Fat Cat Romney on Preferential Option for the Poor: "Let Them Eat Cake" [UPDATED]

Actually, what he said is MUCH WORSE: "I'm not concerned about the very poor":

In an interview with CNN Wednesday morning that should have been a Florida victory lap, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney made a fumble that could give rivals an attack ad sound bite.

Asked about his economic plan, Romney said repeatedly that he was not concerned with very poor Americans, [ED.: Just in case you didn't catch it the first time that this Fat Cat doesn't give a rat's ass about "those people", he made sure to emphasize the point by repeating it over and over again.] but was focused instead on helping the middle class.

Romney explained that he was confident that food stamps, housing vouchers, Medicaid and other assistance would keep the poor afloat [ED.: Are there no prisons? And the Union workhouses? Are they still in operation? The Treadmill and the Poor Law are in full vigour, then? ... I was afraid that something had occurred to stop them in their useful course.] — he pledged to fix holes in that safety net “if it needs repair.” He repeated past statements that his main focus is the middle class because those people, in his opinion, have been hardest hit by the recession (President Obama also has focused many of his efforts on the middle class).

But Romney’s awkward phrasing could give fuel to critics who argue that he does not empathize with the poorest Americans. [ED.: Ya think?]

“I’m not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there,” [ED.: Good God! Really?] Romney told CNN.

[...]

“The challenge right now — we will hear from the Democrat party [about] the plight of the poor,” Romney responded [ED.: Oh, yes, "the poor" - that's a Democrat issue. We Republicans don't talk much about that rapidly expanding group of people. We'll leave it to the Democrats to talk about those people.], after repeating that he would fix any holes in the safety net. “And there’s no question it’s not good being poor [ED.: Let me be very clear that I am against being poor.] and we have a safety net to help those that are very poor [ED.: I'm not worried about helping the very poor overcome their poverty via economic means. That's what government programs - and Democrats - are for.] . . . My focus is on middle income Americans ... we have a very ample safety net and we can talk about whether it needs to be strengthened or whether there are holes in it. but we have food stamps, we have Medicaid, we have housing vouchers, we have programs to help the poor.” [ED.: Let them eat cake - they can pay for it with their food stamps.]

[More]

(emphasis and editorial commentary added)

My Comments:
Just. Wow. Has there ever been a more out of touch and tone deaf politician as this character? And he's the likely GOP nominee?

The bad news for Romney: He could say it wearing a top hat and a monicle, and it couldn't be any more effective as a campaign commercial for Obama than it already is.

The good news for Romney: Showing indifference for the poor is a sure-fire way of getting Ann Coulter's impoverished-bashing juices flowing, motivating her to pen some more pro-Romney love letters and anti-Catholic screeds against his remaining GOP primary opponents.


UPDATE
A couple of additional points regarding Romney's boneheaded remarks.

First, the irony here is that these comments reveal BOTH Romney's penchant for big government liberalism AND his elitist illiberalism. His big-government liberalism is evident in that he believes in expanding federal welfare dependency for the poor; his elitist illiberalism is evident in that he believes that's good enough for them.

Romney's alleged policy principles are that free economies lead to economic growth, and that economic growth leads to more opportunity for the greatest number of people. But Romney has just stated that his economic program excludes the very poor from sharing in that opportunity, and that he is reconiled to their being permanent fixtures on the public dole. But that's "good enough" for them.

The seond point about this is that David Axelrod is no doubt on the horn right now with his ObamaCath allies talking about ways to use Romney's indifference to the "preferential option for the poor" to soften the fallout over the HHS mandate among Catholics who supported Obama in 2008. They'd be fools not to. Every ObamaCath who has infiltrated the chanceries and the USCCB staff must be licking their chops over the prospect of watering down any strong anti-HHS statement coming from the Bishops with a bunch of verbiage regarding the preferential option for the poor, just as concern over allegedly rampant racism was used to water down the anti-abortion provisions of "Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship" 4 years ago.


UPDATE #2
Mark Steyn addresses the topic I commented on in the first point of my previous Update regarding Romney's comments revealing both his big-government liberalism and elitist illiberalism:

Romney’s is a benevolent patrician’s view of society: The poor are incorrigible, but let’s add a couple more groats to their food stamps and housing vouchers, and they’ll stay quiet. Aside from the fact that that kind of thinking has led the western world to near terminal insolvency, for a candidate whose platitudinous balderdash of a stump speech purports to believe in the most Americanly American America that any American has ever Americanized over, it’s as dismal a vision of permanent trans-generational poverty as any Marxist community organizer with a cozy sinecure on the Acorn board would come up with.

After half-a-century of evidence, what sort of “conservative” offers the poor the Even Greater Society?

Yep.

Digest of Today's Posts (31 January 2012)

Vox Nova Still Covering for Obama Even After Anti-Catholic HHS Mandate

Bill McGurn on Why Romney Sucks

Obama Plays His Liberal Catholic Allies for Fools

Vox Nova Still Covering for Obama Even After Anti-Catholic HHS Mandate

Let's get one thing out of the way:

Since (a) I am not a Republican, and (b) the probability of my supporting the likely GOP nominee for President is somewhere between Hell freezing over and never, this post is not about advocating support for any political party over another.

But this post IS about taking a stand in support of your Church over your anti-Catholic political allies. However, that appears to be too much to ask from our friends over at Vox Nova. When your so-called political "allies" attack the religious freedom of the Catholic Church by mandating your Church's institutions pay for contraception, abortifacients, and sterilization as part of employee health plans, and your primary response is to worry that your so-called political "enemies" might use it to their political advantage, you'll pardon me for concluding that you have some seriously screwed-up priorities.

Here's how one Vox Nova contributor, my old friend from many past political jousts, greeted the news of the HHS mandate:

The Obama administration’s refusal to provide adequate conscience protections to Church-affiliated institutions that do not wish to pay for contraception is fundamentally wrong. [ED.: As is the case anytime this particular contributor offers tepid criticism of his beloved party, I sense a "BUT" coming.] Obama has lost the vote of Michael Sean Winters over this. Given the depraved condition of the modern Republican party, [ED.: And there it is. Democrats do something bad, BUT Republicans are always worse. I'm just shocked it took him 3 sentences to get to the "but". As far as the content of the "but" goes, I'm not sure you can get more "depraved" than supporting abortion on demand or forcing Catholic institutions to pay for the "right" to violate their consciences on fundamental tenets of their faith, but we're talking about some fairly hackish sycophancy when it comes to my old friend.] I’m not sure I would go that far [ED.: But of course not. Ever the party loyalist, let's not make those whose policies harm our Church pay politically for those decisions.], but I know where he is coming from. Not only is this decision wrong, but it represents a betrayal of those who fought hardest and took the most heat – even death threats – for supporting the Affordable Care Act. [ED.: Martyrs to the cause, to be sure. But let's get one thing straight - this decision by Obama's HHS DOES NOT come as a shock to anyone. This was predicted from the get-go by many, including the USCCB, but the ObamaCaths ignored the warnings and accused their interlocutors (again, including the USCCB) of being "ignorant" or "duped" or "GOP shills" or worse. Spare me the Claude Rains routine of these folks feigning to be "shocked, shocked" that the Obama Administration would go this route.]

[...]

But let’s be clear about something else too. [ED.: There's that word "but" again. Shocker.] From this same perspective of Catholic social teaching, positions like those of Robert George also don’t hold any water. [ED.: Of course not. George is one of those "evil conservatives", so whatever position he holds is automatically just as bad as, if not worse than, the Obama Administration's forcing Catholic institutions to pay for the "right" to violate their own consciences on fundamental tenets of their faith.] George is almost gloating over Obama’s betrayal of the Catholics who supported him. [ED.: He turned out to be right after being accused of political hackery, something you continue to accuse him of in this commentary. Can you blame him? As for "gloating", turnabout is fair frickin' play, my old friend. You people took gloating to new heights after Stupak caved and Obamacare passed. I even saw one of the more frequent commenters at your blog gloating over how the Bishops had their hats handed to them by a bunch of nuns, and how the chancery staffs were now scrambling behind the scenes hat-in-hand begging Democrat congressional staffers for pardon and forgiveness over their allegedly "misconceived" opposition to Obamacare. So, forgive me for believing the "gloating" and the rubbing your noses in it is well deserved. But, again, the fact that this reaction by your political "enemies" appears to be your primary concern, rather than the fact that your Church just got hosed by your political "allies" reflects a seriously disordered perspective.] But George and those like him tend to misapply the principle of subsidiarity themselves. Rather than too much help, they would have the government provide too little. Sticking to the health care arena, these people [ED.: You can almost feel the unconditional "love" my old friend harbors toward "these people".] opposed the Affordable Care Act based on what Pope Paul VI referred to an unbridled liberalism that “exalts individual freedom by withdrawing from it every limitation” and which is based on “an erroneous affirmation of the autonomy of the individual in his activity, his motivation and the exercise of his liberty”. [ED.: Actually, a whole lot of "these people" opposed the legislation for exactly the reasons they and the USCCB said that they opposed it: because it provided too little protection against federal funding of abortion and too few protections for conscience rights. And we turned out to be 100% correct. You turned out to be wrong on that count. Now YOU need to deal with it rather than deflecting and lashing out at political opponents.] This is the basic right-wing liberalism in the United States that is mis-named “conservatism”. Specifically, these anti-Obama Catholics on the right [ED.: In opposition to the ObamaCaths, I'll gladly accept the appellation, inaccurate though it is. But it's all about Obama with you people, isn't it? And the Democrat Party. That's where your loyalties TRULY lie, and you'll never be able to convince me otherwise until you can write the condemnatory piece that Obama's abominable HHS mandate deserves without having to resort to your time-honored "BUT" and dragging the evil "Catholics on the right" into it in order to deflect attention.] opposed attempts to provide near-universal healthcare by means of strict regulation of insurance companies, an individual mandate, and subsidies for the poor. The individual mandate, as an “attack on autonomy”, continues to draw the most ire. [ED.: There you go again. Identify a subset of your "enemies" who opposed the legislation for one reason, and then paint with a broad brush to make it seem as if ALL opponents of Obamacare opposed it for that reason. It's so easy to deflect blame away from yourself when you have such ready-made strawmen upon whom to heap the lion's share of culpability. Once the legislation passed both the House and the Senate, many of us said we could live with the legislation, even though we had opposed it, as long as it provided sufficient protections against abortion funding and sufficient conscience protections. That the Administration and its congressional allies were willing to let the legislation die rather than assent to the provisions of the Stupak Amendment, and that YOU supported their position throughout the standoff, speaks volumes. YOU are responsible for the HHS decision, because YOU provided Catholic cover for the Administration's efforts. Stop trying to pass the buck and FOR ONCE accept responsibility for this disgraceful anti-life, secularist agenda of YOUR party. Lord knows, many of us "Catholics on the right" have spent years lamenting our suppport for the other party, with our criticisms of the GOP notably foregoing the prominent "BUT" that is ubiquitous in your all-too-lacking criticisms of YOUR political allies.]

You can read the rest if you'd like, but I think I've pretty much covered the gist of it here. Now, on to my old friend's co-blogger, who, while calling for using the "right narrative" in discussing the HHS story - the "narrative of religious liberty" - nevertheless seems as concerned with blame deflecting as my old friend:

... Are we willing to stand for the whole of religious liberty? We must be. Anything else will allow a new narrative to be imposed on the Catholic Church, one which will make the Catholic Church look ridiculous to outsiders looking in. They don’t want to understand our objections to contraception; they just want a narrative to follow. Our narrative must be religious liberty, and one which does not stay tied to one violation of it. Yes, we can and should point out such violations, but only when connected to a grand narrative, that of the religious heart of humanity and the need for each person to follow through with their religious quest wherever it takes them. All major political parties have become infested with secularism and use it to denounce the religious narrative when religion desires something contrary to their political agenda. As long as we keep our own debates within the partisan narrative, we will end up defeating ourselves as our party ends up denying our religious liberty in one fashion or another. We must speak beyond the parties, beyond the politics. We must control the narrative and stop being used as a tool by partisan hacks as they take the narrative away from us. If we don’t do this now, everyone loses.

Let me state for the record that I find very little with which to disagree in this paragraph. I am 100% in agreement with the notion that overarching themes and narratives are what wins the day in the arena of public opinion, and I am equally in agreement with the assessment that the narrative we should use in talking about the HHS mandate is that of religious liberty.

Where I find fault with the analysis is with the "but the other side is just as bad" aspect of the commentary. And the example at which the blogger grasps to illustrate his point is just sad:

... The problem is that this religious liberty, this freedom to follow the conscience, has for a long time been repudiated by the United States. Catholics have freely given it up – indeed, many of the same Catholics now upset with what they see happening today had no problem giving it up in the past when it was their party in charge of the nation. After all, have we not had the US Bishops speaking out for a long time to allow soldiers to have a right to follow their conscience in regards to wars? And have we not seen many Catholic mock such a position and say it was unnecessary and indeed, that it would hurt the military if such was allowed?

Seriously? Is this the best recent example you can come up with? Did this even happen with much frequency? With much intensity? Was it a widespread problem? Did this even happen? I have to admit that I never saw anything of the sort.

And does it REALLY compare to what the HHS has mandated for Catholic institutions? That they pay for contraception, abortifacients, and sterilization as part of their emplyee health plans? That they, once again, pay for the "right" to violate their consciences on fundamental tenets of their faith? There are Republican equivalents to what the Obama Administration has done, but, as Michael Gerson writes, they're over a century old:

Both radicalism and maliciousness are at work in Obama’s decision — an edict delivered with a sneer. It is the most transparently anti-Catholic maneuver by the federal government since the Blaine Amendment was proposed in 1875 — a measure designed to diminish public tolerance of Romanism, then regarded as foreign, authoritarian and illiberal. Modern liberalism has progressed to the point of adopting the attitudes and methods of 19th-century Republican nativists.

One Vox Nova commenter, in particular, captures the essence of what's going on here:

One way to start that would be that when the party one tends to favor enacts a policy offending religious liberty, one speaks loudly and unambiguously against it.

Or one could use it as an occasion to point out the inconsistency and hypocrisy of some who favor the other political party. I don’t think that’s going to get us anywhere, though.

[...]

This leads to the other narrative I wish we would set aside — that any Catholic objection to government policies is politically motivated, and that those claiming a principle did not object when their own party violated that same principle. I think it is a stretch to claim that Republican-leaning Catholics tolerated violations of religious liberty when the GOP was in charge, but it fits the preferred narrative, so we’ll go with it.

Perhaps HK should set aside his preferred narratives before he lectures us on ours.

And again here:

This is my problem with your commentary; you start with your preferred narrative — those objecting to the Democrats’ violations of religious liberty didn’t object to Republicans — and then hunt for evidence.

I’m sure you can always play this game forever. If you prefer to comment on the hypocrisy of those objecting to a policy than in offering a straightforward witness against that policy, I am quite confident you will always be able to do find evidence to support that position.

But where does that get you? I guess it gets you out of an uncomfortable spot. It’s easier to launch criticism against those perceived to be on the other side as those who are on your side. But I don’t think this does much to improve the state of discourse.

If you want to change the narrative, change the narrative! Don’t lecture about how awful others are. Model it yourself.

And yes, this goes for both sides.

And once more:

... Indeed, this type of thinking would lead to the type of commentary I suspect the VN contributors find most tiresome — responding to every post about some social justice issue with “what about abortion?” Indeed, if acting from a coherent and consistent narrative is what’s crucial, what sense does it make to talk about, say, health care, when an entire class of people have no legal protection from arbitrary killing? Aren’t many of the people (some of them Catholics) who raise social justice issues either silent or supportive of the current abortion license?

But, as we’ve seen, all this does is lead us to talk in circles, and have the same tired back and forth about whose violation of principles is worse, and helps ensure that no progress is made on either social justice issues or abortion.

People are opposing the Administration’s action for all sorts of reasons, good and bad. Some are consistent defenders of religious liberty. Some will oppose anything from this president. Some people are only concerned because its their ox being gored. Some see a political opportunity.

I don’t really care. This is a bad policy, and it is worth opposing. And I think opposing it is a higher priority than checking whether everyone else opposing it is doing so for the right reasons, and if they have been consistent defenders of the principles they claim to be defending.

That about says it.

Now, it is not the purpose of this post to gloss over where the GOP falls short vis-a-vis Catholicism (you can read a myriad of posts on this very blog regarding such), but rather the purpose is to disallow those who have been apologists for the Obama Administration in general, and Obamacare in particular, to gloss over and shift the blame and attention away from what the Administration has done with regard to this HHS mandate. It needs to be confronted, and it needs to be confronted head on. That can't and won't happen as long as the President's Catholic supporters and apologists have their ready-made "BUT" handy to soften the blow.

Bill McGurn on Why Romney Sucks

Under the guise of advice for how Romney can finish off Gingrich, Bill McGurn's Wall Street Journal piece only confirms some of the reasons why I will NEVER, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, vote for that effete RINO fraud:

... at bottom the Newt insurgency is fueled by the sense that Mr. Romney's tepid policy agenda reflects no fixed beliefs. Many who support Mr. Gingrich will concede he is not their ideal candidate. In fact, it's telling that Mr. Romney's GOP rivals are defined as non-Romneys, each standing for something lacking in the front-runner.

[...]

He might steal a lesson in style from Rick Santorum. With little money and a shoestring organization, Mr. Santorum has managed to articulate the core arguments of the conservative agenda: why we need to address Iran, why we need to help Americans keep more of what they earn and, most of all, why the words of our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution matter still. In the last debate he proved you can be tough without being personal, skillfully demolishing all the governor's pat answers about RomneyCare.

[...]

Those of us who believed that a primary fight would toughen Mr. Romney up have little to show for it. Far from sharpening his proposals to reach out to a GOP electorate hungry for a candidate with a bold conservative agenda, Mr. Romney has limited his new toughness to increasingly negative attacks on Mr. Gingrich's character. It's beginning to make what we all assumed was a weakness look much more like arrogance.

Obama Plays His Liberal Catholic Allies for Fools

Michael Gerson writes in The Washington Post:

... There would have been no controversy at all if President Obama had simply exempted religious institutions and ministries. But the administration insisted that the University of Notre Dame and St. Mary’s Hospital be forced to pay for the privilege of violating their convictions.

Obama chose to substantially burden a religious belief, by the most intrusive means, for a less-than-compelling state purpose — a marginal increase in access to contraceptives that are easily available elsewhere. The religious exemption granted by Obamacare is narrower than anywhere else in federal law — essentially covering the delivery of homilies and the distribution of sacraments. Serving the poor and healing the sick are regarded as secular pursuits — a determination that would have surprised Christianity’s founder.

Both radicalism and maliciousness are at work in Obama’s decision — an edict delivered with a sneer. It is the most transparently anti-Catholic maneuver by the federal government since the Blaine Amendment was proposed in 1875 — a measure designed to diminish public tolerance of Romanism, then regarded as foreign, authoritarian and illiberal. Modern liberalism has progressed to the point of adopting the attitudes and methods of 19th-century Republican nativists.

[...]

The implications of Obama’s power grab go further than contraception and will provoke opposition beyond Catholicism. Christian colleges and universities of various denominations will resist providing insurance coverage for abortifacients. And the astounding ambition of this federal precedent will soon be apparent to every religious institution. Obama is claiming the executive authority to determine which missions of believers are religious and which are not — and then to aggressively regulate institutions the government declares to be secular. It is a view of religious liberty so narrow and privatized that it barely covers the space between a believer’s ears.

Obama’s decision also reflects a certain view of liberalism. Classical liberalism was concerned with the freedom to hold and practice beliefs at odds with a public consensus. Modern liberalism uses the power of the state to impose liberal values on institutions it regards as backward. It is the difference between pluralism and anti-­clericalism.

My Comments:
Not really a surprise to those of us Catholics who were opposed to Obamacare that those Catholics who sold out their faith for a mess of Obama pottage got played for the useful idiots they are.


Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
CatholicVote Asks “Catholics for Sebelius” to Disown HHS Secretary Whom They Supported With Letter Campaign

Obama Culture of Death Update™: Obama's HHS Makes Persecution of Church Official Administration Policy [UPDATED]

CatholicVote Asks “Catholics for Sebelius” to Disown HHS Secretary Whom They Supported With Letter Campaign

Although the Soros-sponsored Democrat front group calling itself "Catholics United" has now scrubbed the incriminating evidence from its website, Matt Bowman at CatholicVote.org reminds us of the letter that several members of the Catholic left wrote in 2009 demanding that Kathleen Sebelius be confirmed as HHS Secretary:

Nearly 3 years ago, 26 liberal Catholics still crowing over their successful campaign to elect Obama actually felt the urgent need to form a group “Catholics for Sebelius” to support the nomination of that rabidly pro-abortion woman for HHS Secretary. They not only supported her, they called her a model pro-lifer who “lived and acted according to” her agreement with Church teaching against abortion.

It was a false claim even then. Now that Sebelius has finalized her rule forcing religious organizations to fund abortifacient drugs, contraception and sterilization, including drugs that kill embryos, it is a shameless lie. And their letter openly advocated that Sebelius pass and implement Obamacare, which is the instrument of her attack on religious freedom...

Matt continues by demanding that each of the signatories to that infamous letter recant their support and denounce Secretary Sebelius for her actions in mandating that religious organizations, including the Catholic Church, provide funding for contraceptives:

This is not political anymore. It never really was. Show some integrity to clean up this anti-religious, anti-life mess you have created.

Ambassador Elizabeth Frawley Bagley
Professor Lisa Sowle Cahill
Nicholas Cafardi
William D’Antonio
Professor Miguel H. Diaz
Michael Duffy
Julia Dowd
Professor Joseph Fahey
Professor Richard Gaillardetz
Fr. David Hollenbach
James P. Joseph
Christopher Korzen
Steven Krueger
Professor Douglas Kmiec
Delores Leckey
Eric LeCompte
Kari J. Lundgren
Professor Jerome Maryon
Fr. Thomas Massaro
Professor Vincent Miller
Professor David O’Brien
Fr. Thomas Reese
Maria Riley
Professor Stephen Schneck
Margaret O’Brien Steinfels
Dr. Patrick Whelan

P.S. I am not just suggesting they merely whitewash the existence of the letter. Just taking it down with no explanation would be a cop out. You’ve been telling the world for three years you specifically are “Catholics for Sebelius.” So make it known that this has changed...

Meanwhile, in related posts at CatholicVote, Tom Peters argues that the HHS Ruling will prove to be a litmus test for pro-Obama Catholics, and that some of the usual suspects on the Catholic left are already beginning to show where their allegiances really lie.


Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
Obama Culture of Death Update™: Obama's HHS Makes Persecution of Church Official Administration Policy [UPDATED]

RINO Establisment Hack Chris Christie is an Embarassment

Here's New Jersey's RINO governor, Chris Christie, favorably comparing his boy Dullard Flip Rino to Newt Gingrich:

"I think Newt Gingrich has embarrassed the party over time," Gov. Chris Christie (R-NJ) said on NBC's "Meet the Press" this morning. "Whether he'll do again in the future, I don't know. But Gov. Romney never has."

(emphasis added)

For what it's worth, here's Romney NOT embarassing the GOP:












Nope, nothing embarassing about that. From repudiating Ronald Reagan and the GOP (claiming to have been "an independent during the time of Reagan-Bush"), to criticizing the Contract With America, to rejecting the endorsement of a pro-life organization, Mitt Romney has NEVER done anything to embarass the GOP.

Obama Culture of Death Update™: Obama's HHS Makes Persecution of Church Official Administration Policy [UPDATED]

At Creative Minority Report, Patrick Archbold reports on HHS Secretary and dissident Catholic Kathleen Sebelius' full-frontal assault on religious liberty:

This is outrageous. HHS has issued its final ruling on exemptions from contraceptive coverage for health plans even in the face of religious obejctions. Too bad.

And in what passes for compromise for the lunatic secular left currently running the country, they will give religious groups an extra year to comply if you can PROVE you are really a religious group (which is difficult to impossible with these people), but comply you will...

[More]

The result of this is that religious persecution is now the official policy of the Obama Administration because many Catholic organizations simply will not comply and will therefore be subject to legal repercussion.


UPDATE
At National Catholic Distorter, Democrat and Obama shill Mikey Sean Winters expresses his "disappointment" that he and so many other left-leaning Catholics like Sr. Carol and President Jenkins just got played by the Obama Administration.

I'm pretty sure a whole lot of us have been saying for years that they were being played by Obama, but they were hearing none of it, willingly allowing themselves to be utilized by the Obama as an "alternative liberal magisterium" to the Bishops.

Besides, Mikey Sean seems far more concerned with the potential political fallout from Obama's declaration of war on the Church for Democrats who now might not fare so well among Catholic swing voters than he does with the fact that religious liberty has been placed in jeopardy.


UPDATE #2
The U.S. Bishops have vowed to fight the HHS edict, again, putting them and the Church on a head-on collision course with religious persecution:

WASHINGTON—The Catholic bishops of the United States called “literally unconscionable” a decision by the Obama Administration to continue to demand that sterilization, abortifacients and contraception be included in virtually all health plans. Today's announcement means that this mandate and its very narrow exemption will not change at all; instead there will only be a delay in enforcement against some employers.

“In effect, the president is saying we have a year to figure out how to violate our consciences,” said Cardinal-designate Timothy M. Dolan, archbishop of New York and president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

The cardinal-designate continued, “To force American citizens to choose between violating their consciences and forgoing their healthcare is literally unconscionable.It is as much an attack on access to health care as on religious freedom. Historically this represents a challenge and a compromise of our religious liberty."

[...]

“The Obama administration has now drawn an unprecedented line in the sand,” he said. “The Catholic bishops are committed to working with our fellow Americans to reform the law and change this unjust regulation. We will continue to study all the implications of this troubling decision.”

Sr. Carol Keehan, who used her role as head of the Catholic Health Association to provide an "alternative magisterium" in defying the Bishops on Obamacare and undermining their teaching with respect to public funding of abortion, was, unsurprisingly, understated in expressing her "disappointment" (just like Mikey Sean) in the Obama Administration's decision to reveal her as being nothing more than a useful idiot:

Daughter of Charity Sister Carol Keehan, president and chief executive officer of the Catholic Health Association of the United States, voiced disappointment with the decision. Catholic hospitals serve one out of six people who seek hospital care annually.

“This was a missed opportunity to be clear on appropriate conscience protection,” Sister Keehan said.

Gee, thanks, Sis. Way to be strong in speaking out for the Church. If only you were as forceful in your condemnation of the Obama Administration's efforts to curtail religious freedom as you were in calling the Bishops liars for their efforts to protect the unborn from public-funding of abortion in Obamacare. Hope you're enjoying the souvenier signing pen.





This Obama Culture of Death Update™ has been brought to you by Douglas Kmiec, all the fine folks at Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good / Catholics United / Catholic Democrats, and countless other Catholics for whom "Hope" and "Change" trumped LIFE.







Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
Obama Culture of Death Update™: The Obama Administration's Anti-Life Attack on Franciscan University

Obama Culture of Death Update™: Kill Babies or I'll Hurt the Poor

Obama Culture of Death Update™: A Compilation of President Obama’s Pro-Abortion Record

Obama Culture of Death Update™: Obama Would Rather Shut Down the Government Than See Planned Parenthood Lose Taxpayer Funding

Obama Culture of Death Update™: President’s Faith-Based Council Punts on "Reducing Abortions" Yet Again

Obama Culture of Death Update™: President's "Science Czar" on When Life Begins

Obama Culture of Death Update™: White House Budget Director "Not Prepared to Rule Out" Publicly Funded Abortion as Part of ObamaCare

Obama Culture of Death Update™: President's "Science Czar" Supports Forced Population Control Measures [UPDATED]

Obama Culture of Death Update™: Obama Disbands President’s Council on Bioethics

Obama Culture of Death Update™: Obama Advisor Says “It is Not Our Goal to Reduce the Number of Abortions” [UPDATED]

Obama Culture of Death Update™: Administration Now on Record That Promoting "Reproductive Health" Equals Promoting Abortion Abroad

Obama Culture of Death Update™: President Lifts Ban on Federal ESCR Funding

Obama Culture of Death Update™: Obama Nominee for Deputy Sec. of State Says Taxpayers Constitutionally Obligated to Fund Abortion

Moral Accountability . com

Obama Culture of Death Update™: Abortion Necessary to "Ensure Our Daughters Have the Same Rights and Opportunities As Our Sons"

Obama Culture of Death Update™: "White House Web Site Becomes Pro-Abortion After Obama Takeover"

Obama Culture of Death Update™: Among President Obama's First Official Acts is Promoting Abortion Abroad [UPDATED]

Why I Believe the Texas Rangers Should Sign Prince Fielder

Yesterday, the Texas Rangers signed Japanese pitching sensation Yu Darvish to a 6-year, $60 million dollar contract (that actually cost them closer to $120 million because of the fee they had to pay to Yu's Japanese team for the rights to negotiate). Because of those big bucks, the speculation is that now the Rangers cannot afford to sign left-handed hitting sensation Prince Fielder to be their new 1st Baseman / Designated Hitter. Especially if the money they would spend on Fielder means they have less money to re-sign current players that are near free agent eligibility in the coming years.

But I believe the Rangers should throw caution to the wind and sign Fielder anyway, and here is why:

Basically, it's because I believe the Rangers are running out of time to get a World Series championship. If anything, last year was THE YEAR to get it done, but they blew it TWICE in Game 6. They are on borrowed time at this point. I believe they are where the Dallas Cowboys were in 1995: a solid core of players who had only one shot left to win another Super Bowl. The previous year was THE YEAR to get it done, but the Cowboys blew it with an awful start in the NFC Championship. In 1995, they got it done, but only because they brought in a free-agent ringer in Deion Sanders, and even then they only barely scraped out a victory over the Steelers in the Super Bowl. They were criticized for "mortgaging their future" on that one year. But, seriously, would ANY Cowboys fan REALLY trade that 3rd Super Bowl ring in 4 years for a few more playoff appearances (but likely no more Super Bowl appearances) in the late 90s and early 2000s?

I'd gladly "mortgage the future" on one more World Series run - a 3rd appearance in 3 years, especially if it increased the likelihood of their actually winning the thing this time around. In this case, Prince plays the role of Deion, helping the Rangers get over that last hurdle. The Angels are like the 49ers, or the Packers, or the Rams, or the Steelers or the Patriots of the late 1990s/ early 2000s- waiting to be the next team to make multiple runs to the championship. They're getting better with each passing year. And the AL East teams and the Tigers aren't going to just roll over either. NOW is the time for the Rangers to make a big move to get the championship THIS YEAR. Worrying about the future just gives those other teams time to keep reloading and keep getting better. Yes, the Rangers will still have a core of excellent players, just like the Cowboys still had Aikman, Emmit, Irvin, and Darren Woodson. But even then the window was closing on the Cowboys in 1995. And it's probably closing on the Rangers in 2012. Sign Fielder, like the Cowboys signed Deion, and try to make that last run THIS YEAR.

Victory for Free Exercise Clause - Supreme Court Unanimously Upholds "Ministerial Exception" to Employment Discrimination Laws [UPDATED]

From the blog of The Federalist Society:

The Supreme Court just published its decision in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC, a case regarding the "ministerial exception" in employment discrimination law. As FedSocBlog previously noted, for 40 years, lower courts have held that the First Amendment forbids the government from deciding who may be a religious minister--despite the fact that federal statutes outlawing employment discrimination based on race, sex, age, and disability contain no express exception.

In its decision, the Court unanimously upheld the ministerial exception in the case at hand. SCOTUS thus ruled against the position of the Obama Justice Department, which had asked the court to disavow the ministerial exception altogether.

[More]

UPDATE
Justices Thomas and Alito each wrote concurring opinions. Although I generally find myself in agreement with the constitutional philosophy espoused by Justice Thomas, in this instance I find that I am most in agreement with the concurrence authored by Justice Alito, in which he was joined by ... Justice Kagan of all people:

I join the Court’s opinion, but I write separately to clarify my understanding of the significance of formal ordination and designation as a “minister” in determining whether an “employee” of a religious group falls within the so-called “ministerial” exception. The term “minister” is commonly used by many Protestant denominations to refer to members of their clergy, but the term is rarely if ever used in this way by Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, or Buddhists. In addition, the concept of ordination as understood by most Christian churches and by Judaism has no clear counterpart in some Christian denominations and some other religions. Because virtually every religion in the world is represented in the population of the United States, it would be a mistake if the term “minister” or the concept of ordination were viewed as central to the important issue of religious autonomy that is presented in cases like this one. Instead, courts should focus on the function performed by persons who work for religious bodies.

The First Amendment protects the freedom of religious groups to engage in certain key religious activities, including the conducting of worship services and other religious ceremonies and rituals, as well as the critical process of communicating the faith. Accordingly, religious groups must be free to choose the personnel who are essential tothe performance of these functions.

The “ministerial” exception should be tailored to this purpose. It should apply to any “employee” who leads a religious organization, conducts worship services or important religious ceremonies or rituals, or serves as a messenger or teacher of its faith. If a religious group believes that the ability of such an employee to perform these key functions has been compromised, then the constitutional guarantee of religious freedom protects the group’s right to remove the employee from his or her position.

[...]

Religious autonomy means that religious authorities must be free to determine who is qualified to serve in positions of substantial religious importance. Different religions will have different views on exactly what qualifies as an important religious position, but it is nonetheless possible to identify a general category of “employees” whose functions are essential to the independence of practically all religious groups. These include those who serve in positions of leadership, those who perform important functions in worship services and in the performance of religious ceremonies and rituals, and those who are entrusted with teaching and conveying the tenets of the faith to the next generation.

Applying the protection of the First Amendment to roles of religious leadership, worship, ritual, and expression focuses on the objective functions that are important for the autonomy of any religious group, regardless of its beliefs. As we have recognized in a similar context,“[f]orcing a group to accept certain members may impair [its ability] to express those views, and only those views, that it intends to express.” Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, 530 U. S. 640, 648 (2000). That principle applies with special force with respect to religious groups, whose very existence is dedicated to the collective expression and propagation of shared religious ideals. See Employment Div., Dept. of Human Resources of Ore. v. Smith, 494 U. S. 872, 882 (1990) (noting that the constitutional interest in freedom of association may be “reinforced by Free Exercise Clause concerns”). As the Court notes, the First Amendment “gives special solicitude to the rights of religious organizations,” ante, at 14, but our expressive-association cases are nevertheless useful in pointing out what those essential rights are. Religious groups are the archetype of associations formed for expressive purposes, and their fundamental rights surely include the freedom to choose who is qualified to serve as a voice for their faith.

When it comes to the expression and inculcation of religious doctrine, there can be no doubt that the messenger matters. Religious teachings cover the gamut from moral conduct to metaphysical truth, and both the content and credibility of a religion’s message depend vitally on the character and conduct of its teachers. A religion cannot depend on someone to be an effective advocate for its religious vision if that person’s conduct fails to live up to the religious precepts that he or she espouses. For this reason, a religious body’s right to self-governance must include the ability to select, and to be selective about, those who will serve as the very “embodiment of its message” and “its voice to the faithful.” Petruska v. Gannon Univ., 462 F. 3d 294, 306 (CA3 2006). A religious body’s control over such “employees” is an essential component of its freedom to speak in its own voice, both to its own members and to the outside world...

There's more to Justice Alito's excellent concurrence (again, which Obama appointee Justice Kagan joined), which you definitely should read in full, along with the majority opinion authored by Chief Justice Roberts.


UPDATE #2
At National Review, Notre Dame law professor Rick Garnett offers his take on the ruling:

... In today’s opinion, the Supreme Court affirmed what the overwhelming majority of lower federal courts and state courts in the United States have already ruled, and rejected the well-outside-the-mainstream view advanced by the Obama administration’s lawyers. This last point is worth emphasizing: The administration’s lawyers had pressed an extreme view — one that no other court, and few scholars and experts, had embraced — and they convinced no one.

I co-authored an amicus curiae brief in support of the religious school, on behalf of a diverse array of religious organizations and my friend, First Amendment expert Prof. Eugene Volokh. I was delighted by the extent to which the chief justice’s opinion is consistent with the positions advanced in that brief. He and his colleagues answered several key questions clearly and correctly: First, they affirmed that the “ministerial exception” — which limits the government’s role in selecting religious communities’ ministers, leaders, and teachers — is required by the First Amendment. Next, they rejected a crabbed approach to that exception, which would limit its reach only to ordained clergy or to ministers who spend a majority of their time on “religious” activities. And they noted that the ministerial exception constrains the reach of government with respect to religious communities’ decisions about ministers whether or not the employment decision in question was motivated or required by theological reasons.

This case matters for many reasons, but especially because it reminds us all that the separation of church and state — when it is properly understood — is an important mechanism for protecting the religious liberty of all — believers and nonbelievers alike. Church-state separation is often misunderstood and seen as an anti-religious program, or as requiring that “religion” stay out of politics or public life. But this is not the point of church-state separation at all. The idea is to constrain government regulation, not religious expression and practice. Separation is an arrangement that protects religious authorities, institutions, and communities from unjustified interference by governments...

Make no mistake: the Obama Administration's war on faith, which began almost immediately from the moment he took office 3 years ago, was dealt a HUGE blow today. A blow from which we can hope the secularists will not recover.


UPDATE #3
The Catholic League: "HUGE DEFEAT FOR OBAMA".


UPDATE #4 (12 January)
From the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty:

Today the Supreme Court decided its most important religious liberty case in twenty years, Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The government lost 9-nothing as the Court unanimously rejected its narrow view of religious liberty as “extreme,” “untenable” and “remarkable.”

The unanimous decision adopted the Becket Fund’s arguments, saying that religious groups should be free from government interference when they choose their leaders. The church, Hosanna-Tabor, was represented by The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty and Professor Douglas Laycock, University of Virginia Law School. For years, churches have relied on a “ministerial exception” which protects them from employment discrimination lawsuits by their ministers.

“The message of today’s opinion is clear: The government can’t tell a church who should be teaching its religious message,” said Luke Goodrich, Deputy National Litigation Director at The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. “This is a huge victory for religious freedom and a rebuke to the government, which was trying to regulate how churches select their ministers.”

The Court rejected the government’s extremely narrow understanding of the constitutional protection for religious liberty, stating: “We cannot accept the remarkable view that the Religion Clauses have nothing to say about a religious organization’s freedom to select its own ministers.”

“This is a huge win for religious liberty,” said Professor Doug Laycock. “The Court has unanimously confirmed the right of churches to select their own ministers and religious leaders.”

“It is amazing when a church from Redford, Michigan stands up for its rights and ends up going all the way to the Supreme Court,” said Reverend Paul Undlin of Hosanna Tabor. “Praise God for giving the Justices the wisdom to uphold the religious freedom enshrined in our Constitution!”

The Court found that the ministerial exception is rooted in both Religion Clauses—the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses. Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion. Justice Alito joined by Justice Kagan also filed a concurring opinion.

“For six years I fought the government, sacrificing my practice and livelihood because I believed the government had no right to choose teachers for our small school,” says Deano Ware, local attorney for the church. “In the end, we showed up at the steps of the Supreme Court with our sling and stone, in the company of the Becket Fund and the greater community of faith, fought the government and won. This is a great day for all Americans of every of faith and all freedom-loving citizens.”

The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty is a non-profit, public-interest law firm dedicated to protecting the free expression of all religious traditions. The Becket Fund has a 17-year history of defending religious liberty for people of all faiths. Its attorneys are recognized as experts in the field of church-state law.

UPDATE #5 (12 January)



Thanks to Catholic Cartoon Blog.