Francis Cardinal George, the Catholic archbishop of Chicago, has a column up warning about four potential consequences of the Free Birth Control Rule on charitable and non profit institutions associated with the Catholic Church. It makes for sad reading because I don’t think Cardinal George quite gets that the impacts against which he warns are precisely those that the president and his hard political left cohorts want. I’ll break it down, piece-by-piece. From, “What Are You Giving Up This Lent?”
What will happen if the HHS regulations are not rescinded? A Catholic institution, so far as I can see right now, will have one of four choices: 1) secularize itself, breaking its connection to the church, her moral and social teachings and the oversight of its ministry by the local bishop. This is a form of theft. It means the church will not be permitted to have an institutional voice in public life.
But that’s the very point. It is not theft, in their view, but social justice. And they don’t want the Catholic Church or other “orthodox” faiths to have an institutional voice in public life because the moral views of such organizations conflict with those of the secular left. For now, POTUS and his ilk will permit churches “freedom of worship,” but not “freedom of religion,” that is to decide what’s what in churches, convents, temples, synagogues, etc. But, beyond the pews and altars, either shut up or get out!
2) Pay exorbitant annual fines to avoid paying for insurance policies that cover abortifacient drugs, artificial contraception and sterilization. This is not economically sustainable.
As planned, for this is precisely how O creates the trap. Otherwise, there might be wiggle room to continue to have an institutional voice in the public square and maintain faith teachings, such as in California where Catholic institutions can get around a state-imposed birth control mandate by self insuring prescription coverage or not having health insurance.
3) Sell the institution to a non-Catholic group or to a local government.
That would be cool, according to the O-types. Moreover, since the sale would be essentially forced, fire-sale prices could be obtained, after which, the number of facilities to obtain abortions would increase. Win, win, win from the cultural left’s perspective.
4) Close down.
They’d prefer option 3, but will accept the suffering caused by a close down because then they could blame the resulting problems on the Church and its supposed lack of compassion. Think of the anti Catholic demogoguery possibilities!
Sometimes, I can hear Obama’s thoughts. Let me concentrate…Yes, there he is. My goodness. This is timely. He just read Cardinal George’s article and thought, “I hope that’s a promise, because it certainly isn’t a threat.”
February 27th, 2012 | 8:13 pm
I could not agree more. Obama’s plans are obvious. Next up are private health care plans. He’s going to try to run them out of business too so all that will be left is some sort of government health care. SHS has predicted this since 2009.
February 27th, 2012 | 8:19 pm
Is there a fifth option-resistance? That is, continue and force a show down with Obama and Obama justice, the IRS and see what happens. How many divisions does Obama have? What happens when the doors stay open but the government won’t pay for services and there are unmet needs? I still hope/think there are enough people left, between CA and the east coast, who know the meaning of freedom and are willing to give themselves up for it.
February 27th, 2012 | 8:59 pm
A little heat & light have emerged from all this smoke. Paul A. Rahe wrote (“American Catholicism: A Call to Arms” – Ricochet.com, 2/15/2012):
“In the Bernardin era, Catholic clergymen lost their way. On questions of faith and morals, they spoke in at best a muted fashion. On political questions beyond their ken, they ran their mouths incessantly. To professed Catholics who openly rejected the teaching of the Church on the preeminent moral issue of the day, they lent their support. Barack Obama has now shown them the price that they will have to pay if they do not radically reverse course. Maybe, just maybe, they will.
“In doing so, I hope that they take to heart an observation made by George Weigel in ‘The End of the Bernardin Era’: ‘The late Fr. Richard John Neuhaus used to say that, when the Church is not obliged to speak, the Church is obliged not to speak; that is, when the issue at hand does not touch a fundamental moral truth that the Church is obliged to articulate vigorously in the public-policy debate, the Church’s pastors ought to leave the prudential application of principle to the laity who, according to Vatican II, are the principal evangelizers of culture, politics, and the economy. The USCCB’s habit of trying to articulate a Catholic response to a very broad range of public-policy issues undercuts this responsibility of the laity; it also tends to flatten out the bishops’ witness so that all issues become equal, which they manifestly are not.’ ”
“But this IS a moral issue.” But the spin on this particular bit of morality is political. The Bishops supported Obamacare. They ran the lemming rush with Catholic Democrats to the bitter end. Is Cardinal George among those qualified to pick up their brains at the bottom of the cliff?
jb Reply:
February 27th, 2012 at 11:13 pm
@William Keevers, You must realize, that the Roman Catholic Church does not speak, nor represent, as President Harrison made excruciatingly clear on behalf of the LCMS, all of us who hold the “catholic” faith.
It is amusing how the Reformation and the Council of Trent still impact matters in this day and age. Perhaps not with respect to the idiocy of Bammster-Care and all it entails, but with respect to chruchly authority and the like.
Neuhas was once “one of us” (LCMS) and went Romish – that was his call. But neither he nor Rome speaks for the Church “catholic” – nor should either or anyone else deign to do so.
This issue is NOT political, it is merely being manipulated by politicians, and furthered by Rome which has never severed itself from the idea of rule via the Holy Roman Empire.
Luther -theologically and forever – severed the Church “catholic” from such an unscriptural idea. We do not suffer from any such “lemming rush” nor will we.
Harrison nailed it before Congress, and I have yet to read a single RCC comment that will admit that fact.
William Keevers Reply:
February 28th, 2012 at 10:48 am
@jb, J.B., I appreciate your taking the time to write, but don’t you think that, after 495 years, there are things of more recent moment to discuss?
February 28th, 2012 | 9:46 am
JB, Lutheran Church Missouri Synod? I don’t see “catholic” in there anywhere, but the Church of Luther as located in Missouri. Lowercasing catholic in the Creed does not make make a church “universal”, being universal does.
On the other hand, the proper name of the Church located throughout the world and in each century since the first is Catholic Church. The bishops of that Church have the absolute right to speak for Catholics. The LCMS can speak for catholics, if it wishes.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
February 28th, 2012 at 9:57 am
Enough of the neo 30 Years War here guys. Thanks.
February 28th, 2012 | 10:03 am
A cynical, political rule from a cynical administration. You have to wonder, is Obamacare really in the crafters minds supposed to in-part deliver on their promises and actually achieve real results, or is it 100% just a big tool to them to gut the opposition as much as possible?
February 28th, 2012 | 10:21 am
There’s a 5th choice:
5) Stop, take a deep breath, and think rationally to evaluate your position.
Realize that a) you cannot rationally claim spiritual punishment if your insurance provides birth control if you cannot prove the spirit world exists b) If your followers are leading holy lives, then there is no need to worry about birth control, right? Cause they don’t use it – so, what’s the worry? c) Consider that you are asking for a free pass to discriminate coverage based on someone’s mythology. d) Realize the benefit to providing birth control – no maternity leave, lower insurance premiums to cover births and children, etc. e)Take a look at the compromise offered by HHS – make a logically sound case as to why this compromise is inadequate. f) Ask yourself some tough questions. Question whether you are interpreting your holy book correctly. Does your holy book really demand not using birth control? Is your interpretation correct – realize your institution does not have a great history of being accurate. If so, why do so few of your followers accept this? Is it possible you are wrong? Is the pope infallible – history says ‘no’.
Why didn’t the Cardinal bring up choice #5?
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
February 28th, 2012 at 10:38 am
Because it is ridiculous.
holyterror Reply:
February 28th, 2012 at 11:39 am
@David,
Hey, David, in the future you an make your argument in fewer words, no need for rhetorical tricks:
” Wake up! The founding document is worthless because it gives protection to a crock of fantasy crap. Those who think otherwise are obviously idiots.”
See how quick and easy that is? It also has the bonus of getting your real thoughts right out in the open, so you are much less of a disingenuous boor.
February 28th, 2012 | 11:43 am
“This is a form of theft. It means the church will not be permitted to have an institutional voice in public life.”
Funny, but these are some of the words I use to describe the bishops’ involvement in the Obamacare debate back in 2010. From my viewpoint, the bishops stole my voice in the public square by acting as though they speak for me (they do not!), or speak for the teachings of the Catholic Church (subsidiarity? the evils of socialism?) They were simply misusing their leadership positions and their bully pulpit to push for their leftist political agenda. They will deny it until the end of time, but their actions to me say that they believe the “ends justify the means.”
It is hypocritical for the bishops to be protesting their loss of religious liberty, when they had no problem lobbying for this monstrous bill that takes away my liberty! I will lose the freedom to buy (or not buy) the insurance coverage I want, to decide my own healthcare choices, to keep my medical records private, etc. All life and death decisions now move to Washington, and rationing is coming. We will all lose these freedoms, but it does not seem to matter to the bishops. Why? Because the ends (“affordable healthcare for all”) justify the means (our lost freedoms.) So sad.
February 29th, 2012 | 7:17 am
I’m gonna go with Annely on this one. The bishops largely brought the HHS mandate crisis on themselves by pushing socialized medicine, and then when Obamacare came along, the objections they had were muted and muddled, resulting in political cover for Catholics who favored the bill. In the end, Obamacare was obviously flawed even to them, even before the other evils like the HHS mandate were visible–but the political juggernaut which they had helped put into motion carried the bill to passage over their feckless objections.
In the immediate aftermath, Cardinal George himself wrote a disingenuous letter to the effect that “we will be watching” to be sure the “executive order” forbidding abortion funding would be carried out. Cardinal George pretended not to see what everyone else could plainly see: 1) the executive order would not be enforced against an enacted law; 2) Obama himself offered it as a baldfaced ruse, never intending to live up to it.
I’m gonna go with Wesley Smith on this also–Cardinal George is wrong again if he thinks that any of the possible actions he sees to counter the HHS mandate will work. 20 or 30 years ago, when the pols in NYC tried to force Church hospitals to do something clearly against our conscience (I think abortions), Cardinal O’Connor said he would first shut down all 23 Catholic hospitals. It worked then and there; but it won’t work against the Son of Lies. He’ll simply nationalize them “in the public interest.”
Obamacare must be obliterated, root and stem. Only way to accomplish this is to bounce its namesake out of his job.
February 29th, 2012 | 7:56 am
Annely, the Bishops have not stolen anything from you. I notice you are still voicing your personal opinion. The Bishops do have the authority to speak for the Church – the people who are faithfully in communion with it.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact