeing Bishops suddenly "getting religion," realizing that Obama's true agenda threatens even their "pet-project" socialist agendas. Serves them right.

Pelligrino| 1.30.12 @ 2:02PM

I don't know about all of what you write above, but I can state with great, great certainty that 80 - 90% of all U.S. military chaplains have given up on Christian immutable doctrine.

Otherwise they would be the first to highlight the ongoing date/unit/squad rape and sexual harrassment of women in the real units and how terribly foolish it is to think that one can have an integrated male-female military force.

Two, how many of these Christian chaplains (Catholic and various Protestant denominations) have threatened in writing to resign their commissions and depart the military with great speed over the open inclusion of gays?

Has even one chaplain done this? And we all know that recognizing gay unions is only 14 - 20 months away in the military. Same for knowing that a chaplain will be forced to offer counseling to a gay that does not include even the slightest encouragement for that gay to depart from his lawless and evil sinning.

Public marriages of the gays in the on post chapels is a benchmark the Gay advocacy groups are salivating for.

Same for the first West Point graduation weekend gay marriages at that historical, landmark chapel. Maybe gays will break this barrier first at the Colorado Springs Air Force Academy Chapel?

So: Where are the U.S. military clergy?

AWOL. Empty. Gone. They certainly are not adhering to Holy Scripture.

PJ| 1.30.12 @ 8:17PM

The Catholic Archbishop for the Military has publicly stated that he & his fellow priests & deacons will not preside over any same-sex marriage ceremony.

Margie| 1.30.12 @ 5:54PM

"(All you Protestants out there: upon what basis was 19 centuries of Christian teaching, beginning in the 1st and 2nd centuries, against contraception rejected, beginning at the Anglican conference at Lambeth in the 1930's? Hmmm? Why is it that what was universally condemned for 1900 years suddenly became -- not just 'okay' -- but even virtuous, to "control" offspring so you have only as many as you can "afford"??)"

First of all, Christianity was around before the Apostate Catholic Religion was.

And the so-called teaching of contraception being sin is something the Apostate Religion thought up, along with hundreds of others false and unbiblical teachings.

Such as:

Prayer to the dead.
Mary as Mother of God.
Mary as sinless.
Transubstantiation.
Purgatory.
The forbidding of Marriage.
Popes.
Priests.
Nuns.

What IS Sin is sex before Marriage, and it is no surprise to me, that if the stats are correct concerning Catholic women's usage of birth control, especially if it's outside of Marriage~ is used so much, is because Catholicism doesn't even preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Which is all about receiving His Spirit within you in order to be ABLE to resist Sin.

John 3:3, Romans 10:9 & 10.

Until the Apostate Religion repents and starts preaching the Gospel of Grace, its men and women will remain unenlightened and in darkness, like the rest of the World.

"And I heard another voice out of Heaven
saying, My people, come out of her, that
you may not share in her sins, and that you
may not receive of her plagues; that are joined with her sins, even up to Heaven, and God remembered her misdeeds." Rev. 18:4 & 5.

Nick| 1.31.12 @ 1:26AM

Margie,

Silver Bullet was directing his statement at "Protestants". As you have reminded me over and over again, you are not a Protestant.
So, why are you replying to a comment not directed at you?

Also, the Apostles taught what the Catholic Church teaches, because Christ taught it first.
God Bless!

Silver Bullet| 1.31.12 @ 10:09AM

Margie, I encourage you to read up a bit on early Church history. You will find that the Church was identifiably "Catholic" right from the beginning.

As for contraception being a sin, why do you disagree with the universal teaching in all of Christendom prior to the Lambeth conference of Anglicans in the 1930's?

Have you ever stopped to consider where the Bible came from? If the Church could act as "decider" when infallibly defining the Canon of Scripture, then why do you have a problem with the infallibility of the Church on so many other matters?

You are against "popes," but, Margie: you are your OWN "pope." Just you and your supposedly self-explanatory Bible.

Nick| 1.31.12 @ 1:21AM

Silver Bullet,

I agree with much of what you write, but, I think you a little too harsh on Pope John Paul the Great.
He was fighting world-wide marxism, after all, along with President Reagan and Prime Minister Thatcher.

Remember when the Holy Father admonished that priest on the tarmac in Managua? Pope John Paul II did much to stop the spread of marxism and liberation theology in the Church, in my opinion.

Besides, change takes time in the Church. God's time is not our time. Keep praying for orthodox bishops and priests. That is the best thing we can all do.
God Bless!

Silver Bullet| 1.31.12 @ 10:04AM

Agreed..... Thanks!

cicero| 1.30.12 @ 10:09AM

The Catholic Church in the United States, and perhaps in the Western world, has long ago given up its mandate to lead the people to God. They have given up their hospitals, schools, orphanages, and senior care centers. They have sold them to the highest bidders, and closed them in favor of secular establishments. They have become, largely, ceremonial institutions that sing the praises of the liberal political parties, and cling to their tax exempt status so they can maintain their temples. Time to go back to the Spirit. As I recall the teachings of the Savior, when asked by his desciples, "How will they know we are followers of the Christ?" He merely said, "By how you treat one another." When asked about the building of temples, He told them, "Where one or two of you are gathered in my name, there will I be." Perhaps it is time for the Christians of the world, and of America, to engage in Community for a real purpose. Nothing stops those of faith from disobeying those laws that conflict with the rule of the Lord. They may face uncertainty and discomfort, but probable not lions and tigers, and bears. Instead of "one or two of you in my name", perhaps thousands. They can't put all of you in jail. It is time for the lemmings to turn and confront their fears, and take back their civilization.

Ed| 1.30.12 @ 10:21AM

The Church hierarchy ranges from left wing to far left wing. They, of course, preach that the laws on immigration in this country should be ignored and actively work to undermine those laws. You can't go to bed with the left (who hate religion) and expect them to respect you in the morning. Sorry the Church was too stupid to understand that but the sleeping giant is too fat and lazy to wake up.

W| 1.30.12 @ 10:25AM

This is just another example of the Federal Government's intrusion in every aspect of our lives. And it is done by an agency's regulation rather than by a vote of Congress.

The only way out of this mess is to replace the progressive federal income tax with a flat income or a national sales tax. The power to tax with the dedutions and credits give the government the power to issue every regulation that affects income, deductions, and tax exempt status. With Obamacare added to the progressive income tax, IRS and HHS have more power simply by issuing regulations than Congress has by passing laws.

The moderators in the debates are concerned about Newt's wives, Romney's income, and Santorum's views about abortion. Ron Paul has adressed the issue of the size of government but his foreign policy views make him unelectable.

We need the candidates to say and then do that they will cut the size of government, cut taxes, and the only law that needs to be passed is to restrict the power of the federal agencies to issues regulations.

We don't need any more big, grandiose ideas or programs from the federal government. We need to shrink it. No more compassionate conservatism and no more compassionate liberalism.

John Navratil| 1.30.12 @ 11:31AM

Bravo!

Al Adab| 1.30.12 @ 1:04PM

John, W:
This is simply another mandate by our betters, the self-anointed elite who know what is best for us all. Should we not be grateful that they understand our beliefs and needs so much better than we do? After all, we should be worshiping the goddesses Gaia and Choice not only by sacrificing our babies to them but by not having any new potential GOP voters at all.

This is a clear violation of every right we as Americans hold dear. But why are we surprised? Wait for the next mandate or two and see down what road those good intentions lead us.

Pelligrino| 1.30.12 @ 1:50PM

Al Adab, please do what I think we all need to do to get real traction on this. 1) Find out what your Congressman thinks on this one and see if he or she has made this stance open and obvious to the constituents/citizens. 2) If the Congressman has sided correctly on this, offer up tangible praise and backing. 3) If the Congressman is on the wrong side of this, prepare the torpedoes.

We've got to get them conditioned to dance to our tunes.

Only our tunes.

I will learn today what my Congressman thinks on this. (I will try; he is very junior and a bit shaky/scared it seems, a big cowed by it all, so he often hopes to camouflage his positions through the time-tested politicians' use of 1,000 words to say what 5 would accomplish.)

I guarantee you that if my nominal (this is being charitable to him, in my estimation) Catholic Congressman is not on the right side of this faith, family, freedom issue, he will know that he's in the bullseye once more. And he will feel the tactile and tangible pain.

The liberal nonsense WILL cease. Here and now.

Please, all here, go do likewise with your elected ones.

Al Adab| 1.30.12 @ 2:31PM

Pelligrino:
Absolutely correct. All of us need to engage our respective Congressmen, baring the redistricting going on, to see where they stand on issues.

These things get stuck on other bills that they so often cannot vote against. The problem of non-germain riders and earmarks once again. They do need to hear from us often about our views, positions and desires.

W| 1.30.12 @ 2:58PM

Al, John, Pellegrino
This is a perfect example of government by regulation by un-elected bureaucrats. Congress will pass a law creating an agency like IRS,HHS, OSHA, NLRB, etc. and give to the agency the power to issue regulations. These agencies then write regulations which have the force of law. The courts can find the regulations unreasonable and not enoforce them, but that does not often happen.
The senators and congressmen can always blame the agencies for issuing regulations but they have the power to pass a law to get rid of the regulation. This is one area where the president has a lot of power by his appointments to these agencies. But the real effecive remedy is for Congress to cut the budgets of these agencies and restrict the power of these agencies, or abolish them.

Al Adab| 1.30.12 @ 3:58PM

Yes, W:
And all the while courts have already ruled that Congress may not delegate its legislative authority to the executive branch. So what can the voters do about it?

W| 1.30.12 @ 6:51PM

Al Adab,
We have to elect legislators who promise to shrink the government.

Taxes must be cut and never raised unless we are in a declared war. We have to starve the beast and reduce government to the essentials. We do not need politicians, Dems or Reps, who want to do t for us, promise new programs, and run our lives.

For example, the Dept of Education. Bush expanded it with his No Child Left Behind. TheDept of Energy, completely useless. IRS- must go to flat tax or sales tax.

And we have to stop asking the federal government to run our lives. It seems with every problem the question is always what will the President do.

The answers are simple but doing it is difficult.

Barn Cat| 1.30.12 @ 10:32AM

The Catholic Church is wrong about contraception. Just as it's wrong about everything. It's corrupted every truth of Christianity and leads billions to hell.

Silver Bullet| 1.30.12 @ 10:36AM

From what vantage do you make your "infallible" pronouncements?

Huey Long, the Louisiana demagogue in the 1930's, had a campaign song, "Every Man a King." I think that you, along with most other non-Catholics, live by "Every Man a Pope, Every Man a Pope!!" You, "Barn Cat," are nothing more than your own personal, infallible "magisterium," complete to yourself, an "island" -- just you and your Bible (which the Catholic Church defined -- though by what authority?)....

Margie| 1.30.12 @ 8:54PM

" just you and your Bible (which the Catholic Church defined --"

This is insanity, because it's so disgustingly false.

God defined the Bible, He wrote it.
And the men who He used to put it to paper weren't Catholic, they were Christian.

And furthermore~ none of the teachings of the Vatican are in the Bible., so if it were defined by Catholicism~ Catholicism's teachings are somehow missing!!

As to the sad and false teaching of Popery~ it isn't in the Bible either~ and no Christian has anything to do with it. Catholics yes, Christians, no.

Christians obey the Word of God, which is contained in the Bible, and which say that ALL Christians are the priests and saints of God, and that Jesus Christ is the ONLY Mediator between Man and God~ there is no such thing as a "Vicar of Christ" on Earth in Scripture~ your Apostate Religion created it.

"But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God's own people, that you may declare the wonderful deeds of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light." 1 Pe. 2:9.

"I say, "You are gods, sons of the Most High, all of you.." Ps. 82:6.

"For there is one God, and there is one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony to which was borne at the proper time." 1 Tim. 2:5 & 6.

Since the Apostate Catholic Religion created its own teachings which are unbiblical, it is in rebellion against the Word of God~ it is guilty of adding to His Words:

"Every Word of God proves true; He is a Shield to those who take refuge in Him.
Do not add to His Words, lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar." Prov. 30:5 & 6.

Papist Dan| 1.30.12 @ 9:22PM

BIGOT ALERT!!!!BIGOT ALERT!!!
The village Bigot has crawled from under her rock to with her daily anti-Catholic bigotry.

She pretends to be a Christian and lecture everybody here, but she is a fraud and charlatan.

She does not believe that Jesus is God and doesn't believe in the Trinity so she isn't a Christian. But she has appointed herself to judge who is a Christian and who is a Jew and a conservative.

She is just a plain, intolerant, stupid bigot and charlatan.

Ignore her. She is just trolling for a fight because she is pathetic.

She posts the same old every time she sees the word "Catholic" that throws her into her Pavlovian reply. Maybe she has Tourette Syndrome that forces her to spout anti Catholic bigotry.

Her reply will be: liar, papist, punk, repent.
Go back under your rock,Bigot.

Oldefarte| 1.30.12 @ 9:37PM

CATHOLIC MASS:

'.....On Sundays and solemnities, three Scripture readings are given. On other days there are only two. If there are three readings, the first is from the Old Testament (a term wider than Hebrew Scriptures, since it includes the Deuterocanonical Books), or the Acts of the Apostles during Eastertide. The first reading is followed by a Responsorial Psalm, a complete Psalm or a sizeable portion of one. A cantor, choir or lector leads, and the congregation sings or recites a refrain. The second reading is from the New Testament, typically from one of the Pauline epistles. The reader typically concludes each reading by proclaiming that the reading is "the word of the Lord," and congregation responds by saying "Thanks be to God."If a deacon participates, he reads the Gospel. A priest, bishop, or even the Pope should not proclaim the Gospel if a deacon is participating.The final reading and high point of the Liturgy of the Word is the proclamation of the Gospel. This is preceded by the singing or recitation of the Gospel Acclamation, typically an Alleluia with a verse of Scripture, which may be omitted if not sung. Alleluia is replaced during Lent by a different acclamation of praise. All stand while the Gospel is chanted or read by a deacon or, if none is available, by a priest. To conclude the Gospel reading, the priest or deacon proclaims: "This is the Gospel of the Lord" (in the United States, "The Gospel of the Lord") and the people respond, "Praise to you, Lord Jesus Christ." The priest or deacon then kisses the book....'

Nick| 1.31.12 @ 1:33AM

Margie,

"And the men who He used to put it to paper weren't Catholic, they were Christian."

Moses was a Christian when he wrote the Torah?
Oy vey!

SeymourGlass| 1.30.12 @ 11:08AM

So say you, Barn Cat. I say otherwise. I suppose we'll both know in the end.

Margie| 1.30.12 @ 6:01PM

No, we know now, because the Bible is the standard. It is the standard for Christians, that is.
The Vatican is the standarf gor Catholics, sadly.

Jesus is LORD.

"Jesus answered and said to him, If anyone
loves Me, he will keep My Word, and
My Father shall love him. And We will
come to him and will make an abode with
him.
The one not loving Me does not keep
My words. And the Word which you hear
is not Mine but of the Father, the One having
sent Me." Jn. 14:23 & 24.

SeymourGlass| 1.30.12 @ 7:09PM

Thus says you, Margie. I say otherwise. We'll both know in the end.

Margie| 1.30.12 @ 8:10PM

Thus says the Word of God:

"Everyone transgressing and not abiding
in the doctrine of Christ does not have God.
The one abiding in the doctrine of Christ,
this one has the Father and the Son." 2 Jn. 1:9.

SeymourGlass| 1.30.12 @ 10:26PM

Indeed, it does say that. It's one of the many verses which confirms my Christianity, that is, my Catholicism. Thanks for the reminder.

Oldefarte| 1.30.12 @ 9:45PM

A person with a fifth grade education who reads a Bible is not educationally qualified to correctly interpret the meanings of the Bible's verses [as in the law, A PERSON WHO REPRESENTS HIMSELF IN COURT .....HAS A FOOL FOR A LAWYER!]

W| 1.30.12 @ 11:31AM

What is your point? Are you saying it is ok for the federal government to tell a religion how to operate its institutions as long as it is a religion you do not approve?

CLD| 1.31.12 @ 12:59PM

So which of your 40,000 different denominations, with their wildly different interpretations of Scripture, contains the TRUTH? Which Protestants are lying? Despite the dissent, the Catholic Church is consistent in its teaching.

Skip| 1.30.12 @ 10:45AM

Margaret Twining, you disengenuous hag, why don't you mention that the aforementioned " Guttmacher Institute, the nonprofit sexual health research organization" is an "abortion rights" advocate, is a division of the Planned Parenthood Federation of American, and is named after Alan guttmeyer, former president of Planned (un)Parenthood?

Because you're probably the type of "Catholic" who can ignore the heavy dose of cognitive dissonance, and supports "abortion rights".

Catholic women who oppose abortion know this ruling covers abortofacient "contraception", and DO object.

Seek| 1.30.12 @ 4:29PM

So which is it: "Guttmacher" or "Guttmeyer?" You seem to have two spellings.

Legarto Rey| 1.30.12 @ 11:24AM

The majority of American Catholics have been so in the tank for Obama and his wealth redistribution whimsy, that for them to feign indignation over his "reproductive health" agenda smacks of hypocrisy!!

Matt| 1.30.12 @ 11:46AM

Regardless of whether you are catholic or non-catholic, this points should not be lost on Americans. This guy is legislating how we are to live and soon he will force us how to die. When will insurance companies have to cover euthanasia? The sad reality of it is so many Catholics thought this guy was the greatest thing since slices white bread. I didnt vote for him? Did you? If you did, don't do it again. Wake up America. it is also time for the US Catholic Bishops to deny Communion to Sebelius and Biden and any other practicing politician who goes lockstep with this new age Hitler. Show some gonads!!!!!!!!!

Believer4| 1.30.12 @ 1:32PM

Note: 54% of Catholics in our country voted for Obama.

Enough said.

Mimi| 1.30.12 @ 3:06PM

Thats about to change...

Silver Bullet| 1.30.12 @ 5:54PM

Closing the barn door after Obama got elected? Where were the Catholic Bishops in 2008? I'd wager that most of them voted for Obama.

StephenF| 1.30.12 @ 6:32PM

For some it was naivety that led that to vote for Barry. Worse yet are those Catholics who voted for him precisely because they agreed with his policies - including the policies that run counter to Church teachings (pretty much all of his policies...).

PJ| 1.30.12 @ 8:10PM

The American Catholic Bishops were united in 2008 by issuing a document (Faithful Citizenship) that told the laity that they would be in direct conflict with Catholic moral teaching if they voted for a pro-abortion candidate. If there were 2 pro-abortion candidates then the Catholic was obligated to vote for the least radical in their pro-abortion beliefs.

It has been the bishops' policy not to endorse any candidate only policies.

Occam's Tool| 1.30.12 @ 7:47PM

Gosh, I hope you are right, Mimi.

Oldefarte| 1.31.12 @ 11:02AM

I've been a Catholic for 66 years and DID NOT VOTE FOR OBAMA OR ANY OTHER GD DEMOCRAT FOR 46 OF THOSE YEARS [EXCEPT ONCE IN ORDER TO PROTECT MY STATE AND THE NATION FROM ELECTING A FORMER MEMBER OF THE KKK AS ITS GOVERNOR], and there are many many other 'Catholics' who have also voted similarily........'ENOUGH SAID' ALSO!!!!!!!!

trustee| 1.30.12 @ 1:38PM

The author never gets on here to explain or clarify. I thought that this article was poorly worded in several spots. Wording that made clarity and reader understanding shaky at best.

For example:

"The rule suggests a preposterous scenario in which a Catholic hospital avoids paying for sterilizations and the morning-after pill by closing its doors to atheists and Muslims, and hanging out a sign saying 'no Protestants need apply.'"

This is an issue in which true Protestants would be in absolute concert.

"No Protestants need apply." Say what?

Note: Any weird offshoot or now liberal gone looney Protestant denomination that would NOT be in concert, is NOT Christian faith.

I am glad for what the real and strong Catholic leadership is trying to do. I would expect all good Christians and Protestants to join the effort.

SeymourGlass| 1.30.12 @ 3:05PM

Uh, can you "explain and clarify" your own post?

JP| 1.30.12 @ 3:31PM

I don't think you understand the HHS rules. As far as religious organizations go, the only people who would not be subject to federal HHS rules would be those people "employed" directly in a "spiritual capacity" as defined by HHS (ie priests, nuns, brothers). This creates the following scenarios:

1) For religious hospitals, the hospitals would be precluded from treating anyone not deemed "religious" by the HHS (priests, brothers, and nuns). HHS rules mandate that all hospitals by law provide abortion, sterilization, and contraceptive services; the only exceptions to this rule would be for those hospitals that meet the exception clauses (ie for those that serve those in the religious vocations. Hint: there are no hospitals anywhere in the world that meet that definition). In short, Catholic hospitals would be precluded from offering even free health services (which almost all do for the poor) if they do not agree to offer abortions, sterlizations, and contraceptives.

This also dove tails into the many catholic organizations that offer services to all, and employ non-Catholics. Take the University of Notre Dame, for instance. Notre Dame employs 3-5 thousands people - many are non-Catholics, and good number are not even Christian. Notre Dame, by definition, must buy health insurance packages that pay for abortions, sterlizations, and contraceptives. The HHS rules are a clear violation of Catholic morality, as it forces Notre Dame not only to participate in evil but also subsidizes it. The only alternative for Notre Dame is to stop offering health insurance. But, to do that, Notre Dame would be forced to pay a fine (in total, the annual fine would be $10 million). This is akin to the old Muslim Dhiminitude, in which Christians were forced to pay taxes by virture of being non-Muslim.

Of course, Fr Jenkins was all for ObamaCare 2 years ago. And President Obama assured Catholics (and that assurance was passed down to Catholics by thier Bishops) that they would not be forced at some future time to chose between compliance and thier religious scruples. Now Fr Jenkins has the unenviable task to explain to his employees why Notre Dame may be forced either to drop health insurance coverage or lose its affiliation with the Catholic Church (many Catholic hospitals, insurance agencies, and schools have done just that in recent decades). That of course is a different matter. The Constitutional issues currently are what Catholic priests, bishops, and superiors must deal with. The choice for them and all Catholics is clear.

Occam's Tool| 1.30.12 @ 7:48PM

Too many idiots of all faiths were for Obamacare 2 years ago.

Oldefarte| 1.31.12 @ 11:04AM

Too many idiots [aka dumbarses and imbiciles] were for Obama and for Democrats for all of my substantial adult lifetime, and therein lies the extreme problem for this nation [just ask Forrest Gump]!!!!

ella8| 1.30.12 @ 5:28PM

The left may find some unintended consequences coming their own way. So often liberals use moral arguments to justify their ways, if they lose Catholic support, they no longer have any ammunition to claim the higher moral ground. I'm sorry but a secular humanist manifesto is just not enough. Let them lose them and hopefully the Catholic Church can come to its senses and stop abandoning the principle of subsidiarity and pawning off moral obligations to a centralized government. It needs to start from the bottom up, within our families, churches, and local communities first; not from the top down.

ella8| 1.30.12 @ 5:30PM

Maybe the Mormons are on to something. They seem to get it right on this.

Frank Natoli| 1.30.12 @ 5:38PM

If Antle thinks the Roman Catholic clergy, priests and nuns, overwhelmingly registered Democrats and literally religious believers in the all encompassing welfare state, are going to have a change of heart regarding the secular believers in the all encompassing welfare state whom they enthusiastically put into power, he is very mistaken.

For many decades, the clergy has had the option of forcefully declaring "Catholics" in government, who publicly support abortion and any number of other unambiguous moral issues, to be "not Catholic", take Sibelius for an immediate example, it would have been clear to everyone that the all encompassing welfare state was fundamentally incompatible with moral teaching.

But the clergy refused to do that. They know why they didn't and it's pointless to speculate. And what is happening now should be a surprise only to the wilfully blind.

Juan Jose Morales-Castillo | 1.30.12 @ 6:20PM

If abortion had been legal in PR in 1954, I would not have been born; fortunately my weak willed mother was supported by her father, JUAN MORALES CARDONA, whose name I carry with pride.
My mother, like most Boricuas, still lives under the delusion that the Demicat Party of today is still the party of FDR, the only POTUS whose memory is still cherished in PR; let's see if now she will see what the party of Obrute is really like.

Kingofthenet| 1.30.12 @ 7:09PM

I hear in a second term Obama is going to REQUIRE Republicans Kill and eat their Fetuses.

SeymourGlass| 1.30.12 @ 7:12PM

Damn, you are SO CLEVER, King.

Kingofthenet| 1.30.12 @ 7:29PM

It's a Gift

SeymourGlass| 1.30.12 @ 10:27PM

If it were given to me, I'd return it. Then again, one man's garbage is another man's treasure...

Rockerbabe| 1.31.12 @ 1:27AM

I think I would be ashamed to have a son such as you. Whatever you may think of your mother should be kept private. Her decisions are her own; she doesn't need your permission to live her own life. You need to grow up.

Nick| 1.31.12 @ 1:50AM

If you were my mom, Rockerbabe, I'd be glad that you were ashamed of me.
I certainly wouldn't want your approval, that's for sure.

JAY| 1.30.12 @ 6:52PM

The US Catholic Church tacitly endorsed Obama. Let them live with what they reaped.

Oldefarte| 1.31.12 @ 11:10AM

I don;t think that the Catholic Church ever officially endorses any political candidate[and if by chance they did unofficially do so, SO WHAT?; sadly and dispicably many many organizations and individuals endorsed this socialists '''''STUPIDLY''''''....please verify/prove your statement!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Kingofthenet| 1.30.12 @ 6:57PM

I am sure Jehovah Witnesses don't want to pay for lifesaving blood transfusions either, but the Govt. can require certain requirements to grant a license to sell an insurance plan. Just give patients who request it either a rider policy from a third party or fair value of the denied services.

Kingofthenet| 1.30.12 @ 7:16PM

It it me or is Kathleen Sebelius kinda HOT for an older lady?

Occam's Tool| 1.30.12 @ 7:49PM

It's you, King. Drink more; your liver will go faster.

Nick| 1.31.12 @ 1:44AM

Let me guess, KooK, you had a thing for Maude, too, didn't you?

Dude.
Seriously.
So gross.

POST American| 1.30.12 @ 9:56PM

----AGAIN-----

WE thought Rockefeller
---'ECK--YOU--MEN---ICK---ALLLL---ism'---
had finished off the moral authority off
the catholic establishment.

----------------------Guess they still need that
wisp of controlled opposition.

Remember kiddies,

---------------USURY---IS---EUGENICS--------------

Rockerbabe| 1.31.12 @ 1:24AM

This article is one of the most biased I have read in quite awhile. The writer seems to think that discrimination against women, especially women of childbearing age is just fine. Well it is not fine, it is not legal and it is not constititutional. The church can do what it wants, but not with government money, government contracts and government taxbreaks. To get these benefits, one has to comply with the law of the land or one has to obtain private money to carry on with their activities.

These religious organizations are not entitle to discriminate against women; the government would surely not allow the discrimination against latino or black men; women are deserving of protection against such backwards thinking and, we should not be asked to contribute one penney to organizations that treat us as if were are inferior or 2nd class citizens. What's good enough for the men [who are not disallowed anything in the medical insurance racket] is good enough for the women.

Let the church use private money for their social activities; let the church use private money to fund their employee benefits programs and let the churches use private money to cover for the taxbreaks they wouldn't be getting. This way they can discriminate all they want and not be in a position to offend the women citizens of this country; women who are taxpayers, voters, property owner, etc.

There is not religious intolerance here; just the determination to follow the constitution and how it applies to women.

Nick| 1.31.12 @ 1:47AM

You don't know what you are talking about, Rockerbabe.
Now, go away, and leave the adults alone to talk among ourselves, okay?

RCV| 1.31.12 @ 4:10PM

This isn't about using government money. It's about whether the Church must offer to its employees health care coverage which includes things that violate the Church's religious scruples. And the Constitution DOES have something to say about this matter: it guarantees to all of us the free exercise of our religious faith without undue interference from the government. While the government regulation is, on its face, valid, an accomodation for the religious scruples of the Church in this instance is required by the First Amendment in my view.

POST American| 1.31.12 @ 4:24AM

--------------------------BTW---------------------------------

-putting aside the usual, authorized talking
points

WHERE is the Catholic church regarding
the Globalist slave conditions and EUGENICS inside the US taxpayer underwritten and empowered 'miracle' of RED China?

Those with an eye, ear and/or heart
already know what to make of Steve Jobs's
unrepentant stance viz a viz the X-ploitation
of cheap labor in China.

But then he is was a 'brought in'
corporatist and EUGENICS front himself.

---JUST IN---

'Forced to stand for 24 hours, suicide nets;
toxin exposure and explosions; Inside the
Chinese factories making iPads for Apple'
-MAIL online
(yesterday)

-----WHERE is the voice of Catholic
indignation in all this?

----------Where is anyone's voice?

Even secularists? ---Regulating and
paying a decent, globally respectable
wage ---would solve the China slave
standard problem overnight.

The Catholic church may make the
occasional murmur of 'conscience'
---but is basically a NO SHOW.

EVEN WORSE the 33rd degree Free 'MAY-SINS'
disguised as christians ---Pat Robertson
--Billy Graham and Jesse Jackson.

NOT only are they SILENT on these matters
----------------------BUT!-------------------------
their recent open support and
greenlighting of EUGENICS
X--speed--iency ---and spit in the
face of C hrist uttered doctrine
---make them far, far, far more disturbing.

------------AND NO ONE SAYS ANYTHING----------

SLEAZY

VERY SLEAZY

Tony in Central PA| 1.31.12 @ 12:01PM

In 2006 when the state of Massachusetts denied Catholic adoption agencies the right to participate in facilitating adoptions it should have been a cultural earthquake. It wasn't headline news for the most part. People should have taken notice. It was a watershed event for the groups that want to make the State the Church.
What we are going to see is the continued, gradual constriction of religious liberties wherever the State desires to claim power. I believe the goal is to create an America where religious groups must in effect make a " Pledge of Allegiance " to the State by accepting its definitions for the institutions that comprise the basic fabric of society like marriage, family as well as human life itself. The history, theology and logic supporting the arguments for religious tradition will be made irrelevant, an easy thing to do with a population that has little knowledge or concern for these things. Its really a return to the Roman Empire of pagan times, where a plurality of relgions were permitted as long as the Emperor was given homage above all else.

altec lansing inmotion | 2.1.12 @ 2:27AM

No Comment

aventiq sterilizer | 2.1.12 @ 2:31AM

Thank you for your discussion

John Mutchler| 2.2.12 @ 8:49PM

If you do not believe and hold dear to Catholic teachings, are you a Catholic? You may say that you are, but doesn't 'not believing' disqualify you from the discussion about Catholicism and abortion, birth control and other state-supported medical ventures that align themselves with the anti-Catholic side of the spectrum?

Latest Headlines

Not Ready for Primetime Players

Daniel J. Flynn|89 comments

Assessing a Week of Scandal

Matt Purple|114 comments

Oops, Maybe Government is Tyrannical

Marta H. Mossburg|50 comments

Soros Funds Anti-‘Torture’ Report

Mark Tooley|92 comments

Treasure State Treasury

Bill Croke|3 comments

My Generation’s Disease

Benjamin Brophy|50 comments

The View From the Other Side

George H. Wittman|14 comments

USPS: Radical Surgery Needed

Peter Hannaford|19 comments

The Spectacle Blog

Elijah Harper, R.I.P.

Aaron Goldstein | 1:07PM

If Only the Tsar Knew!

F.H. Buckley | 11:14AM

Low-Level IRS Staffer: No, We Didn’t Mastermind This Entire Thing

Matt Purple | 5.17.13

UPDATED: IRS Acting Chief Apologizes, But Defends His Actions

Kaylin Bugos | 5.17.13

Voter Fraud Affected Election Results in Missouri

Kaylin Bugos | 5.17.13

Purple Privacy Push Persists in House Drone Hearing

Luca Gattoni-Celli | 5.17.13

IRS Director: ‘Some People Call Me Maurice’

Kyle Peterson | 5.17.13

Laughing to Keep From Crying

Ross Kaminsky | 5.17.13

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Pope Culture

By George Sim Johnston

A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck

By P.J. O'Rourke

Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
Dames at Sea

By John Corry
In the Absence of Guns

By Mark Steyn

In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The Metaphysical Martini

By Werner J. Dannhauser
Counting the Costs of Clintonism

By Robert H. Bork

The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
Chuck McHagel

By George Neumayr

It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted

By Douglas Bartholomew
It’s the Best Time of the Year

By Mark Steyn

The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
The Bush Crack-Up

By Brit Hume

Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?

The American Spectator

The Nation's Pulse

This Conscience Thing

About the Author

Letter to the Editor View all comments (167) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

c. j. acworth| 1.30.12 @ 7:03AM

Jack in Wi.| 1.30.12 @ 7:26AM

Timothy L. Pennell| 1.30.12 @ 10:22AM

Mimi| 1.30.12 @ 2:35PM

Occam's Tool| 1.30.12 @ 7:39PM

Margaret Twining| 1.30.12 @ 9:25AM

J.J.| 1.30.12 @ 9:29AM

Madge| 1.30.12 @ 9:33AM

Fred Y.| 1.30.12 @ 9:36AM

out & about| 1.30.12 @ 9:38AM

old white guy| 1.30.12 @ 9:44AM

Dmac| 1.30.12 @ 9:44AM

Father Bryan| 1.30.12 @ 9:42AM

Father Bryan| 1.30.12 @ 9:46AM

Mimi| 1.30.12 @ 2:26PM

Nick| 1.31.12 @ 12:19AM

spike59| 1.31.12 @ 6:47AM

Seek| 1.30.12 @ 1:16PM

Occam's Tool| 1.30.12 @ 7:41PM

SeymourGlass| 1.30.12 @ 11:04AM

StephenF| 1.30.12 @ 12:01PM

Anthony M| 1.30.12 @ 12:47PM

Catholic father of 8| 1.30.12 @ 2:47PM

Derek Leaberry| 1.30.12 @ 3:51PM

StephenF| 1.30.12 @ 6:09PM

Carolyn| 1.30.12 @ 2:56PM

JP| 1.30.12 @ 3:46PM

Nick| 1.31.12 @ 12:26AM

Tony in Central PA| 1.31.12 @ 10:10AM

Clint| 1.30.12 @ 3:46PM

Skippy| 1.30.12 @ 5:10PM

Felix G| 1.30.12 @ 7:54PM

Nick| 1.31.12 @ 12:12AM

old white guy| 1.30.12 @ 9:43AM

Alan Brooks| 1.30.12 @ 3:32PM

Alan Brooks| 1.30.12 @ 3:35PM

Alan Brooks| 1.30.12 @ 3:51PM

Alan Brooks| 1.30.12 @ 3:53PM

h & b snacks| 1.30.12 @ 6:20PM

h & b snacks| 1.30.12 @ 6:20PM

Nick| 1.31.12 @ 12:41AM

Appleby| 1.30.12 @ 7:06AM

nister| 1.30.12 @ 7:29AM

Mr. Bible By My Side| 1.30.12 @ 3:01PM

Margaret Twining| 1.30.12 @ 3:04PM

Margaret Twining| 1.30.12 @ 3:06PM

Margaret Twining| 1.30.12 @ 3:08PM

Al Adab| 1.30.12 @ 4:08PM

John Navratil| 1.30.12 @ 6:31PM

Seek| 1.30.12 @ 4:27PM

Walt| 1.30.12 @ 4:32PM

Common Decency!| 1.30.12 @ 4:35PM

Coyote Pete| 1.30.12 @ 4:36PM

op ed| 1.30.12 @ 4:38PM

Zing! What a feeling!| 1.30.12 @ 5:57PM

Jeamar| 1.30.12 @ 9:43PM

Occam's Tool| 1.30.12 @ 7:44PM

MainerDoc| 1.30.12 @ 7:06AM

nister| 1.30.12 @ 7:08AM

JP| 1.30.12 @ 7:44AM

nister| 1.30.12 @ 8:04AM

JP| 1.30.12 @ 9:38AM

nister| 1.30.12 @ 12:46PM

JP| 1.30.12 @ 1:29PM

JP| 1.30.12 @ 1:31PM

Indy| 1.30.12 @ 8:06AM

Dr. X| 1.30.12 @ 7:40AM

Indy| 1.30.12 @ 8:08AM

Clint| 1.30.12 @ 8:38AM

Oldefarte| 1.30.12 @ 11:02AM

Clint| 1.30.12 @ 3:22PM

Dr. X| 1.30.12 @ 12:05PM

Clint| 1.30.12 @ 3:08PM

Oldefarte| 1.30.12 @ 3:47PM

Dr. X| 1.30.12 @ 5:27PM