Virginia Governor McDonnell Signs "Student Group Protection Act"

Bob McDonnell has done some bone-headed things over the last year-and-a-half to cost him FOREVER my once very outspoken devotion and support, but this outstanding action in support of religious liberty is NOT among them:

Gov. Bob McDonnell has signed legislation that prohibits public colleges from requiring student groups to adhere to so-called “all-comers” policies.

The Student Group Protection Act is designed to ensure freedom of association on campuses, said the bill’s sponsor, Sen. Mark D. Obenshain, R-Harrisonburg.

The new law gives religious or political student organizations at public institutions the right to define their doctrines. To the extent allowed by law, they also can limit membership to students committed to their missions.

The ACLU of Virginia and some student leaders had urged McDonnell to veto the bill, saying they feared it would allow groups to discriminate based on religion or sexual orientation.

However, the Family Foundation of Virginia praised McDonnell for signing what it called a common-sense measure that protects religious liberties.

The ACLU said the legislation was an effort to override a U.S. Supreme Court decision that upheld a university’s right to require student organizations to abide by nondiscrimination policies. The ruling came in a challenge by a conservative Christian group in California that excluded gay and lesbian students.

This would mean that my alma mater, the University of Virginia, itself once a litigant in one of the most important Supreme Court cases in the area of student organizations and the First Amendment freedoms of speech, association, and religion, will be unable to, for example, deny official status to campus organizations who limit their membership to those who follow a set of religious tenets.

Writing at The American Catholic, The Motley Monk contrasts this approach with that taken by certain Jesuit institutions of higher learning such as Gonzaga, Georgetown, and Fordham:

Wouldn’t it be ironic if secular universities officially recognize Knights of Columbus councils as student clubs while Catholic universities—like Gonzaga, Georgetown, and Fordham—don’t because administrators have determined that the organization is discriminatory and noninclusive?

San Fran Nan the Theologian: Bishops Don't Speak for Catholic Church

Seriously. Why is this woman STILL receiving Our Lord in Holy Communion?

... “Well, I don’t think that’s the entire Catholic Church,” Pelosi responded. “Those people have a right to sue, but I don’t think they’re speaking ex cathedra for the Catholic Church. And there are people in the Catholic Church, including some of the bishops, who have suggested that some of this may be premature,” Pelosi said...

This witch needs to be excommunicated. Like, over a decade ago.

Congressman Destroys Sebelius on HHS Mandate and "Appropriate Balance" for Religious Liberty

Gowdy has provided not only a roadmap for whoever argues the case before the Supreme Court, but elicited about the best piece of evidence one could possibly ask for showing that the HHS didn't do its due diligence in considering the appropriate balancing of religious liberty interests.

The HHS mandate is pretty much doomed once it gets to the Supreme Court. When it comes to "striking the appropriate balance" between the fundamental right to religious liberty and some purported government regulatory interest, as Justice Roberts wrote recently in the Hosanna-Tabor case, "the First Amendment has struck the balance for us ."

By the way, I just found out that Congressman Gowdy is a Baylor graduate. Couple that with RG3 being the #2 pick in the NFL draft, and it's YET ANOTHER big day for Baylor.

Sic 'Em Bears !!!


UPDATE
You know what the best part about this entire exchange is? That the words "contraception" and "women's health" NEVER ONCE came up. And that's because this issue isn't about those things - it's about whether the government is permitted to burden religious liberty by demanding activity that violates the fundamental tenets of that religion.

What Congressman Gowdy has done here is to focus on the LEGAL and CONSTITUTIONAL issues at stake, and whether Sebelius and the HHS gave due consideration (or any consideration at all) to what the LAW requires in order to burden a fundamental right like religious liberty. And Sebelius basically conceded that she and the HHS did not. Great work, Congressman!

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

Cardinal Dolan: White House Lectured My USCCB Staff On How to Interpret Catholic Teaching!

From Tom Peters (aka AmericanPapist) at CatholicVote:

Cardinal Timothy Dolan sent a letter to his brother bishops earlier this week where he revealed a shocking conversation that recently took place at a meeting between White House and USCCB staff:

At a recent meeting between staff of the bishops’ conference and the White House staff, our staff members asked directly whether the broader concerns of religious freedom—that is, revisiting the straight-jacketing mandates, or broadening the maligned exemption—are all off the table. They were informed that they are. So much for “working out the wrinkles.” Instead, they advised the bishops’ conference that we should listen to the “enlightened” voices of accommodation, such as the recent, hardly surprising yet terribly unfortunate editorial in America. The White House seems to think we bishops simply do not know or understand Catholic teaching and so, taking a cue from its own definition of religious freedom, now has nominated its own handpicked official Catholic teachers

Let’s break this down so we don’t miss anything about the context or gravity of the situation:

[...]

5. After all of this, when the White House finally gets around to inviting staff authorized by the USCCB to negotiate on behalf of them, the White House says what to them?! First, they issue an ultimatum saying all compromise is off the table. So what on earth are they supposed to talk about if the White House refuses from the outset to compromise in any way, shape, or form? The cynical answer is the White House, once again, simply wanted to establish the appearance of dialogue while offering zero substance.

6. Then, the White House proceeds to lecture the USCCB staff about how to interpret Catholic teaching! Can you imagine anything more offensive? Telling Catholics how to be Catholic? They show them a copy of the America editorial as if a) the staff has not already read it and b) the U.S. Bishops give a fig what the editors of America think.

[...]

In other words, what we have here is NOT a failure to communicate. What we have here is an Administration and White House officials who believe they know Catholic teaching better than us. And who have the hubris to lecture us about what our faith teaches.

The editors of the Wall Street Journal comment:

As a study in ideology and power, the anecdote [of the White House meeting described above] is chilling, compounded by all the recent claims by Democrats and liberals that Catholics who actually abide by their faith are opposed to modernity. Such prejudice is supposedly defunct in contemporary America, except when it’s practiced against religion.

[Read the whole thing]

My Comments:
The astoundingly breathtaking arrogance of this White House in daring to lecture the Catholic Bishops on what Catholic theology "should" be sorta calls to mind the astoundingly breathtaking arrogance of Bill Clinton's press secretary Mike McCurry opining that John Cardinal O'Connor didn't understand Catholic teaching regarding the impermissibility of non-Catholics receiving the Eucharist at Mass:

... With breathtaking boldness, McCurry borrowed a tactic from Mario Cuomo and told the nation that Cardinal O’Connor, the country’s best-known Catholic prelate, simply misunderstands the policies of his own Church and that, if Americans seek authoritative guidance as to those policies, the White House will be glad to provide it. In effect those bishops who criticized the President were accused of being theologically deficient (believing that the Code of Canon Law governs the Church), a deficiency which, once again, the White House is prepared to remedy...

The current Obama White House has merely taken the Clinton/Cuomo playbook to the next level. Whereas the Clinton White House sought to try to re-define the Church's teachings in order to deflect away from the short-term effects of one of a number of recurring Clinton controversies and scandals, the Obama Administration is playing for the long-term - seeking to permanently change the Church's theology on a fundamental matter and permanently replace the Catholic hierarchy as the spokespersons for that teaching and for the Church.

[And, of course, as is indicative in the preceding link as well as in the current instance, there is never a shortage of DemoCath hacks (see, e.g., the usual suspects - you know who they are) who are always only too willing to put the good of the Democrat Party or of a particular Democrat politician ahead of supporting the Bishops of their Church on fundamental teachings or matters of religious liberty. Their party is their "church", and their "Church" is merely their cultural identity.]

Fortunately, Cardinal Dolan understands how to frame this issue in a way that highlights the Obama Administration's impermissible meddling into internal Church affairs. This is exactly the sort of evidence that will lead the Supreme Court to strike down the HHS Mandate on First Amendment grounds.


Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
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

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

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

The latest meme from supporters of the HHS mandate is that it's okay to force Catholic institutions to violate the Church's teaching on contraception because allegedly 98% of Catholics are using or have used contraception. Leaving aside for a moment the fact that I find this somewhat dubious statistic something likely to have been pulled from someone's ass (or the Guttmacher Institute, which is the same thing), let me just say that, even were it true, Ross Douthat does a masterful job of demolishing this meme.

But it's one thing for supporters of the HHS mandate to cite that 98% figure; it's quite another thing for an official in the Obama Administration to cite that figure on the White House's website in response to the criticism the Administration has received from the Bishops and others regarding the HHS mandate:

The White House, defending a decision requiring many Catholic hospitals, schools and charities to offer contraception coverage to employees, argues that most women — including most Catholic women — use birth control.

Cecilia Muñoz, director of the White House Domestic Policy Council, marshaled this statistic in a Feb. 1, 2012, blog post:

"According to a study by the Guttmacher Institute, most women, including 98 percent of Catholic women, have used contraception."

Does anyone else find it particularly troubling that a government official - a member of the Obama Administration, no less - would use the White House website to argue that the "fact" of 98% of Catholic women allegedly contracepting justifies the decision to force Catholic institutions, against their consciences and in violation of Catholic teaching, to pay for and provide contraceptives, abortifacients, and sterilization? It's beyond troubling, it's unconstitutional.

Citing this statistic on the White House website is a clear indication that the Obama Administration is making a subjective value judgment in taking sides in an internal Church dispute (which really isn't even a "dispute" since the Church has its clear and unequivocal teaching and those who don't abide by it are doing what has traditionally been called "sinning").

Clearly, the Administration has violated the Free Exercise Clause in defining the religious exemption far too narrowly. In essence, by basically saying that anything the Church does outside the context of the Mass - you know, like feeding the poor, caring for the sick, providing for widows and orphans, and providing Catholic education - does not qualify as sufficiently "religious", the Administration (i.e. the government) has done no less than define for Catholics what it means to be "Catholic". However, the Administration could arguably assert (although I believe tenuously and unsuccessfully) that the narrowly tailored religious exemption was formulated on the basis of broadly applicable and objective criteria not intended to infringe on religious liberties. Again, I think that argument is bogus and would be unsuccessful, but it could be made.

But the use of the 98% statistic to bolster the Administration's position vis-a-vis the Bishops is clear evidence of subjective intent on the part of the Administration to officiously intermeddle by taking sides on an internal Church matter. If I were an attorney filing suit on behalf of a Catholic organization seeking to overturn the HHS regulation, a print out of the White House website citing the 98% figure would be Exhibit A as evidence of the Administration's violation of the Free Exercise Clause.

The Administration's very act of engaging in such a calculus by declaring the Church's teaching to be out of step with its membership will be all the evidence the Supreme Court will need to conclude that the Administration is impermissibly inserting itself into internal Church affairs in violation of the 1st Amendment.

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]

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

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

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

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

[More]

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

[...]

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

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

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

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

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





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







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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Moral Accountability . com

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

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

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

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

From the blog of The Federalist Society:

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

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

[More]

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

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

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

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

[...]

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

UPDATE #5 (12 January)



Thanks to Catholic Cartoon Blog.

Steve Driehaus Voted to Fund Abortion When He Voted for ObamaCare

I know it. You know it. The pro-life groups know it. The pro-abortion groups know it. The Bishops know it. President Obama knows it. Hell, even Steve Driehaus knows it.

But that hasn't stopped him from trying to shut down the Susan B. Anthony List by filing a criminal complaint with the Ohio Elections Commission for making "a false statement concerning the voting record of a candidate or public official" against the pro-life group who works to elect pro-life candidates and defeat abortion-funding ones like Driehaus.

Hey, Congressman, did you read what I just wrote? Bring it!

The truth hurts, don't it Congressman? You know what else the truth does? It serves as a defense against claims of defamation and making "a false statement concerning the voting record of a candidate or public official".

You did it. You know you did it. So, why don't you just own up to it?


UPDATE
By the way, no way does this statute pass constitutional muster, certainly not as applied in this particular situation. A conviction of the Susan B. Anthony List, or anyone else, under these circumstances, would be overturned on appeal. And, if it came to it, by a 9-0 decision of the Supreme Court. Even the liberal Justices would scoff at this.


UPDATE #2
See also InsideCatholic for "Why It's Absurd to Deny Obama's Healthcare Bill Contains Abortion Funding":

With the decision of the Ohio Elections Commission to allow a hearing to decide whether the Susan B. Anthony List has falsely represented the voting record of Rep. Steve Driehaus (D-OH), the question is again raised: Was abortion funding authorized by the health care legislation signed into law by President Barack Obama?

The complaint arose from the SBA List's use of billboards declaring that Representative Driehaus of Ohio's 1st Congressional District had voted for taxpayer-funded abortions by voting for the health care bill. If Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of SBA, is found guilty, she could go to jail. Supporting Driehaus's effort to imprison Dannenfelser are James Salt, policy director of Catholics United, and Kristen Day, president of Democrats for Life of America.

Driehaus, by the way, had made essentially the same characterization of the health care legislation as made by Dannenfelser. On March 19, Driehaus was an original co-sponsor of H. Con. Res. 254, an "enrollment correction," introduced by Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI). That resolution would have removed abortion funding from the Senate version of the health care bill.

The language of the final health care bill -- "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" (PPACA) -- had not changed when both Stupak and Driehaus voted for it and Obama signed it into law. Now, Driehaus is trying to send Marjorie Dannenfelser to jail for precisely the same view of the health care bill as expressed in his support for H. Con. Res 254 -- that it authorizes federal tax dollars to be spent on abortion.

Three members of the Ohio Elections Commission voted 2-1 to find "probable cause" to send the Driehaus complaint to a full hearing of the seven commissioners. The date has not yet been set.

The evidence supporting the SBA List is undeniable. In addition to the witness of Driehaus himself (and Stupak), there are the multiple provisions of the legislation itself that authorize the funding of abortions. The best summary is found in the affidavit submitted for last week's meeting of the Ohio Elections Commission by Douglas Johnson, legislative director of National Right to Life.

[More]

University of Illinois Instructor Fired Over Catholic Beliefs [UPDATED]

The concepts of academic freedom and tolerance apparently don't apply to Catholics who take their Faith seriously:

URBANA, Ill. -- The University of Illinois has fired an adjunct professor who taught courses on Catholicism after a student accused the instructor of engaging in hate speech by saying he agrees with the church's teaching that homosexual sex is immoral.

The professor, Ken Howell of Champaign, has taught at the university for nine years. He says his firing violates his academic freedom.

A professor at the university who is also president of the American Association of University Professors agrees. Cary Nelson says teachers are allowed to express their own beliefs.

University spokeswoman Robin Kaler declined comment because Howell's firing is a personnel issue.

The student had a friend register his complaint and has remained anonymous.

My Comments:
This should be a slam dunk First Amendment case for an organization like the Thomas More Law Center.


UPDATE
My friend Don McClarey, a University of Illinois grad, has MUCH more on this story over at The American Catholic.

Teen Suspended for Bringing Rosary to School

Check out the reasoning:

A devout Catholic teenager was suspended for the crime of bringing his rosary beads to school. The school claimed it could be showing gang affiliation or endangering “the safety, health, morals or welfare of himself or others”.

[...]

Yeah, this kid belongs to a gang all right. It’s called “the Catholic Church”, and those thugs are dangerous. They’ll shank you if you don’t watch your back!

In all seriousness, how could rosary beads, of all things, endanger the morals of others? The health and safety part will obviously get the typical school administration double-speak about how they could offend some poor non-Christian and cause violence (just like wearing the American flag on Cinco de Mayo!). But morals?! I really want to know where they got that one from. One would think that being a devout Catholic, and showing it by wearing rosary beads, would speak well to this boy’s morals. But not at this high school!

[More]

(emphasis added)

Carter-Appointed Judge Declares National Day of Prayer "Unconstitutional"

Can a judge declaring Thanksgiving as a national holiday "unconstitutional" be far behind?

This decision will likely be overturned, but it’s always fun to point out judicial lunacy.

A federal judge on Thursday struck down the federal statute that established the National Day of Prayer, ruling that it violates the constitutional ban on government-backed religion.

“[I]ts sole purpose is to encourage all citizens to engage in prayer, an inherently religious exercise that serves no secular function,” a Wisconsin judge wrote in the ruling, referring to the 1952 law that created the National Day of Prayer.

“In this instance, the government has taken sides on a matter that must be left to individual conscience,” wrote the judge, Barbara B. Crabb.

Issued from the pen of George Washington on October 3, 1789:

By the President of the United States of America, a Proclamation.

Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor– and whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness...

[More]

I mean, a national holiday for the purpose of giving thanks to the Almighty (not to mention kicking off the "holiday season" leading up to the celebration of the birth of Christ)?

Heaven ... (oops) ... judge acting as our robed master ... forbid.

Was the American Founding Inherently "Anti-Catholic"?

At The American Catholic, Joe Hargrave explores the subject of the Catholic experience in America from the founding in "God Bless America?":

... But the rate at which Catholicism grew and spread in the United States, at least in my view, undermines any notion that there is something inherent in the American experiment that is hostile to Catholicism.

The Papacy has always shared this view. Though I don’t have many encyclicals written by Popes prior to Leo XIII on hand, his Pontificate is as good as any a place to begin. In Longinqua, written in 1895, Leo writes,

Precisely at the epoch when the American colonies, having, with Catholic aid, achieved liberty and independence, coalesced into a constitutional Republic the ecclesiastical hierarchy was happily established amongst you; and at the very time when the popular suffrage placed the great Washington at the helm of the Republic, the first bishop was set by apostolic authority over the American Church. The well-known friendship and familiar intercourse which subsisted between these two men seems to be an evidence that the United States ought to be conjoined in concord and amity with the Catholic Church. (4)

What do today’s trads know that Leo XIII didn’t know? I’ll wait for them to tell me. Expounding on the subsequent development of the American Church, Leo writes,

That your Republic is progressing and developing by giant strides is patent to all; and this holds good in religious matters also. For even as your cities, in the course of one century, have made a marvellous increase in wealth and power, so do we behold the Church, from scant and slender beginnings, grown with rapidity to be great and exceedingly flourishing. (5)

What was he smoking when he wrote that?

[...]

But the Papal story doesn’t end with Leo. I’ll turn next to Pius XII, perhaps the greatest pontiff of the 20th century. After mentioning some of the difficulties faced by the fledgling American republic in Sertum Laetitiae, he goes on to write:

This ruinous and critical state of affairs was put aright by the celebrated George Washington, famed for his courage and keen intelligence. He was a close friend of the Bishop of Baltimore. Thus the Father of His Country and the pioneer pastor of the Church in that land so dear to Us, bound together by the ties of friendship and clasping, so to speak, each the other’s hand, form a picture for their descendants, a lesson to all future generations, and a proof that reverence for the Faith of Christ is a holy and established principle of the American people, seeing that it is the foundation of morality and decency, consequently the source of prosperity and progress. (3)

Evidently Pius XII bought into that same old patriotic hokum that Leo XIII was fond of. Maybe he was just being diplomatic. Or maybe in a world in which the supposedly more encultured, enlightened, socially-conscious Europeans had turned their continent and the world upside down with inhuman totalitarian ideologies, and threatened the Church with total destruction, the American experiment and the Church’s place in it look liked a new Promised Land, at least in comparison.

[Read the whole thing]

Coming to the Supreme Court: "Religious Liberty’s Battle of Hastings"

At Southern Appeal, Quin Hilyer reports on an important religious liberty case that will be coming before the Supreme Court this spring:

Imagine a law school that refuses to recognize a Christian student group because it requires its officers to be… yes, Christian. We at the Washington Times editorialized on it today. More on the case available here. A key paragraph from the masterful lead brief for the Christian Legal Society by the peerless Michael McConnell is here:

A “variety of viewpoints” is far more likely to beachieved when students are allowed to sort themselves out by interest and viewpoint—Republicans in one club, Democrats in another; Muslims in one organization, Lutherans in another. Without such sorting, all viewpoints are blurred. The Democratic Caucus becomes the Bipartisan Caucus; the Christian, Jewish, and Muslim clubs become the Ecumenical Society; and every other group organized around a belief becomes a Debate Club. Each group becomes no more than its own diverse forum—writ small. The all-comers rule thus defeats the very purpose of recognizing any group as a group in the first place. Preventing students from organizing around shared beliefs does not foster a robust or diverse exchange of views.

This is a crucially important case. Free speech, free religion, and free association all hang in the balance.

(Hat tip: Opinionated Catholic)

Alito to Obama: "You Lie!"

Well, close enough.


UPDATE
More, including video.

This constitutional power play and effort at intimidation by Obama (with the full Court present at the SOTU speech) has to be about the most graceless and classless thing the man has done since taking office (although his mocking of the notion that morality might place some limits on scientific research during his speech announcing that he would fund ESCR ranks right up there).

The man has no class and absolutely no moral compass beyond his own wants and preferences. The rightness or wrongness of a thing is wholly dependant upon whether Obama wants it or not. This demogogic and patently false attack on the Court with the members of the Court front and center during the speech was nothing short of a disgusting display of arrogance and raw hubris.


UPDATE #2 (28 January)
Georgetown University Law Professor Randy Barnett writes:

In the history of the State of the Union has any President ever called out the Supreme Court by name, and egged on the Congress to jeer a Supreme Court decision, while the Justices were seated politely before him surrounded by hundreds Congressmen? To call upon the Congress to countermand (somehow) by statute a constitutional decision, indeed a decision applying the First Amendment? What can this possibly accomplish besides alienating Justice Kennedy who wrote the opinion being attacked. Contrary to what we heard during the last administration, the Court may certainly be the object of presidential criticism without posing any threat to its independence. But this was a truly shocking lack of decorum and disrespect towards the Supreme Court for which an apology is in order. A new tone indeed.

Another Candidate for Don's "Know-Nothing" Series [UPDATED]

[See below for update. It appears Congresswoman DeGette was misquoted by The Hill.]

Pro-abort Congresswoman (and Chief-Deputy Whip) Diana DeGette:

The Hill writes up an ABC interview:

She also said that religiously-affiliated groups like the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, which had pushed for the Stupak provision, should be shut out of the process.

"Last I heard, we had separation of church and state in this country," she said. "I've got to say that I think the Catholic bishops and all of the other groups shouldn't have input."

[More]

Hat tip: Opinionated Catholic, who has even more on the story.


UPDATE (18 November)
It seems The Hill misquoted Congresswoman DeGette.


Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
Politico Says Catholic Church Racist and Sexist

The New Know-Nothings and the Reprise of a Major Award for "Outstanding" Achievements in Anti-Catholicism

President of Catholic College: "If It Came Down To It We Would Close the College Before We Ever Provided [Contraceptive Coverage in Health Care Plan]"

From The Washington Times:

The president of a small Catholic college said Friday he would rather close the school's doors than violate the church's teachings on contraception should the college lose the latest battle involving health-insurance laws and religious freedom.

The federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has determined that Belmont Abbey College violated discrimination laws because the school's employee health insurance plan does not cover contraception, according to a letter the EEOC sent to the school.

"I hope it would never get this far," college President William K. Thierfelder told The Washington Times, "but if it came down to it we would close the college before we ever provided that."

The factual conclusion reached by the EEOC could be a precursor to the commission filing a federal discrimination lawsuit against the college.

"By denying prescription contraceptive drugs, [the college] is discriminating based on gender because only females take oral prescription contraceptives," the EEOC wrote in a letter to the North Carolina college. "By denying coverage, men are not affected, only women."

Mr. Thierfelder disputed that conclusion in a letter posted on the college's Web site: "Belmont Abbey College rejects the notion that by following the moral teachings of the Catholic Church we are discriminating against anyone.

"We are simply and honestly exercising the freedom of religion that is protected by the Constitution," he wrote.

[More]

UPDATE
Chris Blosser has more details at Catholics in the Public Square: "Catholic college faces lawsuit over refusal to provide contraception".


Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
EEOC Violates Religious Liberty By Forcing Catholic College to Provide Insurance for Contraceptives