Signs of the Times [UPDATED]

You may have noticed a red and pink equal sign floating around on social network sites today signifying support for so-called "marriage equality" (i.e. redefining marriage). Whatever.

I prefer these signs:

UPDATE

Pope Francis on "Eucharistic Coherence"

"In the document, the new Pope referred to abortion and communion, saying “we should commit ourselves to ‘eucharistic coherence’, that is, we should be conscious that people cannot receive holy communion and at the same time act or speak against the commandments, in particular when abortion, euthanasia, and other serious crimes against life and family are facilitated. This responsibility applies particularly to legislators, governors, and health professionals.”

Hat tip: Paul Zummo.

You've Come a Long Way, Baby! [UPDATED]

How about you show some respect for yourself?

Ed Morrissey has a post today describing the potential for a backlash against the "war on women" meme the Democrat Party has planned for their upcoming national convention:

If they do, I argue in my column today for The Fiscal Times, they may well find themselves hoist with their own petard, after a week of watching accomplished Republican women speaking from the dais in Tampa.  Not only does the emphasis entirely miss the issues about which voters care most in this electoral cycle, the entire argument diminishes women to, well, to exactly what Code Pink reduced them in protests at the GOP convention...

I've made it abundantly clear that I will not be voting for the Republican ticket this year (choosing instead to support my friend, Virgil Goode, on the 100% pro-life-without-exception Constitution Party ticket). Nevertheless, I will acknowledge that, when it comes to "strong women", the GOP beats the Democrats hands down.

When I see the women at the GOP convention, I see a strong, independent, self-made African-American woman who became Secretary of State through her own efforts and merit, and not because her husband used to be President. I see a strong, independent, self-made former Vice Presidential nominee who fought her way to the top against corrupt, entrenched interests in Alaska - a man's state if ever there was one, and yet who manages to be the mother of 5 kids, making her relevant to the millions of working moms who try to balance work life with home life. I see the strong, independent first Hispanic woman governor - of either party - who, after her speech last night, will surely be on most people's short list for a spot on either the top or the bottom of a future GOP presidential ticket. I see a strong, independent woman of East Indian descent who managed to get elected Governor of arguably the most conservative state in the union, South Carolina. I see a strong, independent African-American mayor from Utah who will no doubt be a future star - in her own right - in the GOP.

Meanwhile, from the other side, all I see are women whining because "it's a scary time to be a woman" (as if it's not a scary time to be anyone), and asking for government to take care of them and give them free stuff, or worse, asking the government to force other people to provide them with birth control and other free stuff. On the other side, what we see are so-called "feminists", as in the photo at the top of this post, essentially making women out to be the sum total of what's between their legs. So much for fighting against the "objectification" of women. Which leaves one shaking one's head and responding to what's left of the so-called "feminist" movement as embodied in the modern-day Democrat Party: "You've come a long way, baby!"


UPDATE
It appears these silly people REALLY ARE intent on making this election a referendum on what they see as their own sex's weakness and dependency. (Well, they've spent 4 years not addressing the most pressing concerns of the American people, so I suppose it shouldn't be a surprise that they'd spend the election season doing the same thing.) Not content to wait until their own convention, two of the least substantively important people imaginable have brought the so-called "war on women" meme to Tampa by crashing the GOP convention.

Sort of a breach of protocol, but given what these two individuals are famous for, I think class is probably asking for too much.


UPDATE (31 August 2012)

What an absolutely asinine comment from an absolutely ridiculous and utterly unaccomplished woman. Lady (and I use the term charitably), what you saw on the stage at the GOP Convention were the future leaders of your country - all of whom got where they are through their OWN merit, hard work, and perseverence. Deal with it.

Meanwhile, the Dems will be offering up as a key speaker a similarly unaccomplished 30-year-old perpetual student whose only claim to fame is that she wants the government to force the Catholic Church to pay for her contraception and that Rush Limbaugh called her a nasty name.


Yeah, I'd hold her up as a shining example of a "real" woman, too ... if I were as pathetically tethered to an outdated view of women as government-dependent "victims" as the Democrat Party is.

Allegedly "Pro-Life" Romney Holds Fundraiser With Abortion Drug Manufacturer; CatholicVote Sells Soul in Response

DO NOT VOTE FOR THAT FRAUD MITT ROMNEY !!!

MIAMI, FLORIDA, May 17, 2012, (LifeSiteNews.com) – Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney scheduled a $50,000-a-plate fundraiser at the home of Phil Frost, the executive of the company that makes the Morning After Pill, on Wednesday night. Plan B One-Step is produced by Teva Pharmaceuticals, Frost’s company.

The pharmaceutical executive’s residence was one of several stops scheduled to increase Romney’s war chest during a two-day swing through Florida.

“It’s a huge disappointment,” Brian Camenker, director of the Massachusetts-based pro-family organization MassResistance told LifeSiteNews.com. “You wouldn’t see someone who was really pro-life doing a fundraiser with somebody who helped the abortion industry.”

Brian Burch, president of CatholicVote.org, didn’t seem troubled by the fundraiser saying, “What matters is whether a President Romney will end all taxpayer support for abortion-inducing drugs, repeal unconstitutional mandates that force private institutions to cover such drugs, and whether he will make progress in building a culture of life.” [ED.: But isn't this a fairly good indication that Romney is NOT what he proclaims himself to be on life issues? On what basis are we to conclude that Romney will follow through on the pro-life initiatives that CatholicVote proclaims are "what matters"? On what basis are we to believe that Romney is going to cut off federal funds from flowing to a guy who just hosted a $50,000 per plate fundraiser for him?!?!?]

[More]

... But for Wales, CatholicVote? Look, we know you're in the tank for the guy now that Santorum is out, but at least have the decency and consistency of principle to call the guy out in no uncertain terms when he does crap like this.

Folks, don't listen to the professional Catholics who inevitably expose themselves as Republican-first-pro-life-second political hacks. You DON'T have to settle for the fraud Mitt Romney. You DO have a pro-life choice in this election.

Vote the 100% pro-life (with no exceptions) Constitution Party and its 100% pro-life (with no exceptions) nominee for President, Virgil Goode.

Romney Supporter Scott Brown Mocks Santorum on Contraception

Creative Minority Report has the video.

Between this despicable "joke" from Romney supporter Scott Brown, and the comments today from Romney supporter John McCain about the GOP needing to "move on" from the debate over the HHS contraception/abortifacient/sterilization mandate, it is clear that the Romney campaign is sending the message that the Catholic Church is on its own should Romney win the nomination.

If Romney hadn't already disqualified himself from getting your vote, then this ought to do the trick. Please join me in vowing to NEVER, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, EVER vote for Mitt Romney.

John McCain to Catholic Church: F*ck You

Here's the last RINO the GOP establishment told us we just HAD to vote for because he was "electable":

“I think we have to fix that,” the Arizona Republican said when asked by David Gregory on NBC’s “Meet the Press” about the idea of a Republican “war on women.” “I think there is a perception out there because of the way this whole contraception issue played out – we need to get off of that issue in my view. I think we ought to respect the right of women to make choices in their lives and make that clear — and get back onto what the American people really care about: jobs and the economy.”

This is what RINOs do. They accept the Dem talking points about the issues. So, instead of framing this as a First Amendment Free Exercise issue in which the Catholic Church has a vital religious freedom stake, the previous GOP nominee for president uses the verbiage of the left in defining this as a "woman's right to choose" issue, even if her choice is on the dime of the Catholic Church.

And the previous GOP nominee is a big supporter of the current RINO the GOP establishment is busy trying to shove down our throats. And don't think for one minute that Dullard Flip Rino doesn't share McLoser's sentiments and would sell the Church and the First Amendment down the river in a heartbeat if they think it will mean making social issues irrelevant during this election.

The GOP can go to hell.

Bishops to Obama and ObamaCath Defenders of HHS Mandate: No Compromise !!!

The other day, George Weigel wrote a piece at National Review criticizing a recent Washington Post column by E.J. Dionne in which Dionne, according to Weigel, "attempts some fraternal intimidation of the Catholic bishops of the United States prior to the meeting of the bishops’ conference administrative committee on Tuesday and Wednesday".

Weigel continued:

... Dionne warns the bishops that, if they do not back off from their strong defense of religious freedom and find some way to reach agreement with an administration he insists is trying to accommodate their concerns, they risk becoming a church that no longer stands for both life and social justice. Worse, they risk becoming “the Tea Party at prayer.” ...

... and then concluded:

One of the most maddening aspects of this otherwise bracing debate has been the refusal of those who support either the HHS mandate or the bogus administration accommodation to debate honestly, in terms of the facts, and fairly, in terms of the rhetoric. This leads one to the suspicion that the administration’s defenders know that they have a losing case. The administration will likely continue its intransigence, for it cannot meet the bishops’ full concerns without enraging some of its (most well-heeled) allies. There is no remedy in Congress, thanks to Democratic control of the Senate, and the enthrallment of the Democratic party to those who would make Sandra Fluke a 21st century Joan of Arc. But the bishops have a winning case in the courts, on both First Amendment grounds and because of the provisions of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Indeed, serious constitutional scholars believe that any test of the HHS mandate in the federal courts will result in a victory for the bishops of the magnitude of the Hosanna-Tabor decision in January, where the administration lost 9–0.

The shrewder defenders of the administration know this. That is why they and their allies in the Catholic Lite Brigade, including the Lite Brigade’s journalistic regiment, are trying to roll the bishops now, before the courts get to work. Having failed even to engage the substantive arguments, they are now resorting to intimidation tactics — “You’ll seem partisan! You’ll look like the Tea Party!” — in order to soften up the ground for another “accommodation.”

All of which, in truth, is as insulting to the bishops as the intellectual contempt the administration showed in its February 10 “accommodation.” But that is the sorry state to which the administration and its Catholic apologists have come.

Today, Weigel follows up with a piece hailing the Bishops' decision to stand firm in favor of religious freedom and in opposition to Obama's HHS mandate:

... The March 14 statement of the Administrative Committee of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, “United for Religious Freedom,” does not contain the kind of rhetorical flourishes that reached a dramatic coda in the Poles’ ringing “Non Possumus!” Still, the U.S. bishops have drawn an unmistakably clear line in the sand.

Resisting pressures from both within and without the Church to retreat from their hitherto firm and unified opposition to the administration’s HHS mandate and its bogus “accommodation” of religious concerns, the Administrative Committee — which includes bishops from across the spectrum of Catholic opinion and which does the conference’s most urgent business between the semi-annual meetings of the entire episcopate — strongly reaffirmed statements by the conference president, Timothy Cardinal Dolan, and by individual bishops, that both the mandate and the “accommodation” are unacceptable. Moreover, the statement affirms, against charges of exaggeration, that present administration policy represents a threat to religious freedom of “unprecedented magnitude” that must be “rejected.” And as for those who have long sought to play divide-and-conquer in this affair — from government officials to journalists to advocates of Catholic Lite — they, too, are sent an unmistakable signal in the March 14 statement: “We will not be divided, and we will continue forward as one.”

In a deft response to the spin and distortion that have characterized this debate for two months, “United for Religious Freedom” usefully clarifies just what the argument is not:

This is not about access to contraception, which is ubiquitous and inexpensive. . . . This is not about the religious freedom of Catholics only, but also of those who recognize that their cherished beliefs may be next on the block. This is not about the bishops’ somehow ‘banning contraception,’ when the U.S. Supreme Court took that issue off the table two generations ago. Indeed, this is not about the Church wanting to force anybody to do anything; it is, instead, about the federal government forcing the Church . . . to act against Church teachings. This is not a matter of opposition to universal health care, which has been a concern of the Bishops’ Conference since 1919, virtually at its founding. This is not a fight we want or asked for, but one forced upon us by government on its own timing. Finally, this is not a Republican or Democratic, a conservative or liberal issue; it is an American issue.

The Administrative Committee’s statement then crisply defines what the HHS mandate involves.

It involves an “unwarranted” and “extremely narrow” definition of who is a “religious employer “ — a definition that “creates and enforces a new distinction” between Catholic houses of worship, on the one hand, and, on the other, the Church’s charitable activities and its educational efforts. According to the administration’s regulatory scheme, the latter will become “second class” citizens, in a dramatic break with both Catholic tradition and federal law...

It involves an attempt by the government to compel Catholic institutions that serve those of many faiths and no faith to violate Catholic teachings within the Church’s own institutions, which is both an intrinsic injustice and a gross intrusion of state power into the Church’s evangelical mission.

[...]

Thus those who expected the bishops to try and find some 50-yard line of agreement with the administration, a middle ground on which the Church’s institutions would be protected while individual Catholic employers would be left to the tender mercies of HHS, were proven exactly wrong: The bishops intend to defend religious freedom in full, and that defense will be all-in.

[...]

There will be no compromise here, for there can be no compromise of first principles. Those who understand that will gather their energies and continue to defend both Catholic and American tradition.

[Read the whole thing]

Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
Cardinal Dolan: White House Lectured My USCCB Staff On How to Interpret Catholic Teaching!

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

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

NO COMPROMISE !!!

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

Romney Sells Out Congressional GOP - Comes Out Against Conscience Clause Bill Protecting Employers from HHS Contraception Mandate [UPDATED]

THIS is the REAL Mitt Romney:



Here's how Greg Sargent at The Washington Post is calling it:

Jim Heath, a reporter for ONN-TV in Ohio, just Tweeted a remarkable piece of news: Mitt Romney told him he does not support the Blunt amendment, which would empower employers and insurers to deny health coverage they find morally objectionable.

I just got off the phone with Heath, and he graciously played me the audio. Heath asks Romney if he’s for the “Blunt-Rubio” amendment, and defines it. Romney replies:

“I’m not for the bill. But, look, the idea of presidential candidates getting into questions about contraception within a relationship between a man and a woman, husband and wife, I’m not going there.”

That’s pretty remarkable. If Romney knew what he was saying, the Senate GOP caucus, which is set to vote on this amendment tomorrow, may feel as if Romney has pulled the rug out from underneath them. And this has become an important issue for conservatives. So it’ll be interesting to see how the base reacts to this, particularly since the GOP primary is anything but over and Rick Santorum — who’s perceived as a more reliable social conservative — is likely to use this to attack Romney, who will be under continued pressure to connect with social and religious conservatives.

Perhaps Romney now feels confident enough in victory in the GOP primary that he’s willing to risk some ire from the base in order to begin his pivot to general election mode in advance of winning the nomination.

[...]

UPDATE III: The Romney camp now says he’s for it:

“Regarding the Blunt bill, the way the question was asked was confusing,” a spokesman told TPM. “Governor Romney supports the Blunt Bill because he believes in a conscience exemption in health care for religious institutions and people of faith.”

You can see that all the RINOs [LIARS!] are trying to spin this by explaining that Mitt was confused about which bill they were talking about. Bull!!! DO NOT let the post-interview spin fool you. Romney's initial reaction is what he REALLY believes, and the spin is the Romney campaign scrambling to clean up another one of his messes. Here's how you can tell:

Notice how easily Mitt adopts the language of the left in describing the bill. Notice how he uses this opportunity to get to the left of Santorum and try to paint Santorum as some sort of "bedroom police" - again utilizing the rhetoric of the left.

And then recall how comfortable Mitt was in getting to Rick Perry's left on Social Security and adopting the language of the Democrats in essentially arguing that Perry was going to force Grandma to eat dogfood, or worse, was going to push Grandma off a cliff. Romney seemed like a natural in making those arguments, just as he seems like a natural in his arguments against the Blunt bill and criticizing Santorum's support of it.

Now, contrast those two instances of Romney feeling comfortable in his own skin with those many, many, many times during his campaign in which Romney seemed ill-at-ease and downright uncomfortable trying to sound like a "severe conservative" in his attempts to appeal to grassroots conservatives (i.e. the base of the GOP).

Why is that? I'll tell you why: Because, as Romney has said on multiple occasions, he can't be who he is not, and can only be who he is. Well, THIS is who he is. The Romney in that video - selling out Congressional Republicans trying to do the heavy lifting of overturning the HHS mandate - is who Romney is. Should he win the nomination, we will have an entire campaign season of Romney being who he is to the chagrin of conservatives. And in the unlikely event he were to defeat Obama, we would have an entire 4 years of Romney being who he is and the Republicans in Congress going along with him, again much to the chagrin of conservatives. And in 4 years, he'd be running for re-election, being who he really is, again much to the chagrin of conservatives.

DO NOT VOTE FOR THIS MAN. Not in the primary, and not in the general election. Because I believe in my heart of hearts that the Romney in the video above, and the Romney who demagogued Rick Perry on Social Security, is just the tip of the iceberg of who Romney REALLY is, I will NEVER, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, EVER vote for him.

And neither should you.


UPDATE
Even Romney sycophant Britt Hume notes the opportunism evident in Romney's answer to the question, as he seemed downright gleeful at the opportunity to get to the left of Santorum:

@ByronYork I thought Romney skipped past the question, to seize a chance to stick it to Santorum on contraception. Not a considered answer.

It may not have been "considered" in the sense that Romney let his mask slip, but make no mistake: the answer Romney gave reveals the TRUE core of Mitt Romney. Romney's core impulse is to run to the left of his opponent - that's his comfort zone. Heck, he even ran to the left of Ted Kennedy for crying outloud. If you want to get Romney off his game, force him to have to run to the right; but he's on his turf when it comes to taking the discussion leftward.


UPDATE #2
Lisa Graas has more, including the response from the Santorum campaign:

Verona, PA – Senator Roy Blunt (R-MO) and Marco Rubio (R-FL) proposed legislation that would prevent the government from forcing religious institutions to provide services against their faith doctrine. Today, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney said he would oppose it. When Mitt Romney had the chance, he forced Massachusetts Catholic hospitals to go against their private beliefs and provide morning after abortion pills to patients. All the candidates are entitled to make misstatements here and there – but this is a much deeper issue.

Hogan Gidley, National Communications Director, said: “As Governor, Mitt Romney has a clear record of taking away the freedom of religion. We all know Romney’s liberal record on this, so when he’s asked a question about a bill that would protect our religious freedom – and Romney’s gut reaction is to say he’d oppose it – we shouldn’t be the least bit surprised.”

“On the other hand, Rick Santorum was asked the same question, but he wasn’t confused because Rick Santorum has consistently supported religious freedoms.”

UPDATE #3 (1 March)
New York Daily News: "Mitt Romney accused of flip-flopping on GOP-backed Blunt amendment on contraception".

A Bit of Irony That the Lamestream Media Appears to Have Missed

That there IS a candidate running for President this year who wants to use the federal government to impose his views regarding contraception upon people who don't share those views, and his name IS NOT Rick Santorum.

Georgetown Law Student: Georgetown Should Pay for Us to Have Sex Because We're Going Broke Buying Birth Control

Unreal:

At a hearing of the House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee yesterday, a single witness — Georgetown law student and “reproductive rights activist” Sandra Fluke — told sympathetic policy-makers that the administration’s so-called contraception mandate should stand … because her peers are going broke buying birth control.

“Forty percent of the female students at Georgetown Law reported to us that they struggled financially as a result of this policy (Georgetown student insurance not covering contraception),” Fluke reported.

It costs a female student $3,000 to have protected sex over the course of her three-year stint in law school, according to her calculations.

“Without insurance coverage, contraception, as you know, can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school,” Fluke told the hearing.

Craig Bannister at CNSNews.com did the math — and discovered that these co-eds, assuming they’re using the cheapest possible contraception, must be having unprotected sex about three times a day every day to incur that kind of expense. What Fluke is arguing, then, is that her fellow law students have a right to consequence-free sex whenever, wherever. Why, exactly, especially if it costs other people something? When I can’t pay for something, I do without it. Fortunately, in the case of contraception, women can make lifestyle choices that render it unnecessary...

[More]

Lady, if you want to be promiscuous to the tune of $3000 during your time at Georgetown Law School, that's your business. Knock yourself out. No one is going to stop you. Y'know, free will and all.

But to demand that the Catholic Church violate its teachings by providing you with the means for you to engage in your promiscuity is beyond arrogant. It's perverse.

This witness was called by "ardent, practicing Catholic", San Fran Nan the Theologian. Does she REALLY think testimony like this bolster's the Obama Administration's position on the HHS mandate? As one commenter at Hot Air put it:

Yes, PLEASE, trot out more privileged poster children like this. This is like an ad for our side.

Exactly.

Pelosi: Yes, of Course, the Catholic Church Should be Forced to Cover Contraception — Even If It’s Self-Insured [UPDATED]

Good Lord! What does it take for someone to get their ass excommunicated anymore?


Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
And While They're At It ...

"Ardent, Practicing Catholic" Nancy Pelosi Says She Stands With Her "Fellow Catholics" in SUPPORTING the HHS Mandate


[UPDATE]
More from The Weekly Standard.

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

Fr. Z: "Keep Your Ovaries Off My Rosaries"

Fr. Z writes:

I just received this by email. I wish I had thought of it, but I’ll be happy to share some of the credit for spreading it around:

Doubtless you have heard the distasteful, yet pithy and memorable slogan of the pro-abortion crowd, which they use to dismiss religiously-based arguments against abortion and contraception: “Keep your Rosaries off my Ovaries.”

It seems to me that now the upper hand is on the other foot, to quote Lloyd Bridges.

Now those who loudly decry any impositions upon their consciences are trying with every fiber of their being to impose upon the consciences of others.

Mightn’t we loudly shout in reply:

“Keep your Ovaries off my Rosaries”?

[More]

Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
Dawn Eden to Sen. Biden: "Keep Your Rosaries Off My Uvula!"

Obama's Unacceptable "Accommodation"

At Mirror of Justice, Prof. Robert George writes:

... This so-called “accommodation” changes nothing of moral substance and fails to remove the assault on religious liberty and the rights of conscience which gave rise to the controversy. It is certainly no compromise. The reason for the original bipartisan uproar was the administration’s insistence that religious employers, be they institutions or individuals, provide insurance that covered services they regard as gravely immoral and unjust. Under the new rule, the government still coerces religious institutions and individuals to purchase insurance policies that include the very same services.

[...]

The simple fact is that the Obama administration is compelling religious people and institutions who are employers to purchase a health insurance contract that provides abortion-inducing drugs, contraception, and sterilization. This is a grave violation of religious freedom and cannot stand. It is an insult to the intelligence of Catholics, Protestants, Eastern Orthodox Christians, Jews, Muslims, and other people of faith and conscience to imagine that they will accept an assault on their religious liberty if only it is covered up by a cheap accounting trick.

Finally, it bears noting that by sustaining the original narrow exemptions for churches, auxiliaries, and religious orders, the administration has effectively admitted that the new policy (like the old one) amounts to a grave infringement on religious liberty. The administration still fails to understand that institutions that employ and serve others of different or no faith are still engaged in a religious mission and, as such, enjoy the protections of the First Amendment.

[More]

Prof. George also links to the text of a statement drafted by Prof. George, John Garvey, Mary Ann Glendon, Carter Snead, and Yuval Levin, and signed by dozens of scholars, university presidents, and others, rejecting the accommodation as a mere accounting trick that does nothing of moral substance to eliminate the mandate's unjust and unconstitutional imposition on religious freedom and the rights of conscience.


Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
Before and After

And While They're At It ...

Sr. Carol Keehan ...

NO COMPROMISE !!!

Obama to Catholics: Caring for "Least of These" is "Religious Obligation" for Me, But NOT for Thee

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

Before and After

(Image courtesy of phatmass.com)

Obama NEVER Compromises. You compromise your principles, he gets everything he wants, and then he calls that "striking the appropriate balance".

He's a liar and a tyrant. And this will not stand.

And While They're At It ...

... the Bishops may as well go ahead and excommunicate the Harlot of Babylon ... errrrr ... I mean ... the Congresswoman from San Francisco for believing that religious freedom (the right the Founders decided to mention FIRST in the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights) is a mere "excuse" standing in the way of the "fundamental right" to sex without consequences ... errrrr ... I mean ... so-called "women's health".


Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
"Ardent, Practicing Catholic" Nancy Pelosi Says She Stands With Her "Fellow Catholics" in SUPPORTING the HHS Mandate

San Fran Nan the Theologian Strikes Again: Obama Has More Patience Than Biblical Job

Pelosi Says No "Common Ground" on Abortion: Calls for Scorched-Earth War Against Catholic Church, Pro-Lifers, GOP, et al

San Fran Nan the Theologian Won't Say at What Point Word Became Flesh

Pro-Abortion "Ardent, Practicing Catholic Grandmother" Just Doing What Jesus Would Do [UPDATED]

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

Nancy Pelosi ... Dumb@$$

U.S. Catholic Bishops Conference Contradicts Pelosi's Claim That Senate Health Bill Doesn't Fund Abortion

San Fran Nan Gets Taken to the Woodshed: Speaker Pelosi’s Bishop Corrects Her Once Again

Boston-Area Priest: Pastoral/Teaching Approach Has Failed Miserably in Persuading "Pro-Choice" Catholics of Their Error"

"Ardent Practicing" Conservative Catholic Grandmother™ Calls Opponents of ObamaCare Nazis

Pelosi Accused of Muzzling Opposition to Taxpayer-Funded D.C. Abortions

Wuerl: Why I Won't Deny Pelosi CommunionPope to Speaker Pelosi: Reject Abortion Support [UPDATED]

"Conservative Catholic Grandmother"™ Pelosi Backs Down: Contraception Removed from "Stimulus Package"

"Conservative Catholic Grandmother"™ Pelosi Says Birth Control a Boon for the Economy [UPDATED]

More U.S. Bishops Issue Statements on Abortion

LA Times Columnist Lies to Cover for Pelosi

Obama Camp to Speaker Pelosi: "Shut Up, Already!"

The Follow-Up Question Brokaw Should've Asked

Pelosi: St. Augustine Agrees With Me - That's My Story and I'm Sticking to It [UPDATED]

Archbishop Chaput on Speaker Pelosi: "On the Separation of Sense and State" [UPDATED]

Biblical Scholars Challenge Pelosi's "Scripture" Quote

Pro-Abort Catholic Politicians to Receive Communion at Papal Mass [UPDATED]

"Conservative Catholic Grandmother" Pelosi Defends Removal of "God" from Flag Certificates

President Bush to Veto Stem Cell Bill

Never Mind Church Teaching, Catholic Nancy Pelosi Says ESCR "a Gift of God"

"Anti-Catholic" Pelosi Accused of Promoting "Culture of Death"

Pelosi Sings Praises of Embryo Destruction

Bishop Vasa on Nancy Pelosi: It's "Categorically Impossible" to be Catholic and Hold Abortion is "Just a Choice"

Worth a Thousand Words

Nancy Pelosi: "My Family is Very Pro-Life"

Catholicism, Pelosi style

Archbishop Wuerl's Stand on Lawmakers Who Back Abortion Angers Some Conservative Catholics

NARAL Pro-Choice America Salutes Nancy Pelosi on Her Inauguration as Speaker of the House

More on Speaker Pelosi at Open Book

A Catholic Speaker in the House

American Life League's Judie Brown: Pro-Abortion Pelosi Insults Catholic Faith

Sr. Carol Keehan ...

... needs to be offered the opportunity by our Bishops to rethink and repent of her support for Obama's "accomodation" on the HHS mandate, and, barring that, should be disinvited from the Lord's Table.

Besides, Sister Carol has already shown on at least 2 occasions now that she prefers to eat the scraps from her new master's table.

NO COMPROMISE !!!

Unless by "compromise" what Obama really means is "Hey, let's just forget this HHS mandate thing ever happened. The ruling has been withdrawn." (But we all KNOW that's NOT going to be the case, don't we?)


"... the First Amendment has struck the balance for us."
~ Chief Justice John Roberts

Obama to Catholics: Caring for "Least of These" is "Religious Obligation" for Me, But NOT for Thee

Obama is fond of citing his "religious beliefs", when it suits him, as justification for his liberal policies.



Hmmmm. So, it's "religious" when Obama uses the governement to provide for the "least of these", but NOT "religious" when the Church does it? I'd like to say a special thanks to my friend Dale Price for pointing me to this outstanding column by Charles Krauthammer that exposes Obama's hypocrisy in this regard:

To flatter his faith-breakfast guests and justify his tax policies, Obama declares good works to be the essence of religiosity. Yet he turns around and, through Sebelius, tells the faithful who engage in good works that what they’re doing is not religion at all. You want to do religion? Get thee to a nunnery. You want shelter from the power of the state? Get out of your soup kitchen and back to your pews. Outside, Leviathan rules.

Apparently, Obama's version of Matthew 25 is broad enough to cover his tax and spending (and "women's health") priorities, but not broad enough to cover the activities that Jesus actually commanded His Church to engage in.