Thinkers much more qualified than I have expressed their concern about the survival of democracy in, for example, Europe [or indeed whether it still exists at this time - see Pierre Manent, "City, Empire, Church, Nation" City Journal, Summer, 2012) and by association our own democracy as well. Others, such as Prof. Daniel Mahoney believe as perhaps you do in the power of the "art of liberty" to prevail in the United States. Others do not agree. Toqueville himself saw the potential danger.

The words of and the actions emanating from the administration of President Barack Obama, especially in unscripted talks and/or actions which contradict his previous commitments are not reassuring.

Surely you are familiar with the teachings of Engels, Marx, Lenin and others, some of which have made their way into modern thinking.

Terry Eagleton writes "Marxism does not advocate banning religions ("persecution is the best means of promoting undesirable convictions") but advocates making religion a private matter."

We "recruit [religious believers], we are absolutely opposed to giving the slightest offense to their religious convictions but we recruit them in order to educate them in the spirit of our programme and not in order to permit an active struggle against it.” Lenin

In any case, I hope that you are correct in your more positive assessment of our situation, and that I lack the ability to correctly understand it. I shall consider it a great blessing to be proven wrong.

I don’t really think I am going out on a limb to say there is just not going to be a titanic conflict between the federal government and the United States in which the federal government is totally victorious and the Catholic Church shuts down its charitable organizations, its hospitals, and its schools. It is a fantasy. I have more faith in American Democracy and more faith in the Catholic Church to believe any such thing will happen.

There will always be tension between the Catholic Church and the government of any pluralistic democracy. You seem to think that the Catholic Church is in a particularly precarious position right now, but in truth, Catholics have never been more “assimilated.” There was a time when having a Catholic on a presidential ticket would have been a liability. Now it is almost certainly a plus. There was a time (before the election of President Kennedy) when Protestants would not support Catholics for public office. Now there is more or less a political alliance between Catholics and Evangelicals. There are six Catholics on the Supreme Court.

Both the federal government and the Catholic Church have too much to lose by becoming mortal enemies. There will be a solution to the issue of the contraceptive mandate. Lawsuits by the Catholic Church are not being taken up by the courts currently because of the issue of “ripeness.” It is too soon to hear lawsuits against HHS regulations that have not been written yet. (This is not what I am saying. It is what the courts are saying.)

Have a little faith in the Church and in American democracy. There are going to be resolutions to the current conflicts.

“If Catholic Charities is not willing to do the job the government is offering [the taxpayers including Catholics'] money for, then why in the world should they get a government contract?”

For the simple reason that those persons in the government who make funding decisions have throughout our history until now recognized the value of the dedication and love for others that been demonstrated by members of Catholic service organizations, human failures notwithstanding.

You refer to the fact that Catholic Charities is “not willing to do the job the government is offering money for.” You are correct. No, we will not “do the job” of participating in the planned, systematic exclusion of citizens of faith from participation in the great works of service to those in need. Those persons who were formerly served in a particular way, informed not only by their need but by the commitment to “love of neighbor” that is a specific component of Catholic service, will be the ones to pay the price for this government edict. The Church does not seek government funding as “pay for services”. It seeks to use the funds to serve those in need. But you are correct. “No one is forcing Catholic Charities to take 63% of its [taxpayer supplied] funding from the government.” And if that funding comes with a requirement that Catholics betray their religious convictions, the Church and its service organizations will have to get along without those resources. The church will continue to serve with donated funds in every way possible.

This of course is not the first time that loss of diversity within ordered liberty has been made to seem eminently reasonable.

Mrs. Jackson,

I am at somewhat of a disadvantage here, because I am quite convinced that if I respond to you in kind—with my personal opinions of your attitude and your agenda—my messages will not make it through moderation. I say this to explain why I will not be attempting to respond to your messages to me unless you stick to the issues, of which I, personally, am not one.

First, let me say that Catholic Charities does a lot of good work, and it would be a shame to see that brought to an end. I don’t think it will happen.

But nobody is forcing Catholic Charities to take 63% of their funding from the government. It seems to me your complaints are about Catholic Charities allowing themselves to be co-opted rather than about the government.

When Catholic Charities bids for a government contract and then lets it be known it is not willing to do part of the work entailed in that contract, then it shouldn’t get the contract. You may disagree with the government that abortion services to be made available to victims of human trafficking, and Catholic Charities may disagree, but if Catholic Charities is not willing to do the job the government is offering money for, then why in the world should they get a government contract?

“All things being equal” unfortunately (if I am correct) turns out to mean “equally subservient to the then prevailing moral standards devised by those in power” for whom “legal” appears to mean “right”. In accordance with this political philosophy, HHS rejected the bid of Catholic Charities (known as the group providing highly respected services to the victims of human trafficking at lower costs) to receive federal funds in support of their work.

So, it would seem, if one follows this line of thought, the Dred Scott decision should have been obeyed even by those who considered it wrong, since the requirements imposed by that decision were, by decision of the Supreme Court, legal. So much for the “freedom trail,” and other illegal but right activities of those who opposed slavery as wrong.

I do not think that any of the participants in this discussion are arguing for the rightness of the Dred Scott decision. My purpose is to ask those who so glibly defend removing from the public square all those who do not provide contraceptive, sterilization, or abortion services, although those entities have been proven to provide much good in other ways, to consider that they are inadvertently doing much harm rather than the good they intend.

David, your audacity to correct Cardinal George and then to quote scripture is astounding but not unexpected. Actually by this point in your game, totally expected. So, I guess you must have had a huge problem with the first gay bishop of the Episcopal church, Vicky Gene Robinson being promoted to bishop since Vicky has more than one wife and he had to be sent into rehab for alcoholism while he was an active bishop. But forget that your biblical problems with Bishop Robinson as that is really off topic and let’s return to your whopper of the tax not being exorbitant – it is cited by those actually suing the Administration that the tax for not providing birth control is $100 dollars a day per employee or $36K yearly to be adjusted upward annually by the federal government.

You (and the Obama Administration) may not be aware of this but Catholic Charities does not pay anything close the big salaries Bain does. 36K is probably close if not higher than the average salary at Catholic Charities.

But forget that, unfortunately for you it’s not as simple you insist. You insist it’s a win-win — in Catholic Charities just pays a simple tax that is cheaper than providing actual health insurance. This means the Catholic Charities employee will have to pick up their cost of health insurance now. They will get it through government run groups that will only offer free birth control plans according to our new right (free birth control) in Obamacare. So the government will be trampling on even more religious liberties as it hands out health insurance for a $$$$ for all. Also those government plans are estimated (right now) to cost 14K for a family of 4. Yes, I know people who qualify for aid will get it, which will mean Obamacare will cost more than the 1.2 trillion it is estimated right now. But forget that, let’s return to the religious employers -the ones you suggest this is a win-win for- to keep their valued employees, they like any decent employer will want to help offset the new health care costs. But can they offset it, morally speaking?

Hint -if they could help offset it, then they could provide it. But let’s play along with your game and follow your logic out, with the fines of 36K per employee per year can a non-profit religious employer actually afford to help offset the costs?

Yes, we know you are sure, the government pumps enough money into Catholic Charities to make the paying of this new tax a piece of cake, but the reality is, it doesn’t.

This is why Father Jenkins of Notre Dame took the dramatic step of after honoring Obama with a law degree, to suing Obama for his understanding of law.

Peg,

I know little about the arrangement, but I don’t think it is accurate to say Rahm Emanuel showed up “hat in hand.” Catholic Charities will not be doing Chicago a favor by taking on this task. They will be paid for it. Emanuel is “privatizing” or “outsourcing” an operation that was formerly handled by government workers.

You may not like it, but Catholic Charities operates largely by contracting with the government, with over 60% of their funding coming from federal, state, and local government. One can hardly blame this on the government!

You seem to be disappointed that homeless people will now get better services in Chicago at a lesser cost to the government. I certainly doubt that Emanuel twisted any arms in the Catholic Church to make this happen.

Yes, I have been cynical about government/church involvement since the Obama administration pronounced its HHS contraception mandate. I was further soured by discussion of federal funding of Catholic charities—the strings that came with it, and questions of whether or not the charities had much worth since the government was such a generous sugar daddy.

When the likes of Rahm “Chicago Values” Emanuel shows up hat in hand at the rectory door asking for help, well good luck to the archdiocese of Chicago. I hope they counted the silverware before and after he left.

This saying is trustworthy: whoever aspires to the office of bishop desires a noble task. Therefore, a bishop must be irreproachable, married only once, temperate, self-controlled, decent, hospitable, able to teach, not a drunkard, not aggressive, but gentle, not contentious, not a lover of money. He must manage his own household well, keeping his children under control with perfect dignity; for if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how can he take care of the church of God?