George Weigel on Obama's "Divide and Conquer" Strategy: Obama, Not Bishops, Now Calling Shots for Catholic Church in U.S.

Yesterday, I blogged about Ross Douthat's "Divide and Conquer" piece at The New York Times, which pointed out that Obama's so-called "accomodation" on the HHS mandate was merely a means to sow dissension and confusion among Catholics.

Writing today at National Review, George Weigel has a piece titled "Divide and Conquer?", which makes the same argument while fleshing out the issue of who has "primacy" in speaking for the Catholic Church in the U.S.:

... The notion of a “primate” has little operational meaning throughout the Catholic Church in the 21st century. The Second Vatican Council mandated that every country have a national bishops’ conference. So, today, the president of the national conference is understood to be the principal figure in any local Church. Everyone understands, for example, that Cardinal-designate Timothy Dolan, as president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, speaks for the Church in the United States in a singular way, especially when he speaks for a united bishops’ conference on matters of first principles.

Everyone, that is, but the Obama White House.

[...]

In the administration’s view, then, primacy in the Catholic Church is not conferred by the pope, but by the White House. Thus Sister Carol Keehan could be recognized by the president’s chief of staff as primate of the Catholic Church in the United States, because she headed an organization that “knows a fair amount about . . . health care in this country” — unlike, for example, those mulish bishops who had failed to be taken in by the administration’s shell game.

That the administration would play divide-and-conquer with the Catholic Church in its attempt to ram through the HHS mandate was obvious from the outset, although the White House was likely surprised by the virtual unanimity of Catholic opposition to the mandate’s announcement on January 20 — a unanimity breached only by the likes of Catholics for Choice, a front group for pro-abortion donors that Lenin would have recognized as a gaggle of “useful idiots.” Indeed, the very rollout of the “accommodation” on February 10 reeked of divide-and-conquer. As Cardinal-designate Dolan has made clear in recent interviews, the White House called Father John Jenkins, C.S.C., president of the University of Notre Dame, with news of the “accommodation,” before it called the president of the bishops conference. Father Jenkins, to his great credit, told the White House that they had the wrong number and that they had to call Dolan...

[...]

In one respect, none of this should have been surprising. As I wrote in May 2009, President Obama’s commencement address at Notre Dame was striking in its attempt to inject the president and his office into a longstanding Catholic debate over Catholic identity in the United States. American religious history, I noted, had been rife with arguments about religious identity for centuries: Puritan identity, Baptist identity, Presbyterian identity, Episcopalian identity, Lutheran identity, and Jewish identity had all been contested, often vigorously and sometimes bitterly. But no president before Barack Obama had ever insinuated himself or his office into those intra-confessional debates, anointing good guys and implicitly condemning bad guys. Yet that is precisely what Obama did at Notre Dame: The good (as in “real”) Catholics were to be those who followed his lead (and those of his putative Catholic precursors, such as the late Cardinal Joseph Bernardin and longtime Notre Dame president Father Theodore Hesburgh, C.S.C.); the bad Catholics (as in faux-Catholics) would be . . . well, the kind of Catholics who recognized the administration “accommodation” on the HHS mandate as the ruse it was and is.

[Read the whole thing]

(emphasis added)

My Comments:
As I pointed out last week, the Obama Administration has inserted itself into an internal Church matter and has made a value judgment that those Catholics who do not abide by the Church's teachings on abortion, birth control, abortifacients, and sterilization (and, let's be honest, same-sex "marriage" is next up on the agenda) are the "REAL" Catholics in America, and that the Bishops and the teachings they uphold are out of date in their beliefs, out of step with their members and ... as of now ... out of power. Because, as noted in my post yesterday, it is now Obama under cover of this "alternative magisterium" of ObamaCaths, rather than the Catholic Bishops, who is effectively the de facto policymaker for the Catholic Church in the United States. Primacy indeed.


Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
Divide and Conquer: Ross Douthat Notes Obama's HHS "Compromise" Merely a Means for ObamaCaths to Save Face

Obama Administration Gives Opponents of HHS Mandate All the Evidence They Need to Convince Court of Free Exercise Violation

Health Care Reform and the Magisterium [UPDATED]

Cardinal George: Sr. Keehan Chose Obama Over Catholic Bishops

American Papist: Obama an Enemy to Catholic Unity

The Catholic Health Association and the Future of Catholic Unity

Sister Carol Keehan Misrepresents Her Support of the Health Care Bill

Bishop Tells Pro-Life Democrat: Nuns Can’t Absolve ObamaCare Vote

Establishing the "Alternative Magisterium"

Archbishop Chaput: Those Confusing the Catholic Stance on Health Care Will Bear the Blame for Anti-Life Effects of Heath Care Bill

Catholic Obama Supporters More Interested in Providing Cover Than Holding Obama's Feet to the Fire

Catholic Nuns Urge Passage of Obama's Health Bill

Obama's Catholic Strategy: Divide and Conquer

Divide and Conquer: Ross Douthat Notes Obama's HHS "Compromise" Merely a Means for ObamaCaths to Save Face

Ross Douthat writes at The New York Times:

So far as I can tell, the White House’s proposed “compromise” in the contraception-sterilization-plan B-ella controversy asks the parties involved to compromise their reasoning faculties and play a game of “let’s pretend” instead. The revised regulation allows religious institutions to pretend that they aren’t actually purchasing an insurance plan that covers services they find morally objectionable, because their insurance companies will be required to pretend that they’re supplying these services free of charge. But fond illusions about “free” services aside, it’s hard to see how a system in which Catholic hospitals and colleges are required to purchase health insurance for their employees from insurers that are required to cover birth control, sterilizations and the morning- and days-after pills is meaningfully different from the original Health and Human Services mandate. As Yuval Levin writes, ”the choice for religious employers is still between paying an insurer to provide their workers with access to a product that violates their convictions or paying a fine to the government.” The rule has been changed, but the reality remains the same.

[...]

While the original mandate was just an imposition by the state, the new policy is an accommodation by secular authorities for the convenience of some of the faithful — those believers, in particular, who were offended by the baldness of the White House’s indifference to religious scruples but who broke with the administration more in sorrow than in anger. It’s essentially a salve for the consciences of pro-Obamacare Catholics, as my colleague Laurie Goodstein points out in a perceptive analysis:

For the White House, the decision announced Friday to soften a rule requiring religious-affiliated organizations to pay for insurance plans that offer free birth control was never really driven by a desire to mollify Roman Catholic bishops, who were strongly opposed to the plan.

Rather, the fight was for Sister Carol Keehan — head of an influential Catholic hospital group, who had supported President Obama’s health care law — and Catholic allies of the White House seen as the religious left. Sister Keehan had told the White House that the new rule, part of the health care law, went too far...

[...]

The new rule, though, is much more savvy: Because it speaks the language of compromise and conscience, it provides grounds for anyone who desperately wants to believe in it to believe in it, even as it leaves the underlying policy more or less unchanged. (It’s telling, in this regard, that the Washington Post’s E.J. Dionne managed to write an entire column today defending the compromise without once engaging with its substance.)

And by winning back the Catholics who wanted to be won back, the White House may have successfully defused the immediate crisis that its own ineptness created...

[Read the whole thing]

There is no doubt that this "accomodation" was targeted at winning over what Fr. Z has termed "the Magisterium of Nuns" (Obama's spokesperson said as much two days ago while making the rounds on the Sunday talk show circuit), thus once again sowing dissension and confusion among Catholics over who it is that speaks for the Catholic Church. Divide and conquer, so that it is now Obama under cover of this "alternative magisterium", rather than the Catholic Bishops, who is effectively the de facto policymaker for the Catholic Church in the United States.


Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
Health Care Reform and the Magisterium [UPDATED]

Cardinal George: Sr. Keehan Chose Obama Over Catholic Bishops

American Papist: Obama an Enemy to Catholic Unity

The Catholic Health Association and the Future of Catholic Unity

Sister Carol Keehan Misrepresents Her Support of the Health Care Bill

Bishop Tells Pro-Life Democrat: Nuns Can’t Absolve ObamaCare Vote

Establishing the "Alternative Magisterium"

Archbishop Chaput: Those Confusing the Catholic Stance on Health Care Will Bear the Blame for Anti-Life Effects of Heath Care Bill

Catholic Obama Supporters More Interested in Providing Cover Than Holding Obama's Feet to the Fire

Catholic Nuns Urge Passage of Obama's Health Bill

Obama's Catholic Strategy: Divide and Conquer

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.

Obama Plays His Liberal Catholic Allies for Fools [UPDATED]

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.


UPDATE
It appears that at least some of Obama's duped Catholic allies are still willing to provide cover for the President: "Vox Nova Still Covering for Obama Even After Anti-Catholic HHS Mandate".


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]

Author of Anti-Boehner Letter Exposed as DemoCath Hack

As if we didn't know it already:

Washington D.C., May 27, 2011 / 06:08 am (CNA).- The lead author of a letter criticizing House Speaker John Boehner on “matters of faith and morals” says the letter was a bid for dialogue, not a political stunt. But Dr. Stephen Schneck's own critics say he promotes a distorted version of Catholic social teaching.

Professor Schneck, who directs the Catholic University of America's Institute for Policy Research & Catholic Studies, was the top signer of a letter protesting Boehner's May 14 commencement speech at the institution where Schneck works as a political scientist.

[...]

The signers charged the House Speaker, himself a Roman Catholic, with ignoring “the teachings of your Church on matters of faith and morals as they relate to governance.” They said the speaker's voting record was “at variance from one of the Church’s most ancient moral teachings,” regarding the obligations of “those in power” toward the poor and vulnerable.

But this form of faith-based protest has opened up Schneck to criticism over his own approach to the Church's social teaching.

[...]

Professor Schneck is a member of the board of directors at Democrats for Life, an organization he describes as “fundamentally and wholly concerned with trying to overturn Roe v. Wade.”

He is also a board member of Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good. That organization has received funding from George Soros' Open Society Institute, which promotes abortion as a “reproductive right.”

Catholics in Alliance typically backs Democratic policies, presenting abortion as an issue that should be addressed by ending poverty. In 2009, Schneck joined a “Catholics for Sebelius” initiative, supporting an Obama nominee whose bishop told her not to receive Communion over her abortion record...

[More]

My Comments:
So, let me get this straight. Differences over matters of budgetary and fiscal policy at the federal level make Speaker Boehner persona non grata. But Kathleen Sebelius, whose abortion advocacy and history of cozying up to late-term abortionists is so extreme that her Bihsop has admonished her against receiving Communion, merits this hack's going to bat for her as a member of "Catholics for Sebelius".

That, alone, exposes the guy as a political hack, a two-bit liar, and a hypocrite, and his views on Catholic Social Teaching can be summarily ignored as far as I'm concerned.

JUST REMEMBER this rule of thumb: Allegedly "pro-life" Catholic Democrats are ALWAYS committed Democrats first and foremost. Their party and its political agenda trump their faith and their allegedly "pro-life" views EVERY TIME it is put to the test.

Michael Sean Winters and National Catholic Reporter Celebrate Bin Laden's Death

Of all the responses in the Catholic blogosphere to Osama bin Laden's death, few have matched the sort of jingoistic and nationalistic bravado that we've seen in the secular media and on the streets of New York City and Washington, D.C. The overwhelming majority of Catholic bloggers have been quite circumspect and reflective upon the killing of America's public enemy #1, soberly asking themselves what is the appropriate Christian response to the sudden, violent death of the mastermind of 9/11.

The most prominent exception to this general rule - the one high-profile Catholic blogger who openly relished (indeed, encouraged celebrating) bin Laden's demise - came from what might seem like a surprising source. The National Catholic Reporter, the newspaper of record for the Catholic left, routinely excoriates the Catholic blogosphere for what it sees as pro-Republican, militaristic, and jingoistic nationalism. And yet, it was the Reporter's most high-profile blogger, Michael Sean Winters, who used his blog, the so-called "Distinctly Catholic", to do a tap dance on the freshly killed body of bin Laden:

... I do not normally take delight in the death of a fellow human being. Nor do I support the death penalty. But, if there was one man on the planet whom it was important to kill, not to just let die, it was Osama bin Laden. You should not be able to murder well nigh to 3,000 Americans and others with impunity. If you commit such a crime, you should fear every moment of every day that U.S. Special Forces will come crashing through the door to bring you to justice. I am sure bin Laden knew better than to be captured alive. (Given the legal nightmare of Guantanamo, thank God he was killed on the spot!) It took a long time to track bin Laden down, too long, and it is impossible not to think that we might have reached this happy day earlier if we had not detoured through Baghdad. But, this is no time for recriminations. It is time to celebrate.

As I write these words, images of young people streaming into the streets in front of the White House chanting “USA” and singing the National Anthem are coming onto the television screen. If it were not so late and I did not have an early morning, I would drive down myself. Vengeance is not a healthy emotion, I know. Assassination is against the law, to be sure. But, better to indulge and go to confession. I am glad Osama bin Laden did not die in his bed, as I am glad Hitler did not die in his bed and as I am distressed hat Stalin and Mao did. Men who commit such evil do not deserve normal considerations of human sympathy or civilized respect. The world is well rid of bin Laden. It is a great day to be alive.

I think many Catholic bloggers, upon hearing the news, struggled with feeling happy over the news of bin Laden's death. But, in blogging about it at least, few gave such full-throated approval to the notion of celebrating the macabre as did Michael Sean Winters.

There is much that is disturbing about Winters' piece, but the part that troubled me most was his acknowledging that giving into vengeful thoughts is sinful, but nevertheless stating explicitly that he would go ahead and engage in (and, indeed, celebrate) such thoughts anyway, and then afterward take advantage of the sacrament of confession.

Think about that for a moment. Serious sin. Willfully engaged in. But it doesn't matter because he'll just go to confession later and seek forgiveness for a sin for which he doesn't appear to be the least bit sorry. Presumption. What's more, Winters is presuming upon the Divine Mercy and grace of God for his own sins, while in the very next breath declaring that another of God's children "do[es] not deserve normal considerations of human sympathy" (on Divine Mercy Sunday, no less, which is when Winters wrote this).

Now, earlier in this post, I noted that this piece came from "what might seem like a surprising source". It might seem suprising, that is, unless you know anything about the writing of one Michael Sean Winters. On any topic on which there is a disagreement between Catholics on on a matter of interest to the Church, just find out what the official Democrat Party position is, or which view is more advantageous to the Democrats were it to prevail, and that will pretty much tell you where Michael Sean Winters stands. (You've heard of "Republicath" bloggers who allegedly substitute the Republican platform for Catholic theology and label it as the latter? Well, Michael Sean Winters is the Democath blogger par excellence.) Here, the death of Osama bin Laden is being celebrated by the Obama Administration and the Democrats because it happened on their watch instead of George W. Bush's, so Winters happily joins in.

Suffice it to say, however, had this happened with Bush in the White House, and had the streets filled with people chanting "U.S.A" and other slogans and singing the National Anthem, and had some blogger on the right side of the Catholic blogosphere written a piece celebrating not only the death of bin Laden but the over-exuberant reaction thereto, I feel fairly confident in believing Michael Sean Winters would be singing a different tune. But, as fate would have it, this happened on his guy's watch, so bravado, jingoism, nationalism, and celebrating the death of the enemy is all the rage.

Ironically, it's the folks at The American Catholic, who Winters has at various times criticized as "yahoos" and as being "kookie" (I guess that's like being "kooky"), and who one prominent left-leaning blogger has described as being guilty of "blood lust" and pushing a "theology of violence", and who other left-leaning Catholics have parodied as "fascists", who had the definitive post on the appropriate Catholic reaction to bin Laden's death. Contrast Michael Sean Winters paean to veangence to another Michael's (Michael Denton) thoughtful and charitable post, "The Catholic Response to the Death of a Murderer".

When Mikey Sean Winters is Crying ...

... that generally means there's cause for faithful Catholics (or at least those who try to be faithful and aren't in open dissent) to rejoice.


(Hat tip: Larry D)


UPDATE
A special thanks to Paul Zummo for this:




Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on that ugly, boorish, small-minded piece of work Michael Sean Winters:
Michael Sean Winters Reveals His Ugly, Boorish, Small-Minded Pettiness Via His Sullivanesque Obsession With Prof. Robert George [UPDATED]

Michael Sean Winters: "Deceitful Bogeyman" of the Catholic Left

Fr. Z Defends Well-Known Catholic Apologist Patrick Madrid ... [UPDATED]

REPOSTED and UPDATED: "... Dollars to Doughnuts ..."

"... Dollars to Doughnuts ..."

The President's Nun: Obamacare Scandal Explodes

The American Spectator alleges that Sr. Carol Keehan is playing hardball, engaging in intimidation efforts to keep a CEO of a small Catholic hospital quiet, in order to protect ObamaCare (and herself) from bad news stories:

Can you say "October Surprise"?

A mushrooming political battle over ObamaCare involving the White House, two incumbent Pennsylvania congressmen, three Catholic hospitals and a nun has just exploded in, of all places, Scranton, Pennsylvania. Charges from the Scranton medical community of intimidation by the Obama White House and its allies are filling the air.

All of this just as Vice President Joe Biden arrives in Scranton today to raise money for one of the participants.

There are two issues at the core of the controversy.

1. ObamaCare and the sale of three Scranton-area Catholic hospitals.

2. The re-election prospects of the two House members, Democrats Paul Kanjorski and Chris Carney, both of whom cast key votes to pass ObamaCare.

Here's the list of players -- major and minor -- so far.
• The President of the United States.
• The Vice President of the United States.
• Three Scranton-area Catholic hospitals suddenly for sale.
• The CEO of the three Scranton-area Catholic hospitals for sale.
• ObamaCare, otherwise known as "health care reform" or the "Affordable Care Act."
• A Catholic nun.
• Michigan Congressman Bart Stupak.
• A pen.
• Victoria Reggie Kennedy, widow of the late Senator Ted Kennedy.
• Time magazine.
• The Scranton Times
• The two Scranton-area House members Kanjorski and Carney, both losing in the polls.
• U.S. Senator Bob Casey, Jr., a native and resident of Scranton.
• Congressman Joe Sestak, the Democrats' nominee for the Pennsylvania U.S. Senate seat.

Where to start? That would be….

[Read the whole thing]

(Hat tip: Creative Minority Report)


UPDATE
More at CatholicVote.org:




UPDATE #2
At The American Catholic, Michael Denton offers a more measured take on the story.

Catholic Blogger to Burn Copies of National Catholic Reporter

LarryD has the story:

A little-known central Kansas Catholic blogger has announced that he will burn a copy of the National Catholic Reporter on his front lawn on Monday September 13, the Memorial of St John Chrysostom.

Renfrew Dachs, who blogs at 'Orthodachs Review', announced on Labor Day his intention to set fire to the most recent issue of the left-leaning paper. As he wrote on his blog:

"It is time to expose this publication for what it is. It is a heterodox publication that is trying to masquerade as a Catholic publication, seeking to deceive many within the Church."

[...]

"I've had people tell me they're coming to attend the burning. A bunch have mailed me copies of the National Catholic Reporter, along with some back issues of Commonweal and America, so I expect a pretty large fire Monday. I've also received a number of nasty emails, too. They're not death threats - pretty much just folks telling me to stop being judgmental, or that I'll harm the environment by increasing my carbon footprint, with all that smoke and stuff."

[Read the whole thing]

(Hat tip: Creative Minority Report)

Soros-Funded Pro-Obama Catholics to Launch News Service?

Maybe all that Soros money that was going to the apparently now-defunct Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good is just being redirected. BaptistPlanet reports that Catholics United may soon be launching a new propaganda ... errrr ... "news" ... arm:

The story is not only vague but also bereft of useful details. details.The Global Catholic Network, ETWN News, reported today:

Chris Korzen [twitter], Executive Director of Catholics United, told EWTN News in an e-mail last Friday that his group is getting ready to launch a news organization of its own.

EWTN News had contacted Korzen to confirm whether or not the organization Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good (CACG) had gone out of business. Korzen refused to answer any questions about the status of CACG, claiming that EWTN News has not made clear “what your real motivations are” in asking questions about Catholics United and CACG.

Nevertheless, in his e-mail, Korzen revealed that “Catholics United is moving into the news business.”

More, later.

(Hat tip: Opinionated Catholic)


Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
Catholic Key Blog Asks "Is Catholics in Alliance Kaput?"

Soros-Funded "Catholic" Groups Still Running Cover for Pro-Aborts (Of Course, That's the Sole Reason They Exist)

"Nonpartisan" Catholics United to “Set the Record Straight” by Trying to Convince Catholics That New Healthcare Law is "Pro-Life"

Archbishop Chaput: A Bad Bill and How We Got It

Archbishop Chaput: Those Confusing the Catholic Stance on Health Care Will Bear the Blame for Anti-Life Effects of Heath Care Bill

CatholicVote Takes on Soros-Funded Catholics in Alliance and Catholics United

Sebelius and Kmiec Catholicism - the Catholic Left Declares War on Pro-Lifers

Apologists for Abortion-Loving Catholics Attack Archbishop ... Again

Catholic News Agency: Catholics in Alliance "Abortion Reduction" Study Found to be Faulty - Social Welfare Policies Have Little Effect on Abortion

What Did Gov. Strickland Know, and When Did He Know It (re: Eric McFadden)? [UPDATED]

Breaking: Catholic Democrat Who Once Headed Up Ohio's Faith-Based Initiatives Arrested for Running Prostitution Ring [UPDATED]

"Seamless Garment Has Lost a Thread"

Catholics in Alliance Voter Survey of "Little Value," Archdiocese of Denver Says

"Nonpartisan" Catholics United Attacks the Knights of Columbus

"Nonpartisan" Catholics United Hits McCain with Ad Questioning His Pro-Life Credentials

"Non-Partisan" Group of Catholic Obama Supporters Calling Itself "Catholics United" Gets Divisive

The Catholic Left Meets in Philadelphia

Convention for the "Common Good"

Bill Donohue: "How the Catholic Left Is Boxed in by Abortion"

"Catholic Democrats" Attack "Registered Republican Archbishop of Kansas City" for "Using Communion" to "Take Down" Sebelius

I Missed the Seminar [UPDATED]

Deal Hudson: "Catholics Organize to Elect Barack Obama"

Democrat Front Group Posing as Catholic Org Calls for End to "Christmas Culture War"

Fidelis Dismisses Religious Left Media "Report"

Democrats Set Their Sights on Winning Back Catholics

Mark Shea in National Catholic Register: "Richard Rich Lives"

Edwards Blogger Flap Discomforts Religious Left

Mark Shea: "Whores for Edwards Swings into Action"

Catholics in Alliance Respond With Letter to Editor

Continue to Raise Our Voices on Issue of Voting

In January's Catholic Chronicle - "Vote Your Values" Revisited

Vote Your Values

"NOT An Approved Catholic Voter Guide"

What's Missing?

Toledo Blade: "Catholic Voting Guide Gives Church Perspective"

Catholics Find Voting Guides a Test of Allegiance

Weigel: "An Electoral Battle of the Booklets?

More From Amy Welborn on the "Dueling Catholic Voter Guides"

Columnist: "Christian Right Driving Wedge Into U.S."

More on Catholic Voter Guides

Dueling Catholic Voter Guides

Michael Sean Winters Reveals His Ugly, Boorish, Small-Minded Pettiness Via His Sullivanesque Obsession With Prof. Robert George [UPDATED]

The Opinionated Catholic brought to my attention an attack on Professor Robert George by lefty Catholic Michael Sean Winters of National Catholic Reporter.

It all started with this particularly boorish and mean-spirited attack by Winters at NCR:

Professor Robert George is a different kind of fraud. He pretends to be concerned with “American Principles” as his website says, but he seems only concerned with those American Principles that cohere with the current political agenda of the Republican Party. That bias is fine by me, but when he explains that the signatories of the Manhattan Declaration “will not remain silent” one is hard-pressed to ascertain why he has been so conspicuously silent about the religious freedom of Muslims to build a mosque on private property in lower Manhattan. Does he share the “all Muslims are the same” bigotry of Colson? Does he think, like Mr. Newt Gingrich, that we should only allow a mosque here when Saudi Arabia permits a church in Mecca, as if the Saudi Royal Family should be a moral compass for anyone? He has found time at his website to post articles about Proposition 8 being overturned, a photograph of King George III, a bizarre article about returning to the Gold Standard, but not a word about the religious freedom of Muslims to build a mosque, not atop the World Trade Center site, by the way, but two blocks away, not far from St. Peter’s Catholic Church and St. Paul’s Episcopal Chapel to which, presumably, no on objects because, well, you know. (As I write these words, I entertain a vision of the Uptons in “Auntie Mame” explaining that their neighborhood was “restricted” because they did not want the wrong type of people, namely Jews, living there.) Cat got your tongue professor?

To which Prof. Rick Garnett of Mirror of Justice responded:

I think it is unfair, though -- and in the case of the baseless charges lobbed at our own Robby George, mean-spirited and unworthy -- to charge those who (a) are publicly and unquestionably dedicated to religious liberty but (b) have not (yet) spoken out in strong defense of the proposal with 'hypocrisy" or "fraud." (I'm being defensive here, of course, because I spent the weekend doing things besides commenting on the mosque.)

We do this too much in our public conversations, I think (I am guilty of this sometimes too, I am sure): "You say you are on the side of the angels, but you have failed to condemn publicly [insert outrageous act or current controversy] and so . . . gotcha! You are a fraud!"

But Winters wasn't backing off:

Whenever I disagree with Professor Garnett, such disagreement always makes me think again on any topic. But, it is painful to disagree with someone I respect when there is a personal aspect to the disagreement. I understand his loyalty to his friend, Professor George. He, like others, assures me that Professor George is an upstanding person, a fine scholar, a great teacher. He may be all those things in spades for all I know. Another mutual friend of Professor George’s and me wrote a note observing: “Even if you conclude that someone advocates a policy that contradicts one of his own principles, that only makes him inconsistent or foolish, not fraudulent.” I recognize the distinction although, for someone who claims to be a philosopher, the charge of inconsistency is a grave one, and I have watched Professor George in action and he is no fool.

Fraudulence is when a person presents themselves in one way but connives to achieve other, opposed objectives. Unless Professor George has the gumption to stand up to some of his fellow political conservatives, to stand up for religious freedom and for the Constitution at a time when some of his fellow conservatives are using the issue to whip up the basest of passions, unless he is willing to recognize that, throughout history, it is not merely “the government” but the mob which is prone to threaten religious liberties, then, yes, I am afraid he is a fraud.

It was then Prof. George's turn to defend himself against Winters' unprovoked attack:

Because I've been dealing with a horrible family tragedy, I have not been reading or contributing to MoJ for the past ten days or so. During a visit to South Africa, my brother Edward's fiance, Helen Elaine Hill, was thrown from a horse and severely injured. After lingering in a coma for several days, this charming, beautiful, and brilliant young woman died. Her obituary appeared in last Sunday's New York Times. I returned to Princeton last night after attending her funeral in Lewisburg, West Virginia. As you can imagine, my brother is utterly grief-stricken and our entire family is devastated. It has been a rough period for us.

When I opened MoJ this morning to catch up, I found your report that Michael Winters, who seems to have some sort of obsession with me, has found a pretext for launching yet another vicious, flailing, personal attack at his blog. Thanks for defending me, but, honestly, the guy is plainly not interested in reasonable debate. You won't get anywhere with him. I have no idea whether what is driving him is ideological or psychological, but it is certainly not devotion to truth. He seems to have some sort of score to settle with me---what it is I can't say, since I don't know the man---and he's not going to let truth get in the way of settling it.

The last time you called attention to one of Winters' bizarre attacks, I posted a response on MoJ noting that "[w]e can go step by step to show how he willfully twists and misrepresents an interlocutor's words in order to create a false impression of what his opponent is saying." This, as it turns out, is his modus operandi. As his conduct consistently shows, he is a deeply intellectually dishonest person. This time he is trying to smear me by drawing preposterous inferences from the fact that I haven't yet published anything on the New York mosque controversy.

As a matter of fact, I'm writing an op ed with Jennifer Bryson, an outstanding scholar of contemporary Islam with whom I've worked closely in the cause of Muslim-Christian understanding, concerning controversies about mosques not only in New York City, but across the country. We are submitting our piece to the Wall Street Journal. Although we have not yet finalized the draft (precisely because I have been occupied with my family's bereavement), here are the opening sentences:

Across the country in recent months, from California, to Louisiana, to New York, anti-Muslim sentiment has become a prominent feature of opposition to new mosques. At risk in this is religious freedom itself. But not just religious freedom. Also threatened is the respectful civility that enables constructive public discourse in religiously pluralistic democratic societies. First, an attitude of "freedom for me but not for thee" rings the death knell for liberty itself. Freedom of religion is a right of all human beings, including Muslims. People who oppose the building of mosques in their communities out of anti-Islamic animus are guilty of intolerance and a lack or respect for religious freedom. Such hostility assaults the human dignity of both the hater annd the hated.

[Read the whole thing]

WOW! Pretty compelling evidence that (1) there was good reason for Prof. George to not be engaged on this topic as it became a national news story and (2) Prof. George is ANYTHING BUT a "fraud" on the topic of religious freedom.

So, you'd think an apology from Winters would be forthcoming, right? Think again. You obviously haven't been paying attention to the way a real fraud like Michael Sean Winters operates:

Unbeknownst to me, Professor Robert George has been dealing with a dreadful personal family tragedy, so I shall ignore his comments about myself and my writings at the blog Mirror of Justice.

Souls that are hurting tend to say hurtful things. Of course, I do not retract a word I have written in his regard.

[...]

Professor George has made a name for himself as a defender of religious liberty. That is why his silence heretofore was so noteworthy and so disturbing.

(emphasis added)

"That is why his silence heretofore was so noteworthy and so disturbing."

WTF?

Hey, Mikey Sean, as is clear from your acknowledgement that "Professor Robert George has been dealing with a dreadful personal family tragedy", you know damned well that Prof. George's "silence heretofore" was because he was dealing with more pressing matters of a personal nature, NOT from any reticence on his part to speak out on behalf of religious freedom for Muslims. There is absoulutely nothing "noteworthy" or "disturbing" about his being preoccupied with urgent family business and not being immediately available to wax philosophical about free exercise matters on YOUR time table.

What's worse, YOU attacked Prof. George as "a fraud" and then, without offering an apology for that - given what has been going on in the man's life that might have been distracting him somewhat from the events you believe he should have immediately spoken out about, have the chutzpah to play the victim card - "I shall ignore his comments about myself and my writings" - in that disgustingly Wormtonguesqe passive-aggressive manner that makes one feel like they need to take a shower to wash off all the slime after reading it.

To stand by and "not retract a word of" your previous comments, especially in light of what you now know to be the truth, reveals once and for all what many of your critics already knew about you: that you are a small, petty, and pathetic man (and "man" may be giving you too much credit).


UPDATE (20 August 2010)
Prof. George has responded to Winters' non-apology:

Michael Winters lets us know just what kind of guy he is
Last night, one of my former students sent me a link to Michael Winters' blog at the National Catholic Reporter, where Winters has posted a response to my MoJ post about his most recent attack on me. Here is the link: http://ncronline.org/blogs/distinctly-catholic/professor-george-ground-zero-mosque. If anyone has the slightest doubt that what I said about Winters and his modus operandi is true, please open the link and see if you don't find what I said more than amply confirmed. Winters' own words fully reveal the kind of person he is. He offers no apology for the ugly smears and taunts that prompted my criticisms of him. He retracts nothing. He admits no error. On the contrary, he engages in more of his vile innuendo---suggesting that he merited no rebuke from me, and that I criticized him only because I am "hurting" from a family tragedy ("souls that are hurting tend to say hurtful things")---while purporting to applaud me for speaking up for religious liberty. The comments following his post make it plain that his readers have no difficulty seeing through this ploy. They are on to the guy. Evidently, a few of them have been on to him for some time now.

(Hat tip, once again, to Opinionated Catholic)


Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
Liberal Catholic Michael Sean Winters Calls Out Media for Shoddy Coverage of Pope

Michael Sean Winters: "Deceitful Bogeyman" of the Catholic Left

Fr. Z Defends Well-Known Catholic Apologist Patrick Madrid ... [UPDATED]

Pro-Life Kudos to Michael Sean Winters

REPOSTED and UPDATED: "... Dollars to Doughnuts ..."

"... Dollars to Doughnuts ..."

Sister Carol Keehan Misrepresents Her Support of the Health Care Bill

Writing at Inside Catholic, Deal Hudson notes that Sister Carol Keehan is trying to have it both ways by claiming to have supported the Bishops' position on federal abortion funding while also supporting passage of Obamacare:

Sister Carol Keehan responded to the standing ovation she received at a gathering of Obama’s Catholic coalition by making a very strange claim about her support of the recent health care legislation signed by President Obama.

"We were in complete accord with our bishops and our church that abortion is a grave evil. There is no justification for abortion, and we would not ever have supported this bill if we thought it funded abortion."

Huh? The bishops made it very clear they did not want the health care bill to pass the Congress precisely because it did contain abortion funding.

If somehow, Sr. Keehan missed the series of press statements from the USCCB opposing the health care bill, perhaps she also missed the national parish bulletin insert sent out by the USCCB prior to the final House vote. In the March 11 insert, the bishops explained the Senate bill rejected the Hyde Amendment "and passed health care reform that requires federal funds to help subsidize and promote health plans that cover elective abortions."

Why did Sr. Keehan misrepresent her opposition to the bishops’ position on the health care bill? Why would she underscore her "accord" with the bishops, when she directly rejected their request that she, and all Catholics, oppose the bill?

It’s a fascinating study in political-ecclesial double-talk. The standing ovation itself confirms the position Sr. Keehan took against the bishops. There’s no way the Catholics who support Obama would have risen to their feet if she had joined forces with the bishops in an effort to kill the bill. No, Keehan was applauded because she ignored the bishops...

[...]

More than one bishop has called out Sr. Keehan and her Catholic Health Assocation for supporting the health care bill. Archbishop Joseph Naumann, in a column for his diocesan paper, responded to Keehan’s denial of abortion funding in the bill:

I find this statement by Sister Keehan either incredibly naïve or disingenuous. Either the bill permits previously prohibited government funding of abortion or not. This is not a technicality.

Archbishop Naumann also encouraged the Catholics of the diocese of Kansas City, KS "to contact Sister Keehan and the Catholic Health Association expressing to them your disappointment in their willingness to accept government-funded abortion as part of health care reform."

The scope of the fall-out for Sr. Keehan and the CHA has not been made public, apart from the decision of Bishop Thomas Tobin of Providence, RI to remove his two hospitals from membership. In a previous column, I reported the decision of a prominent lawyer in Columbia, SC to leave the board of the Sisters of Charity Foundation because of its support of the health care bill. There are undoubtedly more consequences down the road for the Catholic Health Association as the ramifications of the promised abortion funding become more public. Planned Parenthood is already crediting the health care bill for the opening of a new clinic.

[Read the whole thing]

Also, be sure to read Hudson's related blog post, "Rise Up, Rise Up for Sr. Carol Keehan".


Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
The Bishops Strike Back Against Dissenting Women Religious [UPDATED]

Sister Carol Disinvited from D.C.-Based John Carroll Society Speaking Gig

Establishing the "Alternative Magisterium"

Bishop Morlino: “Speaker Pelosi is Not Called by Jesus Christ to Lead the Catholic Faithful”

Bishop Morlino takes issue with the "Alternative Magisterium" that Pelosi, Obama, and the Catholic left have established for the purpose of doing an end run around the Bishops' authority:

In the midst of a wide-ranging column today, Madison Bishop Robert C. Morlino turns his attention to who speaks for the Church and reminds readers that “Speaker Pelosi is not called by Jesus Christ to lead the Catholic faithful, any more than the religious Sisters in Network are, any more than the leadership of the Catholic Health Association is.”

[...]

I cannot pass over the actions of the Catholic Health Association and an organization called Network, a lobby of American religious Sisters, who said, quite publicly, that what the bishops have taught is false. They said that the legislation does provide an adequate framework for a Catholic to follow his or her conscience about abortion. So, we had a trade organization — the Catholic Health Association — which calls itself “Catholic” and we had religious Sisters who call themselves Catholic, saying, “Sorry, bishops, you got it wrong, here is the teaching of the Church.”

The Lord Jesus Christ, unworthy though the bishops are, called the bishops to lead the people in faith; He did not call anybody in the Catholic Health Association and he did not call any of the Sisters in Network. To boot, those Sisters who signed the Network document said that they speak for 59,000 American Sisters — that would be every last Sister in the U.S. Yet, another grouping of Sisters came out publicly expressing their disagreement with Network. Unfortunately, the claim that these Sisters in Network represent all Sisters is actually what is false, not the teaching of the bishops.

And, of course, people like Speaker Pelosi could not do enough to wave the letter from the Catholic Health Association and the letter from Network to provide cover for Democratic legislators who wanted to waffle in protecting innocent human life. Speaker Pelosi is not called by Jesus Christ to lead the Catholic faithful, any more than the religious Sisters in Network are, any more than the leadership of the Catholic Health Association is.

The bishops are called to teach, sanctify, and govern. But, as I said before, with regard to the Holy Father, if people will not recognize authority, then they cannot lay responsibility at the feet of those to whom they are disobedient. The pope and the bishops are only responsible when their authority is accepted. The then-Cardinal Ratzinger himself has said, in our contemporary world, the word “obedience” has disappeared from our vocabulary and the reality of obedience has been anathematized.

In this way, very serious harm is being done to the Church because people in the Church wonder, “Who speaks for Christ? Does the Catholic Health Association speak for Christ? Does Network, an organization of religious Sisters, speak for Christ? Do they teach with the authority of the bishops? Is the bishops’ teaching just another opinion?”

To read the full text of Bishop Morlino’s remarks published in the Catholic Herald, the Madison, Wisconsin, diocesan newspaper, Click Here.

(emphasis added)


Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
Establishing the "Alternative Magisterium"

Archbishop Chaput: A Bad Bill and How We Got It

Archbishop Chaput: Those Confusing the Catholic Stance on Health Care Will Bear the Blame for Anti-Life Effects of Heath Care Bill

Catholic Obama Supporters More Interested in Providing Cover Than Holding Obama's Feet to the Fire

Catholic Nuns Urge Passage of Obama's Health Bill

Obama's Catholic Strategy: Divide and Conquer