Important Tuesday Notes | LifeSiteNews.com

Important Tuesday Notes | LifeSiteNews.com.

Those of you who follow news of “things Catholic” realize that LifeSiteNews is, arguably, the most comprhensive and up to date source of information about the Church, attacks on it an what is happening in the Church’s defense. Â I note from the paragraph below that three of the best of this whole top-notch group are under particular load and stress currently. Â We owe them our support and prayers (in addition to financial support.) Â They seem to be tireless defenders of the faith.

Editor-in-Chief John-Henry Westen returned Tuesday evening from Kerala, India where he spent the last two weeks with his gravely ill mother. At the same time, US journalist Kathleen Gilbert has been writing many important US stories while in Rome all this month to assist Rome correspondent Hilary White who has been recovering from cancer treatments and surgery. Kathleen’s report last Friday, with quotes from Congressman Chris Smith and others, generated the huge Drudge link traffic that day. This Thursday, John-Henry is scheduled to fly out again for a week in Rome. I will join him Monday for important meetings in the Eternal City. John-Henry returns the following Thursday and Kathleen and myself will stay on in Rome to cover two important conferences during the Feb. 24-26 weekend.

You may read the full report at the link on top.

Share this article

Posted in Freedom of Conscience, Health Care, Legislative | Leave a comment

Abortion, Contraception and the Church Fathers

The National Catholic Register published today a reference guide as to the historic Catholic position on birth Control.  In it was a reference to an HLI, Human Life International, article on that topic.  Below are links to both.

Remember that St. Peter 1Peter 3:15, tells us “alway [be prepared] to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you…”

Below the references are two quotes, one from the Lambeth Conference of 1920 and another from 1930.  Notice the transition from “never” to “sometimes” to the now current “if it feels good, do it.”

| Daily News | NCRegister.com

Abortion, Contraception and the Church Fathers | Daily News | NCRegister.com.

Facts of Life: Chapter 21: Contraception: The Historical Teaching of the Christian Church on Contraception.

Statement of the 1920 Lambeth Conference

–       ”We utter an emphatic warning against the use of unnatural means for the avoidance of conception, together with the grave dangers — physical, moral, and religious — thereby incurred, and against the evils with which the extension of such use threatens the race. In opposition to the teaching which in the name of science and religion encourages married people in the deliberate cultivation of sexual union as an end in itself, we steadfastly uphold what must always be regarded as the governing consideration of Christian marriage. One is the primary purpose for which marriage exists — namely, the continuation of the race through the gift and heritage of children; the other is the paramount importance in married life of deliberate and thoughtful self-control.”[64]

Resolution 15 of the 1930 Lambeth Conference

     “Where there is a clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood, the method must be decided on Christian principles. The primary and obvious method is complete abstinence from intercourse (as far as may be necessary) in a life of discipleship and self-control lived in the power of the Holy Spirit. Nevertheless, in those cases where there is such a clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood, and where there is a morally sound reason for avoiding complete abstinence, the Conference agrees that other methods may be used, provided that this is done in the light of the same Christian principles. The Conference records its strong condemnation of the use of any methods of conception-control for motives of selfishness, luxury, or mere convenience.”

Share this article

Posted in Administration, Apologetics, Church Doctrine/Teaching, Freedom of Conscience, Health Care, HHS Mandate | Leave a comment

USCCB Blog: Six More Things Everyone Should Know About the HHS Mandate

USCCB Blog: Six More Things Everyone Should Know About the HHS Mandate.

The rule that created the uproar has not changed at all, but was finalized as is.Friday evening, after a day of touting meaningful changes in the mandate, HHS issued a regulation finalizing the rule first issued in August 2011, “without change.” So religious employers dedicated to serving people of other faiths are still not exempt as “religious employers.” Indeed, the rule describes them as “non-exempt.”

  1. The rule leaves open the possibility that even exempt “religious employers” will be forced to cover sterilization.In its August 2011 comments, USCCB warned that the narrow “religious employer” exemption appeared to provide no relief from the sterilization mandate—only the contraception mandate—and specifically sought clarification. (We also noted that a sterilization mandate exists inonly one state, Vermont.) HHS provided no clarification, so the risk remains under the unchanged final rule.
  2. The new “accommodation” is not a current rule, but a promise that comes due beyond the point of public accountability. Also on Friday evening, HHS issued regulations describing the intention to develop more regulations that would apply the same mandate differently to “non-exempt, non-profit religious organizations”—the charities, schools, and hospitals that are still left out of the “religious employer” exemption. These policies will be developed over a one-year delay in enforcement, so if they turn out badly, their impact will not be felt until August 2013, well after the election.
  3. Even if the promises of “accommodation” are fulfilled entirely, religious charities, schools, and hospitals will still be forced to violate their beliefs. If an employee of these second-class-citizen religious institutions wants coverage of contraception or sterilization, the objecting employer is still forced to pay for it as a part of the employer’s insurance plan. There can be no additional cost to that employee, and the coverage is not a separate policy. By process of elimination, the funds to pay for that coveragemust come from the premiums of the employer and fellow employees, even those who object in conscience.
  4. The “accommodation” does not even purport to help objecting insurers, for-profit religious employers, secular employers, or individuals. In its August 2011 comments, and many times since, USCCB identified all the stakeholders in the process whose religious freedom is threatened—allemployers, insurers, and individuals, not just religious employers. Friday’s actions emphasize that all insurers, including self-insurers, must provide the coverage to any employee who wants it. In turn,all individuals who pay premiums have no escape from subsidizing that coverage. And only employers that are both non-profit and religious may qualify for the “accommodation.”
  5. Beware of claims, especially by partisans, that the bishops are partisan. The bishops and their staff read regulations before evaluating them. The bishops did not pick this fight in an election year—others did. Bishops form their positions based on principles—here, religious liberty for all, and the life and dignity of everyhuman person—not polls, personalities, or political parties. Bishops are duty bound to proclaim these principles, in and out of season.

Here are USCCB’s first “six things” on the HHS mandate.

Share this article

Posted in Abortion, Administration, Attacks, Catholic Politicians, Church Doctrine/Teaching, Freedom of Conscience, Health Care, HHS Mandate, Religious Freedom, USCCB | Leave a comment

Notre Dame Faculty to Obama: ‘This Is a Grave Violation of Religious Freedom and Cannot Stand’ | CNSnews.com

Notre Dame Faculty to Obama: ‘This Is a Grave Violation of Religious Freedom and Cannot Stand’ | CNSnews.com.

(CNSNews.com) – Twenty-five Notre Dame faculty members–led by the university’s top ethics expert, and including some of the school’s most eminent scholars–have signed a statement declaring that President Barack Obama’s latest version of his administration’s mandate that all health insurance plans in the United States must cover sterilizations and all FDA-approved contraceptives, including those that cause abortions, is “a grave violation of religious freedom and cannot stand.”

The statement—put out on the letterhead of the University of Notre Dame Law School–is also signed by leading scholars from other major American colleges and universities, including Princeton, Harvard, Stanford, Georgetown, Brigham Young, Yeshiva and Wheaton College.

Continue reading

Share this article

Posted in Abortion, Administration, Church Doctrine/Teaching, Education, Freedom of Conscience, Health Care, HHS Mandate, Persecution-Attack, Religious Freedom | Leave a comment

Collective Reaction to Obama Duplicitous “Compromise”

Actually it was quite clever.

In retrospect it seems we were taken in from the beginning. We were played for fools. Clearly Obama did not expect his initial offering to be accepted.  He, and his advisors, knew there would be strong negative reaction so the put on this one act play.

“Let’ give ‘em something we know they’ll ‘go postal’ over, then we’ll change it, seeming to be acting in the spirtit of compromise. Since nothing is changed, we have nothing to lose. Keep in mind that what we’re after is to score our points while not loosing votes in November.”

Below are summary reactions to the “compromise” offering.

Share this article

Posted in Abortion, Administration, Bishops, Church Doctrine/Teaching, Dissenting Groups, Freedom of Conscience, HHS Mandate, Religious Freedom, USCCB | Leave a comment

Bishops Renew Call to Legislative Action on Religious Liberty

This response, posted on the web site of the USCCB, seems to say [my interpretation] “This changes nothing, we still need legislative action to protect Freedom of Conscience.” Here are its salient points:

  • First, he has decided to retain HHS’s nationwide mandate of insurance coverage of sterilization and contraception, including some abortifacients. This is both unsupported in the law and remains a grave moral concern.
  • It would still mandate that all insurers must include coverage for the objectionable services in all the policies they would write. At this point, it would appear that self-insuring religious employers, and religious insurance companies, are not exempt from this mandate.
  • [We] renew our call on Congress to pass, and the Administration to sign, the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act. 
  • [We] renew our call to the Catholic faithful, and to all our fellow Americans, to join together in this effort to protect religious liberty and freedom of conscience for all.

Please respond to this call:

WRITE to CONGRESS TODAY – A recent edict by HHS is “literally unconscionable.” It demands that sterilization, abortifacients and contraception be included in virtually all health plans. Study the issue & then write to Congress urging support for the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act here.

This is the link to the USCCB release.  The text follows.

Bishops Renew Call to Legislative Action on Religious Liberty.

WASHINGTON – The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) have issued the following statement:

The Catholic bishops have long supported access to life-affirming healthcare for all, and the conscience rights of everyone involved in the complex process of providing that healthcare. That is why we raised two serious objections to the “preventive services” regulation issued by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) in August 2011.

First, we objected to the rule forcing private health plans — nationwide, by the stroke of a bureaucrat’s pen—to cover sterilization and contraception, including drugs that may cause abortion. All the other mandated “preventive services” prevent disease, and pregnancy is not a disease. Moreover, forcing plans to cover abortifacients violates existing federal conscience laws. Therefore, we called for the rescission of the mandate altogether.

Second, we explained that the mandate would impose a burden of unprecedented reach and severity on the consciences of those who consider such “services” immoral: insurers forced to write policies including this coverage; employers and schools forced to sponsor and subsidize the coverage; and individual employees and students forced to pay premiums for the coverage. We therefore urged HHS, if it insisted on keeping the mandate, to provide a conscience exemption for all of these stakeholders—not just the extremely small subset of “religious employers” that HHS proposed to exempt initially.

Continue reading

Share this article

Posted in Abortion, Administration, Church Doctrine/Teaching, Freedom of Conscience, Persecution, USCCB | Leave a comment

Six things everyone should know about the HHS mandate | TheCatholicSpirit.com

Sr. Mary Ann Walsh, Director of Media Relations, brings these to our attention.  They were posted on the USCCB News Blog.

Six things everyone should know about the HHS mandate | TheCatholicSpirit.com.

1. The mandate does not exempt Catholic charities, schools, universities, or hospitals.These institutions are vital to the mission of the Church, but HHS does not deem them “religious employers” worthy of conscience protection, because they do not “serve primarily persons who share the[ir] religious tenets.” HHS denies these organizations religious freedom precisely because their purpose is to serve the common good of society — a purpose that government should encourage, not punish.

2. The mandate forces these institutions and others, against their conscience, to pay for things they consider immoral. Under the mandate, the government forces religious insurers to write policies that violate their beliefs; forces religious employers and schools to sponsor and subsidize coverage that violates their beliefs; and forces religious employees and students to purchase coverage that violates their beliefs.

3. The mandate forces coverage of sterilization and abortion-inducing drugs and devices as well as contraception. Though commonly called the “contraceptive mandate,” HHS’s mandate also forces employers to sponsor and subsidize coverage of sterilization. And, by including all drugs approved by the FDA for use as contraceptives, the HHS mandate includes drugs that can induce abortion, such as “Ella,” a close cousin of the abortion pill RU-486.

4. Catholics of all political persuasions are unified in their opposition to the mandate.Catholics who have long supported this Administration and its health care policies have publicly criticized HHS’s decision, including columnists E.J. Dionne, Mark Shields and Michael Sean Winters; college presidents Father John Jenkins and Arturo Chavez; and Daughter of Charity Sister Carol Keehan, president and chief executive officer of the Catholic Health Association of the United States.

5. Many other religious and secular people and groups have spoken out strongly against the mandate. Many recognize this as an assault on the broader principle of religious liberty, even if they disagree with the Church on the underlying moral question. For example, Protestant Christian, Orthodox Christian, and Orthodox Jewish groups — none of which oppose contraception — have issued statements against the decision. The Washington Post, USA Today, N.Y. Daily News, Detroit News and other secular outlets, columnists and bloggers have editorialized against it.

6. The federal mandate is much stricter than existing state mandates. HHS chose the narrowest state-level religious exemption as the model for its own. That exemption was drafted by the ACLU and exists in only 3 states (New York, California, Oregon). Even without a religious exemption, religious employers can already avoid the contraceptive mandates in 28 states by self-insuring their prescription drug coverage, dropping that coverage altogether, or opting for regulation under a federal law (ERISA) that pre-empts state law. The HHS mandate closes off all these avenues of relief.

This commentary first appeared as a post on the USCCB Media Blog.

Share this article

Posted in Church Doctrine/Teaching, Freedom of Conscience, Health Care, HHS Mandate, USCCB | Leave a comment

LifeSiteNews Headlines re: HHS Contraception Mandate

Rick Warren tweets: ‘I’d go to jail rather than cave in’ on Obamacare mandate

Stanley Cup winning goaltender: ‘I stand with Catholics’ against birth control mandate

BREAKING: EWTN files lawsuit against Obama mandate

Lutherans join chorus of voices slamming HHS contraceptive mandate

Priests for Life sues Obama administration over contraception mandate

Michigan attorney general joins religious liberty case against Obama administration

Boehner pledges to end Obama mandate as Catholic Dems splinter, Obama digs in heels

Catholic Health Association: we might have to sue over Obama mandate

 

Share this article

Posted in Attacks, Freedom of Conscience, HHS Mandate | Leave a comment

Bruskewitz: Fight insurance ruling – Omaha.com

Bruskewitz: Fight insurance ruling – Omaha.com.

Here is the notable quote:  Read the full story at the link above.

“The present secretary, Kathleen Sebelius, a bitter fallen-away Catholic, now requires that all insurance, even when issued privately, must carry coverage for evil and grave sin,” Bruskewitz wrote in the letter, which he instructed parish priests to read aloud to their congregations at Mass this weekend.

Sebelius is among a number of Catholic politicians in the United States who have been banned from receiving Holy Communion because of their positions on abortion.

She was banned by Archbishop Joseph Naumann of Kansas City, Kan., because, as Kansas governor, she vetoed strict anti-abortion legislation that her advisers told her was unconstitutional.

Share this article

Posted in Church Doctrine/Teaching | Leave a comment

The Ball Heads for His Court – WSJ.com

The Ball Heads for His Court – WSJ.com.

James Taronto, writing in the WSJ, analyzes the decision by the 3 judge panel of the California Supreme Court. Â Below are significant quotes. Â Read the whole article at the link above.

Same-sex marriage will resume in California over the will of the state’s voters if a new federal court ruling stands up on appeal. In Perry v. Brown, a three-judge panel of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals today upheld a trial judge’s ruling that struck down Proposition 8, a 2008 ballot measure that amended the state’s constitution to restore the traditional definition of marriage. The Golden State’s Supreme Court had earlier held that the unamended California Constitution mandated same-sex marriage, but then upheld the amendment that effectively struck down that ruling.

 

The Ninth Circuit has a poor batting average in Supreme Court appeals, and this decision was written by Judge Stephen Reinhardt, who is notoriously liberal. Those facts are likely to inspire optimism among conservative commentators who oppose same-sex marriage. They shouldn’t. Reinhardt’s decision was expertly crafted to appeal to his former Ninth Circuit peer Justice Anthony Kennedy, whose view of the matter is all but certain to prove decisive.

[botwt0207]Associated PressJustice Kennedy: The tea leaves aren’t hard to read.

 

In August 2010, this column ventured a prediction: “When the Supreme Court takes up Perry v. Schwarzenegger–perhaps under the nameBrown v. Perry or Whitman v. Perry [it will be Perry v. Brown if today's opinion is appealed]–the justices will rule 5-4, in a decision written by Justice Kennedy, that there is a constitutional right to same-sex marriage.”

 

Although we still think that is Justice Kennedy’s inclination, we hereby walk back our prediction a bit. The court will not find a constitutional right to same-sex marriage in this case, but it will strike down Proposition 8 and thereby reimpose same-sex marriage in California. Reinhard’s decision lays out a way in which Justice Kennedy can do so–and indeed makes it very difficult for Kennedy to uphold Proposition 8.

Share this article

Posted in Gay Marriage, Judicial, Marriage Amendment, Same Sex Marriage | Leave a comment