Social Justice | Blogger Priest

Waiting on the HHS Mandate & the Church

Posted on July 12, 2013 by Father Joe

Statement of Archdiocese of Washington
in Response to the Finalization of the HHS Mandate

June 28, 2013 – After almost two years and over 400,000 public comments, the government today finalized the HHS mandate. We have begun to review the 110-page final rule to determine whether or not it addresses our longstanding concerns. Our review and analysis of the complex rule should help us answer important questions concerning who determines which institutions are religious and, therefore, exempt, who is forced to have this coverage, and who must provide it. The new regulations are being closely studied and a more comprehensive statement will follow at a later date.

Timothy Cardinal Dolan: “Although the Conference has not completed its analysis of the final rule, some basic elements of the final rule have already come into focus.” He said the U.S. Conference of Bishops “has not discovered any new change that eliminates the need to continue defending our rights in Congress and the courts.” He argues that the HH Mandate still threatens the Church’s ability “to carry out the mission and ministry of Jesus Christ.”

A FEW PERSONAL COMMENTS

We are still waiting anxiously for the response of the U.S. Bishops to the latest accommodations in the HHS Mandate from the Obama administration. The deadline of August is rapidly coming upon us and what happens next could be devastating to our hospitals, schools and charity works. It troubles me that the Catholic Health Association acts unilaterally without regard to the decisions of the USCCB. The latest version of the mandate exemption is being studied by our shepherds and yet the CHA has already come out in support of the measure. This is not new given that they supported it even when the bishops did not a year ago. I am just a poor priest, but my reading of the mandate makes me think that this latest revision is merely another round of the shell game we suffered before. There is still nothing on the table for commercial operations that have a mission paralleling the Church’s. Individual Catholics and those having businesses must participate. There is the plight of notable Catholic organizations like EWTN and the Knights of Columbus. The administration staunchly insists that employees MUST have free birth control pills and coverage for abortifacients and sterilization. When it comes to the question as to who will pay, the government is creative but consistent: whoever pays, it will NEVER be the person who wants sex but not pregnancy. The administration will officially redefine the meaning of the marital act, bloodying the hands of all with the sacrifice of innocent children. Saying that we will not have “to contract, provide, pay or refer for contraceptive coverage” is a legal fiction.

Distinctions are being made that are somewhat hard to follow. First, there is FULL EXEMPTION from the contraceptive mandate. This is in regard to Internal Revenue Code, Section 6033(a)(3)(A)(i) or (iii), which “refers to churches, their integrated auxiliaries, and conventions or associations of churches, as well as to the exclusively religious activities of any religious order.” Second, there is the NON-EXEMPTION in reference to non-profit faith-based groups not directly affiliated with the Church, such as certain hospitals, schools and charities. These groups are being offered an “accommodation.” Third, there is NON-EXEMPTION with no accommodation. This would include large apologetic efforts, television, radio stations, and even small operations like a privately own Catholic gift shop. This group would be treated as any secular operation and would have to fully comply with the mandate.

It is thrown into the faces of the bishops that most Catholic women have used or are using artificial contraception. In other words, the administration is saying that Catholic women are more in sync with President Obama and HHS Secretary Sebelius than with their bishops. How can the bishops then speak on their behalf? The bishops counter that even if all lay Catholics dissented, they would still be obliged to uphold Christian faith and morals. The Affordable Care Act will deliver contraceptive services, including those prescribed by a medical provider, “without charging cost sharing, like a co-pay, co-insurance, or a deductible.” Organizations like Planned Parenthood must view this as the ultimate anti-Christmas; instead of a special birth, they will celebrate the avoidance of birth with a fortune in free-bees. Of course, nothing is really free. Someone always pays. Already the agenda of the HHS on behalf of so-called reproductive or preventative services, as well as gay, lesbian, bi-sexual and transgendered health issues, is costing the American tax-payer billions of dollars. The 2013 HHS budget is $80.1 billion!

The HHS has not budged an inch. It is dedicated to the promulgation of free contraceptive services without cost-sharing while posturing that concessions have been made to non-profit religious organizations. But saying it does not make entirely it so. Even if it were completely true and reserved to non-profits, it would demand that those who operate for-profit religious operations must forfeit their religious liberty and rights of conscience. That is a dangerous and despicable double or even triple-standard. Churches are fully exempt, other non-profit religious organizations have an accommodation and for-profit companies (even religious ones) have no protection at all. The Church should speak out for her rights and for those of others, both organizations and individuals. Concessions from tyrants when others suffer, as we have seen in Latin and Central America, can taint the witness of the Church and make us bedfellows with the oppressor.

In any case, reserving ourselves to religious non-profits, we are told that churches that object to contraceptive coverage on religious grounds would “not have to contract, arrange, pay, or refer for such coverage for their employees or students.” This sounds good. Similarly, we are told that the definition of a religious employer no longer insists upon the following details: (1) Have the inculcation of religious values as its purpose; (2) Primarily employ persons who share its religious tenets; and (3) Primarily serve persons who share its religious tenets. This seems to answer many of the concerns of Cardinal Dolan and Wuerl. But wait a minute, then are the contraceptive services still available and who pays? Is this administration really going to sit back and allow a large number of Church employees to go without contraceptive coverage? I suspect that soon after the mandate takes effect, select people who work for the Church in various capacities will come forward in a staged manner to demand the “same rights” that are given other Americans. The convoluted and unclear language will be exploited and the Church will be further painted as anti-woman and anti-choice.

When speaking about non-exempt non-profit religious organizations, we are told: “Under an accommodation, an eligible organization does not have to contract, arrange, pay or refer for contraceptive coverage. At the same time, separate payments for contraceptive services are available for women in the health plan of the organization, at no cost to the women or to the organization.” Who makes these separate payments? Is it the insurance carrier itself? These self-certified groups must notify the health insurance issuer and these plans “must then provide separate payments for contraceptive services for the women in the health plan of the organization, at no cost to the women or to the organization. As explained in the final rules, issuers will find that providing such payments is cost-neutral.” Cost neutral, are they serious? If such were really the case then we could have all insurance carriers supply contraceptives with no business, government and employee co-pay. But it is not true. Insurance companies are already starting to complain. In any case, some religious non-profits are self-insured. This issue remains unsettled. What insurance carrier is going to come forward and just take upon itself the financial burden of contraceptives without other more traditional coverage and money from health plans? It makes absolutely no business sense!

Money from the religious employer and payments from the employees fund the various health insurance plans. It goes into a single pot. There is a string of probable culpability: money is passed from the Church employer (matched by the employee) to the insurance carrier to the supplier of the offensive services. I suspect that churchmen are arguing about the question of remote culpability. However, this still seems very immediate to me. Even if the funds come only from the employee’s matching contribution— that money originated with the salary/benefits of the employer. Does government expect insurance carriers to come forward and to offer such services without payment or contract selection from the non-profit religious organization? I doubt that will happen. Compliance is literally getting someone else to do the dirty work for us. Cardinal Dolan sees the problem when he states that the revision “seems intended to strengthen the claim that objectionable items will not ultimately be paid for by the employer’s premium dollars,” and yet it remains “unclear whether the proposal succeeds in identifying a source of funds that is genuinely separate from the objecting employer, and if so, whether it is workable to draw from that separate source.” If there is only one plan, then nothing has changed: the religious employer will be funding abortion inducing drugs and contraception. Groups that think this is acceptable are guilty of muddled thinking. Segregating the funds in the books is merely an accounting trick. The moral problem remains.

Self-insured operations will have a “third party administrator” to “provide or arrange separate payments for contraceptive services for the women in the health plan of the organization, at no cost to the women or to the organization. The costs of such payments can be offset by adjustments in Federally-facilitated Exchange user fees paid by a health insurance issuer with which the third party administration has an arrangement.” Okay, we are back to the days of “voodoo economics.” It is argued that no reimbursement is necessary because the decreased pregnancy and birthing expenses will offset the benefits from contraception. Contraceptives may be cheap and yet when that gal from Georgetown paraded her fake $300 plus dollars a month bill for contraception, the administration was cheerleading how expensive it was! They want it both ways and I doubt “for-profit” insurance companies are going to give away anything for free. The money will be moved around, but someone else is going to pay for it. It might be called “administrative fees” or some other euphemism, but it will still be money trading hands for immoral services. Back in 2012, a national survey of pharmacists found that most thought this idea was ridiculous and would not work. The government is going to take fees (a tax) from the insurance issuer which it will return to pay for the contraception, abortifacients and sterilization. They are going to pay them with their own money! Congratulations to the Obama administration, it has invented the perpetual motion machine! But wait a minute, it never worked before, why will it work now? Making payments to one insurance carrier and pretending that magical money will come down from another to pay for the objectionable coverage is ridiculous. It is utterly detached from reality.

Further, who pays the third party administrator who acquires outside coverage? Does that not make him or her part of the religious operation? Is this person not operating for the religious entity or in the Church’s name? The problem of self-insured entities is not cleanly resolved by the change in the mandate. If the insurance agent pays out, even if selected by a third party, is the religious employer still guilty of enabling immoral services?

While not necessarily under the direct supervision of a bishop or religious order, the non-exempt non-profit organizations are an integral element of the Church. The formal dedication of a “third party” administrator to handle the claims for contraception is still a bad solution. It is like someone hiring a hit man and saying, “Take care of the problem but spare me the details. If you are caught, I will deny even knowing you.” We would be hiring someone to sin on our behalf, to maintain clean consciences.

The Church cannot preach and teach one message from the pulpit and in our schools and then do the opposite on such an important matter. Such hypocrisy would bring down any such house of cards. I suspect that some in the government administration precisely want this to come about. They have tried one tactic and now here is another. Throughout there has been one common thread: the redefinition of the Church. The administration wants to redefine the Church as something akin to HHS itself. It wants to compromise our voice and moral witness, converting us to the cause of a secular humanistic modernity. Already, the administration is counting on the fact that most Catholics currently regard the Church as outdated and out-of-touch. This is a test after many years of moral and political passivity.

Speaking about the multiple standards of full exemption, an accommodation and no protection at all, Cardinal Dolan said that the bishops “are concerned as pastors with the freedom of the Church as a whole – not just for the full range of its institutional forms, but also for the faithful in their daily lives – to carry out the mission and ministry of Jesus Christ.” We are still dealing with the very definition of what constitutes the Church. The Church is not merely a house of worship or our hospitals, schools and affiliated charities. Most of the Church consists of the laity. They are the main ones who seek to evangelize and live out their Christian discipleship in the world. The Pharisees in Christ’s time took for granted that they could satisfy the demands of the Law while the average believer because of the demands of the state and his need for bread could not. Bishops and priests would share the same posture if they preached something that they knew that the government would not allow our Catholic “business” men and women to live out. The laity are also part of the Church, and the largest part at that.

The administration will not allow employees to opt-out of the program. The CHA does not seem to understand this fact. Maybe they do not want to admit it? However, even if such were permitted, it bypasses an important objection, that such a “reproductive choice” is offensive in itself and we do not want it covered for any employee, the spouse or teenaged children. You can say that you “opt-out” but can change your mind at any time. There is one plan and it still includes the offensive services. This opens up several frightful possibilities. Even if the employee is a faithful Catholic, his or her family covered by the family plan remains eligible for the immoral services. With or without parental consent, the employee’s daughters could get free abortion pills or get sterilized under the new plan. I suspect schools will now be able to pass the condom costs, with the addition of birth control pills, to the insurance providers of parents or guardians.

Everything about this provision in the mandate speaks to our hedonistic culture of death. If we really cared about women and families, the emphasis would be upon prenatal care and helping parents with the rising costs of child delivery and health. But it is deemed cheaper to kill children in the womb. Ours is a world that worships the barren womb and medicates against the child as if the baby were a disease. The administration would have people mutilate themselves and take poison to murder the unborn. Instead of rewarding sacrifice and genuine responsibility, we enable selfishness and moral degeneracy.

There has been much talk about the rights and choices of women under the HHS Mandate. Less discussed is the fact that it covers men as well. Male contraceptives are not as readily available, given trust issues, but the word is that more are coming. Further, there is the issue of men having vasectomies. This whole topic just gets more complicated and serious with scrutiny.

The only really good solution would be for the Obama administration to scrap the provision for what they call “preventative” services. If people wanted they could shop around and get coverage in private plans; I suppose the government could subsidize these. Unfortunately, that would mean that tax dollars would continue to be used for offensive services. As soon as morality clauses in religious-based contracts were enforced with firings over revealed abortifacient use or involvement in condom campaigns, I am sure we would be back in the courts. While we do not and cannot police the lives of people who work for us; nevertheless, they parade their sins on Facebook. Returning to the matter at hand, real exemption means that the bishops and Church organizations should have no involvement whatsoever with insurance bookkeeping gimmicks or third party administrators. But the government has a decadent culture on its side and will not bend. Strangely, even some religious people who disagree with the Church on contraception also feel that this is an important religious liberty battle. I have heard the elderly complain that there is not enough money for their life-saving prescriptions; they wonder, how then can the government find money to give compromised women free birth control pills! They cannot believe it. Admittedly, it is quite bizarre. The administration does not even want co-pay with the delivered contraceptives and abortifacients, something one must still do for blood pressure and heart medicine. This illustrates the moral sickness and sex-on-the-brain attitude of the HHS and this administration.

Filed under: Anti-Catholicism, Apologetics, Atheism, Bishops, Catholic, Church, Conscience, Contraception, Discipleship, Faith, Marriage, Modesty, Morality, Politics, Pro-Life, Religion, Religious Liberty, Right to Life, Sexuality, Sin, Social Justice | 3 Comments »

Anti-Catholic Lies: Jesuits Started the Civil War

Posted on July 10, 2013 by Father Joe

Anti-Catholic Proposition:

Lincoln: “Jesuits Started the Civil War”

Explanation – The following is a brief debate between over the Know-Nothing propaganda which asserts that the Jesuits started the Civil War and killed Lincoln. It is all foolishness for weak and prejudiced minds. The discussion eventually digressed into the area of modern-day Nazis or racists who hate both the Jews, the state of Israel and the Catholic Church.

LOU:

Honest Abe cited the Jesuits as the instigators of the Civil War! I wonder what other wars they might have instigated! Here is the quote: “This war would never have been possible without the sinister influence of the Jesuits. We owe it to Popery that we now see our land reddened with the blood of her noblest sons. Though there were great differences of opinion between the South and North, on the question of slavery, neither Jeff Davis nor any one of the leading men of the Confederacy would have dared to attack the North, had they not relied on the promise of the Jesuits, that, under the mask of Democracy, the money and the arms of the Roman Catholics, even the arms of France, were at their disposal if they would attack us” (Charles Chiniquy, Fifty Years in the Church of Rome, The Wickliffe Press, Protestant Truth Society, Wickliffe Avenue, 104 Hendon Lane, Finchley, London, N3., 1885, p. 388).

FATHER JOE:

Lies and the fools who believe them! I am told by a reputable historian that the anti-Catholic press (20 years after Lincoln’s death) fabricated the quote. It does not reflect Lincoln’s respect for Catholics, although he had inherited some of the common Protestant misconceptions about Catholics in vogue at that time. It does not appear in his collected writings, which I own. Lincoln even engaged Bishop Hughes of New York to appeal to the French not to aid the South in the War Between the States. Oddly enough, the same Know-Nothings who popularized the lie you quote were refuted by Lincoln on August 24, 1855: “I am not a Know-Nothing. That is certain. How could I be? How can anyone who abhors the oppression of negroes, be in favor of degrading classes of white people? Our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rapid. As a nation, we began by declaring that ‘all men are created equal.’ We now practically read it ‘all men are created equal, except negroes.’ When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read ‘all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and Catholics.’ When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no presence of loving liberty—to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocrisy.”

PETAR:

I just started studying secret societies. The Jesuits are a military order and always have been.

FATHER JOE:

The Society is a religious order, not a military one.

PETAR:

They instigated the long series of religious wars that occurred during the Catholic Anti-Reformation, and their perpetual political terrorism is exactly what led to Pope Clement XIV issuing a Papal BULL to ban them for eternity, for the sake of the peace, at the request of the French government.

FATHER JOE:

No, they peacefully preached the Gospel in foreign lands and many of them suffered martyrdom. They were defenders of the papacy; their suppression was the frenzied response to fear and a revolutionary spirit. The old Catholic Encyclopedia states: “We look forward a generation, and we see that every one of the thrones, the pope’s not excluded, which had been active in the Suppression is overwhelmed. France, Spain, Portugal, and Italy become, and indeed still are, a prey to the extravagance of the Revolutionary movement. The Suppression of the Society was due to the same causes which in further development brought about the French Revolution. These causes varied somewhat in different countries. In France, many influences combined, as we shall see, from Jansenism to Free-thought, to the then prevalent impatience with the old order of things (see France, VI, 172). Some have thought that the Suppression was primarily due to these currents of thought. Others attribute it chiefly to the absolutism of the Bourbons. For, though in France the king was averse to the Suppression, the destructive forces acquired their power because he was too indolent to exercise control, which at that time he alone possessed. Outside France it is plain that autocracy, acting through high-handed ministers, was the determining cause.”

PETAR:

I know that Adam Weishaupt was trained by the Jesuits, and I know that he was their puppet when he created the Illuminati.

FATHER JOE:

Okay, it is clear that you are either playing games or just a wacko. Weishaupt went to a Jesuit school but he became an enemy of the Church: “…he came into ever sharper collision with the loyal adherents of the Church and with those who were influential in government circles. Furthermore, his obstinate nature led him to quarrel with almost everyone with whom his intercourse was at all prolonged; he felt the need of a powerful secret organization to support him in the conflict with his adversaries and in the execution of his rationalistic schemes along ecclesiastical and political lines. At first (1774), he aimed at an arrangement with the Freemasons. Closer inquiry, however, destroyed his high estimate of this organization, and he resolved to found a new society which, surrounded with the greatest possible secrecy, would enable him most effectually to realize his aims and could at all times be precisely adapted to the needs of the age and local conditions.”

PETAR:

I know that the Illuminati created the French Revolution, and I know that Napoleon was their puppet.

FATHER JOE:

The culprits were revolutionary ideas and poverty.

PETAR:

Napoleon attacked the Papal States and took them hostage, and this is what forced Pope Pious VII to restore the Jesuits, despite the Papal BULL of his predecessor.

FATHER JOE:

The Jesuits were restored when people came to their senses. Passivity to the Church’s real enemies permitted the suppression.

PETAR:

The Jesuits teamed up with the Zionists when Rothschild became the official bank of the Catholic Church, and the Knights of Malta are the military wing of this “New World Order” movement.

FATHER JOE:

Oh my goodness, are you really a NAZI? Now the conspiracy nuts have found my blog!

PETAR:

Skull And Bones runs America, and guess who they work for as well?

FATHER JOE:

A college secret society condemned by the Church rules America? Pleeease!

PETAR:

Even Masonic Saudi Arabia and its Wahabi Islam stooges are ultimately under the mind control of your “Black Pope.”

FATHER JOE:

Mind Control? Yes, and we all take our orders from the Great Spider from the Andromeda galaxy!

PETAR:

The New World Order funded the Bolsheviks, they funded Hitler, and they created the Holocaust in order to institute Israel.

FATHER JOE:

Really, are you serious? I did not know they gave Internet access to patients in the insane asylum.

PETAR:

Don’t you realize that they are intentionally setting the stage for Armageddon?

FATHER JOE:

Actually, I have it on good authority that the End of Days is being plotted by Bugs Bunny and Daffy Duck.

PETAR:

The Beast of Revelations has 10 horns, and why don’t you take a guess as to how many “assistancies” your “Society of Jesus” has divided the world into.

FATHER JOE:

Actually the beast only has 9 horns now, as he broke one off using it to as a can opener.

PETAR:

They aren’t even Catholic; they plan on destroying all religions, and creating global Lucifarianism, just like the Roman game plan of Revelation dictates.

FATHER JOE:

Actually, they plan to establish a religion that worships Barney the singing dinosaur.

PETAR:

Please wake up and stop spewing propaganda on behalf of this genocidal force that has terrorized the earth for centuries, and is moving to kill 90% of the world’s population soon.

FATHER JOE:

Oh my goodness, I am so afraid! Thank you ever so much for telling me! NOT!

PETAR:

I am very pleasantly surprised that you had the courage to publish and respond to my comments. My guess would be that most priests would avoid such a public debate about their church at all costs, considering the atrocious nature of the allegations. I would say that the Catholic Church is well known for sweeping things under the rug for as long as possible, but you would have proved yourself to be the exception in this case. It really is wonderful that you had the courage to publish and respond to my allegations, but it would have also shown a lot more decency if you would have avoided chopping up my comments to insert your own responses within. It really damages the flow of my communication, and it also makes it a lot more difficult for me to respond to your comments in return. The fair form of debate would be if you would allow my comments to appear in full, while you would respond in kind. Please show me that the Catholic Church can be fair as well.

FATHER JOE:

I am not the whole Catholic Church, just a priest with a Blog. The Church is accused of many things, some of it quite untrue. In any case, this is my Blog… my RULES.

PETAR:

I don’t mind that you feel the need to ridicule my opinions, or slander me as a “NAZI,” in fact I find it amusing that a priest should behave in such a childish manner, but I do feel a terrible storm of disagreement with the points that you are attempting to make.

FATHER JOE:

Not slander, but descriptive labels; what you talk about is peculiar and has little substance in the real world.

PETAR:

I maintain that the Jesuit order is a military one, and I offer the following counter argument: Any honest investigation will reveal that Ignatius Loyola was a complete Catholic fanatic, and he was also extremely determined to spread Catholicism throughout the whole world.

FATHER JOE:

The mission mandate of Jesus Christ requires that we as Catholics take the Gospel and the Church to the whole world. What you call fanaticism we call Christian discipleship.

PETAR:

The Jesuit order was created with a Papal Bull entitled: “Regimini militantis ecclesiae” (To the Government of the Church Militant).

FATHER JOE:

The term “Church Militant” is a title for the Church on earth, sometimes called the Pilgrim Church, today. The victory is won in Christ, but the devil is spiteful and we are still battling powers and principalities.

PETAR:

Loyola was an ex-soldier, and Jesuits are governed by a “Father General.” Ignatius also referred to his original disciples as “The Company of Jesus.”

FATHER JOE:

Yes, Ignatius was formerly a soldier who put down the sword and took up the cross. The Jesuits keep company with Jesus and with one another. They also call themselves the Society of Jesus or just the Society.

PETAR:

Loyola’s “Spiritual Exercises” would train Jesuits to deny themselves, and to thoroughly mortify themselves, and to believe that “black is white and white is black,” if a superior Jesuit would state so.

FATHER JOE:

The Spiritual Exercises is a form of meditation or prayer, particularly used among retreatants these days, either truncated or for thirty-day retreats. You can buy copies of the devotion in regular bookstores. The citation in question, maybe a bit much today, is “What seems to me to be white, I will believe to be black if the hierarchical Church thus determines it.” There is no disavowal of reason or delusion about reality here; rather, it is a form of hyperbole about trusting the Church and our religious superiors. The Church arbitrates and defines divine truths from revelation: Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. The Holy Spirit protects the Church and her teaching office. The posture of a disciple is humility and unswaying obedience.

PETAR:

This allowed Loyola to build a strict hierarchy within the Jesuit order, which he then used as a military intelligence apparatus within the Catholic Church.

FATHER JOE:

Catholicism and most of her Orders are hierarchical in structure. This is not unique to Jesuits. Missionaries were not spies, but sometimes as in England, they had to move about secretly given that a death sentence was placed upon the heads of Roman Catholic priests. Similarly, the penal laws in Maryland forced clergy into roles as landowners and to travel as tinkers during the colonial period.

PETAR:

The Jesuits would build many schools, and also train the children of Catholic nobility.

FATHER JOE:

Christian education is a hallmark of the Jesuit life. They have done much to advance learning. English Catholic schools and seminaries were established in France when the British crown outlawed the Church.

PETAR:

The Jesuits became popular court confessors, and they used this position in manipulating Catholic rulers to instigate the long series of brutal religious wars that occurred during the Catholic Anti-Reformation.

FATHER JOE:

The Jesuits were the chief defenders of the papacy and were very successful in combating the Protestant rebellion. The wars or violence between rival Catholic and Protestant princes were instigated for many reasons, and not just because of religious differences.

PETAR:

It is undeniable that the Catholic Church was at this time heavily involved in Empire building, and the renewed Office of the Inquisition showed exactly what kind of disposition the Church had towards Protestants.

FATHER JOE:

The Church followed the various political states in their acts of discovery and exploration. The Inquisition was often operated directly by the states themselves, with churchmen employed to enforce uniformity in faith. Extremes are often exaggerated by anti-Catholic critics. Remember, the Church was also coming out of a period where Europe had been invaded by Islamic authority and power. Missionaries sought to convert the new peoples and pilgrims sought religious freedom in new lands. The negative spin you place upon this is very much in error.

PETAR:

The Council of Trent would also represent how the Church felt when they labeled each value of the Reformation as “accursed” and “anathema.”

FATHER JOE:

The reformation was not an expression of pure Christianity or godliness. Indeed, it would set the stage for a further break from all Christianity, as with the bloody French Revolution. The Catholic Counter-revolution accomplished many of the reforms wanted by those who became Protestants. Trent was one of our greatest Councils. The anathema statements were a way of speaking, by which truths were affirmed and heresies condemned. There is nothing wrong about using such a formula.

PETAR:

What resulted with the Jesuits should come as no surprise then.

FATHER JOE:

The Jesuit martyrs in Asia, England and in North America would be heralded as heroes of faith. Schools were started that later became some of the world’s greatest universities and places of learning. Certain Know-Nothings would grow to hate the Jesuits because they were so successful at apologetics. They slandered with falsified charges that you are promoting as your research. The Jesuits preserved the Church and helped her to grow.

PETAR:

And though you may deny this interpretation of history, you cannot deny the fact Pope Pious XIV himself stated that the Jesuits were the cause of perpetual conflict, and that they needed to be suppressed eternally for the sake of the peace, when he issued his Papal Bull of suppression.

FATHER JOE:

The Jesuits were suppressed (1750-1773) by Pope Clement XIV (there is no Pius XIV) because of hysteria and a lack of good sense on the part of others. The Pope was pressured to do it; however, it would later be lifted: Never had faithful sons of the Church been treated so shamelessly. The reasons were political, monarchs were afraid for the kingdoms. Jesuits were theologically sound. France and Portugal were fighting over territory. They were seeking for some fall-guy to take the blame for their troubles. The Jesuits were highly successful in drawing people back to the Church. This could affect the various alliances. However, their suppression made matters worse, the secular voices of the Enlightenment could advance unencumbered.

PETAR:

It is also a fact that he then lived his last days in mortal fear of assassination by the Jesuits, and it is also a fact that he was poisoned shortly thereafter and died a prolonged tortuous death.

FATHER JOE:

You even got the name of the pope wrong. Your comments are riddled with inaccuracies and lies. The suppression of the Jesuits was by Pope Clement XIV in July 1773, not Pope Pius XIV. “His work was hardly accomplished, before Clement XIV, whose usual constitution was quite vigorous, fell into a languishing sickness, generally attributed to poison. No conclusive evidence of poisoning was ever produced. The claims that the Pope was poisoned were denied by those closest to him, and as the Annual Register for 1774 stated, he was over 70 and had been in ill health for some time.”

PETAR:

You may also claim that the Illuminati had nothing to do with the French Revolution, and everything that happened towards the direct benefit of the Jesuits because of it, but if one examines the history of the Illuminati before its suppression, then one will also discover that the French Revolution was nothing but an extension of this organization.

FATHER JOE:

Ah, you do know that the Church was on the losing side of the French Revolution? Countless priests were murdered and churches destroyed. If there are Illuminati; they are no friends of Catholics or the Jesuits.

PETAR:

So why should one assume that Adam Weishaupt was the true enemy of the Jesuits, when he even modeled the Illuminati after the Jesuit structure?

FATHER JOE:

Sometimes the enemies of the Church will steal elements from the Church to suit themselves. Hitler was enamored by the structure of the Jesuits too, but he deplored their faith and defense of the papacy. You fail to make important distinctions between accidentals and the matters of substance. Adam Weishaupt was educated at a Jesuit school but was a married layman, not a Jesuit priest. May our Lord Jesus open your eyes to the truth and help you to turn away from anti-Catholic fantasies and calumny.

PETAR:

It really is unfortunate that a representative of the Catholic Church insists on using what I would characterize as an underhanded debate tactic, by persistently inserting his own comments in the midst of mine, as opposed to just formulating his own separate responses, in what would be the civil manner in exchanging ideas. It really makes correspondence very difficult, but I suppose that is the whole point of this tactic.

FATHER JOE:

You received more courtesy than you deserved as an anti-Catholic and anti-Semitic bigot leeching off of the Know-Nothing propaganda of a century ago.

PETAR:

The Catholic Church spent a lot of time and energy avoiding all of its culpability in rampant child molestation within the Church, and I guess that this is just another example of the same kind of thing.

FATHER JOE:

You are just trying to hit back in a soft spot because your lies revealed your terrible ignorance and prejudice masquerading as enlightenment.

PETAR:

I have many, many, thoughts that I would like to discuss with you about your responses, but I am not going to spend the energy that I would have to spend, in order to deal with the manner in which you avoid civil discussion.

FATHER JOE:

I think you have already exhausted the few thoughts you could spare. I allowed your comments on my Blog for comedic value, not for any serious debate. Everyone had a good laugh, but now it is time to say goodbye to such foolishness. Not one of your points was left standing.

PETAR:

I would just like to say that you are correct that I made a mistake and named “Pious XIV” instead of “Clement XIV,” but that does not change the general truth of what I am saying.

FATHER JOE:

There is no truth in your charges to change. You cannot get basic facts (large or small) right. You do not even know the names of the figures about which you speak. Why engage in you conspiracy theories if you are so much in the dark? Are you mentally ill in that you need to enhance your importance by throwing mud at the Catholic Church?

PETAR:

You may claim that these were “know nothings” who claimed that Clement was poisoned by Jesuits, and claimed that Jesuits were a perpetual threat to the peace, but I maintain that both Clement himself, and also many other officials with the Catholic Church at the time, were 100% correct on their characterization of Jesuit tyranny.

FATHER JOE:

The Know Nothings were a political entity that hated and ridiculed the Church, making up all kinds of sensational stories. They no longer exist although anti-Catholicism remains the one tolerated bigotry in the U.S. You quoted no papal statements about “Jesuit tyranny” because the cause for suppression was really a political appeasement that backfired. Revolutions still came and the Holy Father’s strongest defenders had been disbanded. Later the decision was rectified and the Jesuits were restored.

PETAR:

I urge any individual interested to investigate the obvious connections between the Jesuit order, Adam Weishaupt’s Illuminati, The French Revolution, the restoration of the Jesuits, the rise of the Illuminati Zionist Rothschild, Rothschild fusing with the Catholic Church, Rothschild associates creating the Bolsheviks, Rothschild associates propping up Hitler, Hitler modeling the SS after the Jesuit order, Illuminati controlled British Empire propping up radical Wahhabi Islam, Vatican Knights of Malta creating the CIA with NAZI war criminals, and Illuminati Skull and Bonesman engineering 911 while the Vatican maintains ever closer ties to this 4th NAZI Reich.

FATHER JOE:

[I can’t stop laughing.] Just when I thought there was no more humor to derive from you; you entertain us with a long ludicrous tirade. No defense is needed. Anyone who would believe these slurs should be locked up in a padded room.

PETAR:

There really is a never ending amount of issues to discuss, but unfortunately you make it impossible to do so in a completely civil manner. Nonetheless, thank you for allowing me some opportunity to express my ideas.

FATHER JOE:

Oh yes, so many other issues… Hey we have RCIA classes coming up in the fall… want to join the Church’s spy agency? (Still laughing!)

ATRUECHRISTIAN:

After stumbling upon this page, and reading through here, I am appalled. What church are you with Father Joe? Totally ridiculous, I am ashamed to be associated with people like you. In my church if a priest called someone a NAZI they would be fired immediately. I bet you wouldn’t talk like that to his face.

FATHER JOE:

Did you miss something in the conversation? This is a conspiracy fanatic. You do know that there are still self-professed Nazis, right? I am talking the whole show…. swastikas, white supremacist, anti-Catholic, anti-Semitic, Holocaust-denier, etc. He does not deny the label. It did not pass my notice that you attacked me but said nothing about his latest comments?

PETAR:

The very last thing that I would like to point out to you is that many Orthodox Jews also agree that Zionists helped create the Holocaust in order to create Israel.

Here is what they have to say on the topic: [link deleted].

I’m curious if you would arbitrarily accuse them of being “anti-Semitic” or “Nazi’s” as well!

FATHER JOE:

I do not link to such offensive sites. Just as there are traitors to Catholicism, I can only pity those who are ashamed of their Jewishness. They should be proud because revelation comes from the Jews. Within the context of salvation history, the Jews are truly God’s People of the promise. The more you try to defend yourself, the more convinced I become about who and what you are.

LADY GODLESS:

Father Joe said: “Just as there are traitors to Catholicism, I can only pity those who are ashamed of their Jewishness. They should be proud because revelation comes from the Jews. Within the context of salvation history, the Jews are truly God’s People of the promise.”

I don’t know what site Petar linked to, but here goes…

As I understand it, the reason that some Haredim give for rejecting the current state of Israel is that God hasn’t sanctioned its existence, and therefore neither can they. Israel was supposed to be refounded and Diaspora regathered at the coming of the Messiah and the beginning of the Messianic Age — i.e., not yet.

In other words, it’s an obey-God’s-law-no-matter-what thing, not a self-hate thing.

Also, ultra-Orthodox aren’t the only people who accuse some Zionists of collaboration. The writer Lenni Brenner, who is secular, has written extensively on this topic. It’s a touchy subject, but still not solely the province of wackos.

In fact, Brenner is how I came to hear about this stuff. He’s written for Counterpunch and other Left publications.

FATHER JOE:

I am very strong on Palestinian rights and weak on Zionist nationalism. But this critic would take things even further… he is no friend of Catholics or Jews. Madalen, you really want no part of this person’s agenda.

THE BARON:

What does it matter if Petar and I are Nazis? It doesn’t mean we totally agree with Hitler. Anyway, we have as much right to speak our mind as anyone else.

It has been over half a century since WWII. It is time to reclaim a good idea that went a little haywire.

It is proven by test scores that certain races are intellectually superior. The white races have led the way for civilization and others have clung like parasites. Some lesser races might make better basketball players and sanitation workers. As for the Jews, their money runs the planet. Zionism plagues us in Palestine and in their other residence of choice, New York.

How did Father Joe find out about us? That is what I want to know! I have no doubt those Jesuit assassins are behind this. They were behind the murder of Lincoln and many more contemporary catastrophes. It is time to unite against the tyranny of the black pope and all popes.

Terrorism today is not the work of ignorant Muslims. The papists exploit the mongrel races to their bidding.

FATHER JOE:

Maybe I should explain to people that I sometimes make statements after deleting and editing posts? I suppose the end result is that I come off sounding harsher and more judgmental than I actually am. I have left this post alone to prove a point. Usually comments like this are quickly deleted.

TRIBUTE 13:

Remarks are edited…

Hi, I’m a first time poster. I’m not big on conspiracy theory at all. I don’t believe that 9/11 was staged. I don’t think that crop circles are made by aliens.

However, conspiracy theories aside, it’s not a “theory” that Hitler and the Third Reich practiced Pagan and Wiccan rituals and attempted to call upon evil spirits to ensure their victories. They were the real nuts. This subject has been explored and proven. I really wouldn’t be surprised if they used organizations like the Jesuits or whatever remnants of other societies for him to accomplish his goal.

God gave you this divine privilege to help people, not ridicule them. If this man is mentally ill, as you seem to believe, does he not deserve the same treatment as regular human beings? He is just a man trying to converse and ask questions. Bless you.

FATHER JOE:

Dear Mike, if I wronged this man, then I am sorry. But I am privy to information that I have not shared with you. There may be a degree of mental illness, but there might also be a case of real evil and sometimes evil requires a name. You are only 16 years old and I have been around a lot longer than you have. I intended no slur based upon heated emotions but a label that best described a certain mentality; indeed, a name that some twisted souls claim for themselves, even today. Maybe the world from the perspective of North Carolina looks like a nicer place than it actually is? And yet, I know you have had more than your share of troubles. His lies and baiting against Catholics, Jews and others exemplifies terrible prejudices which can result in people getting hurt. I have little patience for such things. While I do not hold with bias against our good Jesuits, you write well and I would urge you to keep up with your learning. Continue to work with computers, play your guitar, and try to find faith and hope despite difficult living arrangements and so many challenges. I will keep you in my prayers.

PETAR:

Zionists helped create the Holocaust, and you claim that it is “offensive”, merely because it proves how wrong you are.

You are nothing but a Papal propagandist, and I fully believe that if it was possible to criminally investigate Rome, then most of your entire gang would be in prison.

If there is one thing that is more pathetic than a person who supports evil, it is person who does so while feigning sanctity. Shame on you, you are an extremely poor excuse for a human being.

FATHER JOE:

You are entitled to your opinion, but thankfully God is my judge… not you.

XIMENES:

I’m not here to take a side on any of the issues. However, I do want to inform you where this Petar fellow gets his information. He more-than-likely bases all his statements and arguments off of stuff that he’s read from Eric Phelps’ “Vatican Assassins” or a site that supports it. I’ve heard some of that exact material from some of those aforementioned sources, and believe me, that Phelps guy really did cook up a complicated Jesuit/Masonic/Illuminist/Islamic/Zionist/Nazi conspiracy theory. I haven’t read it, as I’m a jobless sixteen-year-old and I don’t have money to get the third edition (the “most accurate”). Plus, it would be a pain reading the second edition online… but if you want to understand where this Petar guy’s coming from, I suggest you look into it.

It’s a long book, I’ve heard, but it will either enlighten you for/against what is being or will simply give you a laugh of sorts. And neither of those can be so bad.

I don’t think Petar’s mentally ill. He’s just quoting stuff that he read without telling where it came from. And he’s throwing stuff out there too quickly to make himself sound credible.

RAOUL THE MAGNIFICENT:

I am your judge, Joe. Be no more any papist. Lucifer is not God, but is the rebel. God punishes losifer.

FATHER JOE:

I will pray that God brings healing to your confused mind.

REBE 4 LIFE:

Pff if your a Nazi that means your a conformist meaning you have connections to the Jesuits too ;). Hitler Kissed the papal [deleted] and there is even pictures of him hanging out with some of them. I find it sad when people know the truth and yet they join retarded groups like Nazis knowing that Jesuits having deep connections with them. Remember the phrase divide and conquer? :l That’s how the system works by dividing us all and making us all fight each other….when the time comes of the mass awakening I’ll be sure to see you guys there when you’re fully awake 🙂

FATHER JOE:

Omar, people like you remind us all, that not only are some asleep, but there are others who seem hopelessly delusional. The Church condemned Nazism and other forms of atheistic and/or occult totalitarianism.

ME:

I saw the quote attributed to Lincoln from the Know Nothings on another site, and searched for it to confirm or deny its creditability, and your site came up. Thank you for the lucid explanation.

I was raised in an Anglican church, and therefore understand some of what it means to be Catholic. I am by no means an expert. Over the years my faith has grown. As a religious protestant I have never settled on a denomination, but instead have actively participated in churches with pastors who speak the simple truth, and Christians who are devoted to God.

I have met more than my share of those who claim to be Christians, but yet espouse doctrines of hate towards the Catholic Church. As a Christian, I intend to draw no Catholic – Christian with the use of the word Christian, I see myself as a defender of truth. Thus in these occasions I take the person aside and expose them to their ignorance. The person, most often, goes away thinking seriously about what I said.

I too find it sad that the Jesuits are commonly defamed by these people, as there is so much good that this order has accomplished.

Though I disagree in concept with the Papacy, that one man should hold such authority, the Catholic Church has resisted the temptation to cave into political pressures then the reformed churches (e.g. Nazism). This, I will admit, is most likely due to the power of the Papacy. A strong leader if motivated by godly ambition does a great deal to stem the tide of social pressure.

Filed under: Anti-Catholicism, Apologetics, Catholic, Commandments, Discipleship, Evangelization, Faith, Politics, Prophets, Religion, Social Justice | 5 Comments »

Mainland Chinese Eating Babies!

Posted on July 2, 2013 by Father Joe

The headline I read back in 2007 asserted, “Hong Kong Reports Mainland Chinese Eating Infants.” Say what? Can this be real? It sounded like a sick joke or maybe a slur to belittle the Chinese. But it supposedly came from a reliable news source.

Below is a portion of an article posted online at EPOCH TIMES and taken from a Hong Kong weekly, THE NEXT MAGAZINE.

Can it be true? If you have a strong stomach you can follow the link. It is monstrous! Of course, there was scandal a number of years ago when certain shampoos were using aborted fetuses for the animal protein ingredient. Further, while used for research, catalogues with baby body parts circulate even in the United States, with hefty price-tags attached. I learned about these from friends who work at NIH.

China’s stringent, dare I say “mandatory” abortion measures and population control, once praised by Mrs. Clinton, may have precipitated such a callous view of the child as seen in the article:

http://en.epochtimes.com/news/7-3-29/53482.html

The Next Magazine, a weekly publication from Hong Kong, reported that infant corpses and fetuses have become the newest supplements for health and beauty in China. Not only is the placenta considered a beauty remedy, but also aborted fetuses are much sought after delicacies. In Guangdong, gourmet body parts are in high demand and can even be purchased through hospitals. The magazine’s investigations into this form of cannibalism took them to Liaoning province.

According to The Next Magazine, during a banquet hosted by a Taiwanese businessman, a servant Ms. Liu from Liaoning province on the mainland inadvertently revealed the habit of eating infants/fetuses in Liaoning province and her intention to return for the supplement due to health concerns. The Taiwanese women present were horrified.

No further comment, I have to go throw up.

DISCUSSION

PETER: How, precisely, does one spring that on one’s dinner guests? “This looks interesting – what is it?” “Roast baby with a raspberry coulis.” *Barf* the depth of depravity is positively unfathomable. And there are those who want to follow down this road… *boggle.*

AMBER: Absolutely horrifying! What in the world is wrong with people? How could it have gotten this bad? This completely sickens me…

JAMES: This is one of the worst things of which I have ever heard! God help us! It makes me think that the wrath of God cannot be far away. Of course, given the apathy and ignorance today, it makes me think that this ignorance of God IS part of the wrath of God. Oh God, please give these miserable people the grace to find you!

KAMASULLAH: I wouldn’t be surprised if they are eating babies in China!! Because, as I have seen their food, I think they will eat anything on the earth… insects, cats, dogs, monkeys, snakes, rats, and finally dead human babies.. OMG, who knows what else they eat and we don’t know!

ASDF: Ha-ha, at least it’s organic. The cr-p we eat causes cancer.

SIEWEN: OMG! Are you serious?! I’d rather get cancer then eat that. It’s sick and disgusting. It is bad enough to be a cannibal, but to go so far as to eat A BABY?! It is sickening, completely uncalled for and ridiculous. However, I think that this evolved from stem cell research and abortion, so we are all kind of guilty. Nasty people in the world!

http://www.snopes.com/horrors/cannibal/fetus.asp

POOPER: Calm down, everyone. It’s a hoax.

FATHER JOE: Jonathan Swift gave us his Modest Proposal for the Irish. Such things are not new but they make us pause to think about the real nightmares around us. Both Scotland Yard and the FBI purportedly looked into this allegation. Zhu Yu did an exhibit called, “Eating People,” at the Shanghai Arts Festival in 2000. Here is the frightful photo faked with a duck carcass and a baby doll head. Unfortunately stories about forced abortions and even that of a new-born drowned among the rice paddies are true. Who needs hoaxes while we already have real horror stories?

Filed under: Morality, News, Parody, Pro-Life, Sin, Social Justice, Uncategorized | Leave a comment »

The Marriage Crisis

Posted on June 29, 2013 by Father Joe

I regularly follow the wisdom on Msgr. Charlie Pope’s blog for the Archdiocese of Washington. Recently, he posted on the following question: “In the wake of the Supreme Court decisions of this week, are we coming to a point where we should consider dropping our use of the word “marriage?” A number of Catholic voices are arguing that we should disengage ourselves both with the word “marriage” and from allowing clergy to function as civil magistrates in witnessing them for the state. Certainly I am sympathetic with what they hope to accomplish. However, I am already on the record, from past discussions, as opposed to such a retreat. Both sides can play word-games. Towards the end, he poses a second question, “Should the Catholic Bishops disassociate Catholic clergy from civil ‘marriage’ licenses?” Again, I appreciate the underlying reasoning; we want to avoid guilt by association and giving apparent approbation. My fear is that any such move would be contrary to a well-ordered or structured society (which is a good in itself). It would also constitute a retreat that opponents in the public forum would exploit. It seems to me that our laity would bear the blunt of the suffering and challenge that would come from such a move.

I am not blind to the dire crisis we face. It is true that marriage as an institution has been largely redefined by our society. The movement on behalf of same-sex unions is a case in point; of course, if left unchecked it will not stop there. Next we will see the return of polygamy. Despite the many scandals faced by the Church, there are even depraved people pushing for pedophilia and pederasty. There is already a bizarre effort in Australia for a man to marry his pet goat, the degradation of bestiality. The U.S. bishops reminded us in their failed initiative that marriage is in trouble. While I am hesitant to criticize our holy shepherds; the fact is that marriage has been in trouble for some time now and we were largely silent. Contraception nullifies the consummation of the marital act. Millions of abortions seek to erase through murder the fruit of marital love. No-fault divorce allows for quick separations and remarriages. Prenuptial Agreements insert doubt against the vows and a lack of trust from the very beginning, thus making those marriages null-and–void. Couples fornicate and cohabitate, essentially saying that you do not have to be married to have sex. Well, when you separate sex and marriage, you also set the stage for infidelity and adultery. Once sex is disconnected from marriage it is very hard to reattach it with any kind of necessity. Our society is saturated by an erotic and pornographic media that destroys courtship and sexualizes relationships. This dilemma is so pervasive that the inner person has lost any sense of propriety or decency. Viagra gives the old stamina to neglect their coming judgment and condoms give the young license under the illusion of protection. Wedding dresses that once expressed modesty and femininity are increasing replaced with skimpy gowns akin to those on television dance contests. Ours is the generation where all rights, even the right to life, are supplanted by the emerging and absolute right to have sex with anyone regardless of promises and unions. The children are caught up in the middle of this whirlwind. This is so much so that we even dress our little girls like the prostitutes that walk the street.

Much Ado about a Word

Msgr. Pope makes the accurate observation that the Church and society-at-large mean very different things by the word, “marriage.” Of course, this is also the situation with many other terms as well. While language is fluid and hard to control; it can certainly be manipulated. Look at the word GAY. This expression for joy or happiness has become the source for giggling when used in old songs. It has now been exclusively usurped by the homosexual community. Another word in peril is RELATIONSHIP. When we hear teens or young adults use it these days, they generally mean a sexual friendship with a certain degree of exclusivity. The word that most troubles and saddens me today is LOVE. What precisely does it mean anymore? We do not want to cast it off and so the dictionary definition gets longer and longer. Look at how we use it. “I love my car. I love my dog. I love my job. I love my house. I love donuts. I love strippers. I love my wife. I love my children. I love God.” Then we have expressions like, “Let’s make love,” a euphemism for sex. We give it so many meanings that the word begins to mean nothing.

What does the word MARRIAGE mean? Is it just a civil contract to make having sex easier or more convenient? If that is all it is, it is no wonder that couples are cohabitating without it. Some states have argued for different types of marriage contracts, one more easily dissolved than the other. There was even an effort to impose marriage licenses with term limits. If after five years, if the spouses were unhappy, they could opt not to renew. The marriages would then automatically expire. The divorce epidemic, something which Protestant churches pamper by their failure to enforce Christ’s command in Matthew against divorce, has given us what is essentially serial or progressive polygamy, one spouse after another. Proponents of “open” marriages suggest that couples should still be able to have sex with others outside their bond. I know one instance where a man lives with both his wife and his mistress in the same house. The girls share him. Largely gone is the Catholic-Christian equation that marriage is an exclusive relationship between one man and one woman who are called to be faithful to each other until the death of one of the spouses. Marriages are rightly directed toward the good of the spouses and the generation of new human beings, children. Stripping marriage of its propagative element is to make marriage wholly something else. Even infertile couples must express their union in that act which by nature is directed to the generation of new human life. That is why something like condomistic intercourse is intrinsically evil, even in marriage, yes, even among older infertile couples. Too many couples feign the marital act and live in relationships that are not true marriages. The large cases of annulments are cases in point. People can share their bodies like cats and dogs but they are ignorant of the true parameters of marital love and union. Although a natural right, they have made themselves ill-disposed to the sacrament. Required six-month waiting periods and marriage preparation are attempts to remedy the dark situation. However, couples frequently go through the motions and tell the moderators and clergy what they want to hear. I recall one priest praising a couple he was working with for doing all the right things before marriage. On the way out one evening, I overheard the prospective groom tell his girl, “What a jerk!” Later I found out from parishioners that they had been cohabitating the whole time and only went to the priest’s Masses once-in-a-while to fool him about their religiosity. They spent a fortune on the wedding and we never saw them again. I heard a few years later they divorced because “they grew apart.” When Catholics marry outside the Church, in the eyes of God they do not get married at all. However, Catholics who marry in the Church might also start their unions with deception. Planting lies today often leads to weeds tomorrow.

I will echo Msgr. Pope in giving the definition of MARRIAGE from the universal catechism:

[CCC 1601] The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life, is by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring; this covenant between baptized persons has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament.

What are we to do when the definition given to marriage in no way parallel’s the understanding of the Church?

Msgr. Pope proposes that we stop using the word “marriage” and substitute instead, “holy matrimony.” He explains:

“The word ‘matrimony’ also emphasizes two aspects of marriage: procreation and heterosexual complementarity. The word comes from Latin and old French roots. Matri = ‘mother’ and ‘mony,’ a suffix indicating ‘action, state, or condition.’ Hence Holy Matrimony refers to that that holy Sacrament wherein a woman enters the state that inaugurates an openness to motherhood. Hence the Biblical and Ecclesial definition of Holy Matrimony as heterosexual and procreative is reaffirmed by the term itself. Calling it HOLY Matrimony distinguishes it from secular muddle that has ‘marriage’ for its nomen.”

He readily admits that there are problems with trying to regulate language in such ways. If I recall correctly, I was among those unconvinced and “perturbed that we were handing over our vocabulary to the libertines.”

We can play word games but our opponents are not fools. They were not happy with the notion of “civil unions” and wanted “marriage.” Don’t be surprised that they will also be speaking of their bonds in terms of “holy matrimony.”

Marriage is a natural right. Opting to use another word is not going to change this fact. Homosexuals and lesbians can feign marriage and the state might recognize it; but, in truth such unions are a violation of the natural law. The debate or argument is best sustained by retention of the vocabulary. We must insist that same-sex marriage is a fiction. Surrendering the word would only grant them the false sense that they had succeeded in making their argument.

If we cannot even defend a word like “marriage,” then how can we defend all the ideas behind it? This conflict is not just about marriage; it is a fight over the hearts and minds of people. So-called same sex-marriage is just one weapon in the enemy’s arsenal. The goal of our critics is to redefine the Church out of existence. The government administration wants to become the sole arbiter of marriage; but more than this— it views Catholic Charities, Catholic schools, and Catholic hospitals as standing in its way. Threats to close would only make them nationalize these institutions and they would argue that such is a “necessity” for “the public good.” This is the goal of our antagonists. If American society is to be remade then the Church must either change to insignificance or be destroyed. This is the fight we face.

Ministers of the State or of the Church

My initial sentiments emerged as an aside to the courageous crusade of Bai Macfarlane against No-Fault Divorce. The question arose as to whether clergy compromised themselves by acting as witnesses for the state, signing the marriage licenses and returning them to the courts. Msgr. Pope continues to sign them, he says, out of holy obedience to the Archbishop. Speaking for myself, I think we would forfeit too much by surrendering this privilege to the state. I suspect that problems might escalate instead of get better. Further, if the Church should opt out, would not our couples still have to get their civil licenses before Church weddings? He seems to think not, arguing that they should “in no way consider themselves as wed, due to a (meaningless) piece of paper from a secular state that reflects only confusion and darkness rather than clarity and Christian light.” I recall arguing with a hippie years ago who regarded the marriage license as just a piece of paper. In response, I cited that it came along with the Church sacrament and that it also respected the state’s right to regulate marriages as an integral building block to society. The state is taking a wrong turn with these same sex unions but we should still take advantage of our rights as citizens. That piece of paper says that as a member of society, I still have a voice and that marriage is an institution that must be acknowledged, regardless as to whether others are given such acknowledgment wrongly (in the past because of divorce and today also because of same-sex unions). Opting out will undermine a structured society, its institutions, and the protections and rights we take for granted.

I have immigrants in my parish from Asia and Africa. Their home nations do not give the privilege that our clergy enjoy in being able to witness marriages. Some of them have only known tribal weddings. Others have licenses from a judge or notary public. While they should have immediately had their marriages solemnized by a priest, they put the process off. Children were conceived. Time went by, maybe years, and now they all need Church convalidations. Would we reduce all marriages in the Church to convalidations?

If we attempt to marry people in Church who are not legally married; we will be facing all sorts of headaches. We would be opening the door to rampant bigamy where people would be civilly married to one person and married in the Church to another— without the recourse to the legal fiction of divorce. At present the state recognizes all Church unions even though the Church does not acknowledge every civil union. The last thing we should want is to segregate the Church into her own private ghetto where there are “us” and “them.” We have every right to a place in the public forum and should fight for it. Our married couples have every right to the protections insured by law (tax incentives, inheriting property, healthcare and insurance, custodial issues with offspring, hospital visitation and the right to make medical decisions for a sick spouse, and sharing a name). Marrying couples without civil licenses would once have opened our couples to prosecution for cohabitation. Even if this is a bygone concern, there is still the prospect of scandal. Some will view “married in the Church” but “not in the state” as NOT being married at all. The children from such unions could be labeled as “bastards” by our critics.

The Church has a responsibility to be fully integrated into civil society as a constitutive part. There will be conflicts but accommodations will have to be made that will not compromise our message and mission. Maybe there is a need for different types of licenses from the state for religious weddings, distinguishing them from civil ones? Indeed, there are different theologies between the churches. Some view the clergy person as the one who performs the marriage. Catholics view the spouses as the ministers of the sacrament to which the priest witnesses. Episcopalians and others will probably even allow and celebrate same-sex unions. We may become a minority voice in this society but we should not allow that voice to be silenced. Taking our toys and going home angry will not fix the situation. The retreat of the Church would be precisely what our enemies want. I fear that it would further erode the foundations of our civilization. Caesar’s empire might be pagan, but the Christian and the Church still have obligations to maintain a society that would protect our rights and freedoms.

I would maintain the status-quo with priests witnessing marriages for the state. However, there may come a day when that is taken away from us. We can cope with that when it comes. Civil disobedience might then take many forms, some of which could be extremely bizarre. One priest suggested that all our religious houses claim same-sex unions so as to get the marriage benefits and healthcare. I know one case already where a married couple got divorced but still live together so as to have better retirement benefits. I suspect that laws will be passed to force couples and the Church to behave. How far do we want to press it? Speaking for myself, I really hate retreating.

The Larger Challenge

It is my hope that we will have courageous shepherds and a supportive flock. I foresee priests facing fines and jail time for hate-speech in regard to teaching and preaching against homosexuality. After all, the Church’s language about marriage in the recent Supreme Court case was appraised as bigotry. Hum, we might have to take priests entirely out of the marriage scenario if all our clergy are locked up. Already, while the Church is currently protected, and we cannot be forced to marry homosexuals, organizations like the Knights of Columbus are not safeguarded. At this writing the free-standing Knights of Columbus halls in Maryland have been notified that due to their state charters they must rent for the wedding receptions of homosexuals and lesbians. The pressure is already on.

Our public schools are teaching that any reservation about homosexuality is discrimination. What will our children then think of their churches? Must we extract all our children from the public schools? Who will pay to place them into Catholic institutions? Homeschooling is an option for some but not for all. Where are we going from here? If the government and the media are more successful than the Church in forming consciences and teaching values; then what avenues are left? The issue is far more complex than any nomenclature of marriage or whether priests are authorized as civil magistrates. The question is how does the Church function and survive in a non-Christian society?

Catholics did not unanimously support the U.S. bishops in the Marriage Matters campaign. Indeed, large numbers were vocal in opposition. We hesitate to name names and are always fearful of our tax-exemption status. But if we are going to be shunned in a matter similar to racists over the issue of homosexual acceptance; then we will no doubt forfeit such benefits in the days ahead. I know I sound pessimistic and cynical. But that is what I see coming. The Church waited too long to find her teeth. She is an old dog grown weak from inactivity and abandoned by her pups. There are wolves coming. They want the Church out of the way. Look at the various initiatives of the current administration. Starting with appointments in religious churches and schools, then forcing churches to violate their basic principles and next pressing upon us what was once an unthinkable depravity— all these are attempts to redefine the Church out of existence. The president’s view of religion is seen through the prism of secular humanism. Anything else is judged as extraneous and must go.

There are some who are pawns to those who hate the Church. Others actually think that they are catalysts for positive change in the Church and society. Look at all the Catholic politicians who oppose the U.S. bishops and who dissent on Church teaching. The chief advocates in Maryland and in Washington are baptized Catholics. Like Msgr. Pope, I have my opinions; and like him, in obedience we both defer to the Archbishop and the national shepherds of our Church. We share our ideas, pray for courage and know that God will not abandon his children.

Filed under: Adultery, Annulment, Anti-Catholicism, Apologetics, Archdiocese, Atheism, Bishops, Catholic, Church, Contraception, Divorce, Family, Fortnight for Freedom, Homosexuality, Marriage, Morality, News, Politics, Pro-Life, Religion, Religious Liberty, Right to Life, Sacraments, Schools, Sexuality, Sin, Social Justice, Uncategorized | 6 Comments »

Christians Killing Christians, Enough Blame to Go Around

Posted on June 11, 2013 by Father Joe

No matter whether Protestant or Catholic, the late Pope John Paul II lamented that believers in Christ would sometimes seek to use violence against consciences and to forcibly stamp their religion upon others. The Medieval view was that heresy was a mortal sin that killed the soul. Some argued that such was a capital crime given that the murder of souls was direr than the murder of bodies. Governments also usurped religion for political purposes, seeing religion as glue that held society together. On both sides there was often exaggeration as to the blood lust of the other. Indeed, to this very day, anti-Catholic bigots will use impossibly large numbers in their prejudicial arguments and slurs against the Church. Some critics bring up the crusades or the inquisitions as if they happened last Tuesday. Forgotten is the real threat that Islam posed for the Christian world and how money and power, as well as an invention called the printing press, fueled the Protestant Reformation. Many of the inquisition courts were very modest in their efforts. While there were various national courts, when there is criticism, the target is usually the harsher Spanish Inquisition, which was even criticized by Rome. Further, as I already said, Protestant monarchs would repress the freedoms of Catholics just as Catholic leaders had sought to minimize the damage of non-Catholic factions in their nations. The Inquisition in Italy is regarded by all authorities as the most mild. Crimes were not just heresy but infractions for which today’s civil courts would also render punishment. Of 75,000 cases judged, some 1,250 may have received the death sentence.

What was the position of the Protestant reformers?

Calvin sought to persecute heretics (particularly Roman Catholics) so as to keep Protestant believers in the lands divided by the Reformation faithful to his new teachings. He viciously persecuted the Spaniard, Michael Servetus, having him burnt alive on October 27, 1553. As early as 1545, Calvin had written, “If he [Servetus] comes to Geneva, I will never allow him to depart alive.” He kept his promise. (Here is a case where Protestants attacked their own in that Servetus, while having a brother who was a Catholic priest, had participated in the Protestant Reformation. Unfortunately, he was regarded as a heretic by both sides.)

Melancthon, one of the more mild reformers and the editor for Luther’s many works and teachings, would write to Bullinger, “I am astonished that some persons denounce the severity that was so justly used in that case.”

Theodore of Beza wrote: “What crime can be greater or more heinous than heresy, which sets at nought the word of God and all ecclesiastic discipline? Christian magistrates, do your duty to God [speaking in Calvin’s Geneva of 1554], who has put the sword into your hands for the honor of His majesty; strike valiantly these monsters in the guise of men.” He went on to characterize those who demanded freedom of conscience “worse than the tyranny of the pope. It is better to have a tyrant, no matter how cruel he may be, than to let everyone do as he pleases.”

Martin Luther also fanned the flames of intolerance, “Whoever teaches otherwise than I teach, condemns God, and must remain a child of hell.”

Much of this information (and numbers) is taken from The Truth about the Inquisition by John A. O’Brien and published in 1950 by The Paulist Press. It should be noted that the numbers of deaths under King Henry VIII and Queen Elizabeth have been challenged by other researchers.

King Henry VIII of England took upon himself the role of grand royal inquisitor. O’Brien states that the king took the lives of some 72,000 Catholics, many who were cruelly tortured. Father Francis Marsden offers the correction: “Henry’s victims were John Fisher and Thomas More, the Carthusian abbots and monks, and a few more Catholics, plus all those (several hundred) executed after the Pilgrimage of Grace. There were also a number of Protestants executed for denying the Six Articles of 1540. But he certainly did not kill 72,000.” Nevertheless, the best estimate from Wikipedia is that approximately 70,000 people were executed (for all offenses) during the reign of Henry VIII. Another critic suggests that there may have been 4,000 Catholics killed under Henry VIII, not “judicially” executed, but killed by agents of the Crown, soldiers and the like. There were some Catholic revolts put down by force. The figures go up and down, making a historical analysis difficult. But for those facing death, no matter what the number, it was bad.

Queen Elizabeth, says O’Brien, proved herself the former’s daughter by putting to death more people in one year than the Inquisition had done in 331 years! Here too, Father Marsden insists that “In England and Wales, we have about 500 martyrs and confessors in total over the period 1534 to 1679. I believe the last Catholic died in prison about 1720. Elizabeth’s victims may have been about 300, plus those executed after the rising of the Northern Earls of 1569-70. But this is over the whole of her reign, 1558-1603.” By contrast, “the death toll of the Inquisition is in the range 2000 to 5000.”

Yes, there was more than enough blame to go around. Maybe it is time for respect and dialogue and if need be, the charitable anathema, instead of mockery and half-truths? Of course, sometimes the truth is hard to discover. I was told that one of Sir Thomas More’s own letters makes mention of the death of 4,000 Catholics in the minor port town of Chelsea. However, another critic corrected that in 1528 the population of Chelsea was reported to be 190 adults and children, including 16 households which grew no corn, and Sir Thomas More reported that 100 were fed daily in his household, 49 though not all those would have been living in the parish. In 1548 there were 75 communicants (16 years and over).

The Catholic Truth Society reckoned that 318 men and woman were put to death for the Faith in England between the reigns of Henry VII and Charles II. “After being hanged up, they were cut down, ripped up, and their bowels were burned in their faces.”

The entire population of England and Wales at that time was only around 4 million.

O’Brien makes reference to the whole vicious enmity that would bring persecution and deaths for centuries. Henry VIII got the ball rolling (or heads rolling) and even had himself declared head of the Church in Ireland. Monasteries were closed and destroyed, monks were imprisoned, dispersed and executed, and lands were confiscated.

It was a Protestant England that committed genocide upon a starving Catholic Ireland. The guilt for that blood is on the hands of many, including the one who initiated the break with the true Church. Today, the truth of this betrayal is admitted in UK school text books. Crops were sold by the landowners even as the tenants themselves starved.

Filed under: Anti-Catholicism, Catholic, Religion, Religious Liberty, Sin, Social Justice | 11 Comments »

Is the New HHS Compromise a Real Compromise?

Posted on February 5, 2013 by Father Joe

Here is the HHS Compromise, be attentive because it gets complicated: “With respect to self-insured group health plans, the eligible organization would notify the third party administrator, which in turn would automatically work with a health insurance issuer to provide separate, individual health insurance policies at no cost for participants. The costs of both the health insurance issuer and third party administrator would be offset by adjustments in Federally-facilitated Exchange user fees that insurers pay.”

Since the Archdiocese is self-insured, this would in effect mean that some of our employees would have to be insured by an outside organization, either in whole or in part. Look at all the actors in this play: (1) the Church; (2) the third party administrator; (3) an outside health insurance issuer; (4) the federal government; (5) the supplier of services; and (6) the insured person. The user fees are essentially a tax to insure that contraceptives are free and to pay the third party administrator. What happens to the viability of the self-insurance program if people opt out for the third party insurer?

In any case, I still think people are going to pay more for heart and blood-pressure medicine to make up the cost for free contraceptives. What insurance company will cover just contraception, sterilization and abortifacients without funds to shift from other medical coverage? I doubt federal fees with be sufficient. It will be exploited. Is the Church still morally culpable if we collaborate with other agents in such a scheme? Are we culpable for money given to the government to pay the insurance companies to supply people with contraceptive services?

Given the intransigence of the administration with insisting that health care include free contraceptives, abortifacients and sterilization; I cannot say that I trust the latest offer of exemption to the Church and associated religious entities. It seems to me that religious liberty is still very much threatened. Remember, this is the same administration which sought jurisdiction over ministerial assignments; no doubt supposing that if they lost one ridiculous or outrageous battle, it would make churchmen more passive about what was viewed as a lesser campaign. I think they were genuinely surprised by men like Cardinal Dolan. Suddenly Catholic bishops had teeth and could bite back.

I suspect this newest offer is to convince the bishops of a need to see the dentist. The administration still insists that the agenda of Planned Parenthood will become the official policy of government. No matter how you spin it, that means a confrontation with the Church and the Gospel of Life.

I was amazed that some critics and churchmen quickly rejoiced and sang Hallelujah when the revised policy was announced. We must not return to a posture of passivity and ineffective opposition to Big Brother and modernity. More level-headed religious leaders argue that we need to look at this offer closely. It may be a trick. It seems to me, upon closer examination, that there is no miracle break-through or adequate accommodation. The shell-game continues.

The question proposed is this: can such a policy be mandated against Church institutions with religious and moral reservations? The response of the administration seems to be that some institutions have more of a claim upon religious liberty than others. If the previous offer only preserved such liberty within the walls of the churches, this new policy will only add the porch or parking lot. Churches, individually or corporately, are protected, as are religious orders, but the rest is still up for grabs. Again, this administration has a very narrow notion of what constitutes “church.” Ministries in the area of community service are understood entirely within the matrix of secular humanism. President Obama’s religious vision is wholly a horizontal one (earth-bound) with little or nothing of the vertical or transcendent. In other words, God made us— great; but WE make the rules.”

We still have a fight on our hands because of the indiscriminate outreach of our religious charities, hospitals and schools. This element of the policy has not really changed. Okay, even if self-insured, we would not be required to pay “directly” for the contraceptive coverage; however, we still have to find other insurers to dirty their hands for us. The cooperation with evil becomes more remote but they will still be our agents.

Throughout it has saddened me that we have stressed the religious liberty of the Church as an institution but not the same rights of individual believers and citizens. There is no exemption for them and their businesses. It is bad enough that pro-life groups, EWTN, the Knights of Columbus and others might be forced to comply; however, what about the good Catholic entrepreneur who bakes donuts or fixes cars or cuts the grass. There are no exemptions at all for them. I know, some will say that they could fight and pay out hard-earned money to litigate for themselves. But this is America, our rights are supposed to be guaranteed, not entitlements for which we have to fight and beg.

I bet if it had not been for the courts, we would not have seen even these concessions. No doubt the administration wants to promote a particular public perception: a liberal government wanting to dialogue about national healthcare and a backward-thinking Church wanting to deprive couples of pills and condoms. President Obama and Kathleen Sebelius know full well that many if not most American Catholics are out of sync with Church leadership and moral teachings. As in Maryland with the proposition for same-sex marriages, they hope to exploit this advantage and show that they are the true magisterium, not the ecclesial shepherds largely abandoned by their flocks. As much as the USCCB has sought to frame this debate under the banner of religious liberty and the First Amendment, the administration has been highly effective in convincing many people that it is about reproductive choices and health. God help us!

Filed under: Bishops, Catholic, Politics, Sexuality, Social Justice | 7 Comments »

Cardinal Dolan’s Benediction Prayer at the DNC

Posted on September 7, 2012 by Father Joe

With a “firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence,” let us close this convention by praying for this land that we so cherish and love:

Let us Pray.

Almighty God, father of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, revealed to us so powerfully in your Son, Jesus Christ, we thank you for showering your blessings upon this our beloved nation. Bless all here present, and all across this great land, who work hard for the day when a greater portion of your justice, and a more ample measure of your care for the poor and suffering, may prevail in these United States. Help us to see that a society’s greatness is found above all in the respect it shows for the weakest and neediest among us.

We beseech you, almighty God to shed your grace on this noble experiment in ordered liberty, which began with the confident assertion of inalienable rights bestowed upon us by you: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Thus do we praise you for the gift of life. Grant us the courage to defend it, life, without which no other rights are secure. We ask your benediction on those waiting to be born, that they may be welcomed and protected. Strengthen our sick and our elders waiting to see your holy face at life’s end, that they may be accompanied by true compassion and cherished with the dignity due those who are infirm and fragile.

We praise and thank you for the gift of liberty. May this land of the free never lack those brave enough to defend our basic freedoms. Renew in all our people a profound respect for religious liberty: the first, most cherished freedom bequeathed upon us at our Founding. May our liberty be in harmony with truth; freedom ordered in goodness and justice. Help us live our freedom in faith, hope, and love. Make us ever-grateful for those who, for over two centuries, have given their lives in freedom’s defense; we commend their noble souls to your eternal care, as even now we beg the protection of your mighty arm upon our men and women in uniform.

We praise and thank you for granting us the life and the liberty by which we can pursue happiness. Show us anew that happiness is found only in respecting the laws of nature and of nature’s God. Empower us with your grace so that we might resist the temptation to replace the moral law with idols of our own making, or to remake those institutions you have given us for the nurturing of life and community. May we welcome those who yearn to breathe free and to pursue happiness in this land of freedom, adding their gifts to those whose families have lived here for centuries.

We praise and thank you for the American genius of government of the people, by the people and for the people. O God of wisdom, justice, and might, we ask your guidance for those who govern us: President Barack Obama, Vice President Joseph Biden, Congress, the Supreme Court, and all those, including Governor Mitt Romney and Congressman Paul Ryan, who seek to serve the common good by seeking public office. Make them all worthy to serve you by serving our country. Help them remember that the only just government is the government that serves its citizens rather than itself. With your grace, may all Americans choose wisely as we consider the future course of public policy.

And finally Lord, we beseech your benediction on all of us who depart from here this evening, and on all those, in every land, who yearn to conduct their lives in freedom and justice. We beg you to remember, as we pledge to remember, those who are not free; those who suffer for freedom’s cause; those who are poor, out of work, needy, sick, or alone; those who are persecuted for their religious convictions, those still ravaged by war.

And most of all, God Almighty, we thank you for the great gift of our beloved country.

For we are indeed “one nation under God,” and “in God we trust.”

So dear God, bless America. You who live and reign forever and ever.

Amen!

Note: The major networks purportedly cut away from the convention and did not show the prayer.

Filed under: Catholic, Church, Conscience, Discipleship, Faith, Fortnight for Freedom, God, Homosexuality, Jesus, Marriage, Morality, News, Politics, Pro-Life, Religion, Religious Liberty, Right to Life, Sexuality, Sin, Social Justice | 1 Comment »

Religious Liberty, Traditionalists & Obedience

Posted on August 28, 2012 by Father Joe

The SSPX has made no secret of its opposition to the teachings about religious liberty both espoused at Vatican II and in the recent USCCB campaign against government intrusion.

We have faced many challenges to our religious liberty. At one time Catholics were forbidden entry into certain colleges like William and Mary. Catholic churches were burned and our worship was curtailed. Later there was the issue of public education and the reading of Protestant bibles. Catholic schools emerged to insure the faith of generations of children.

In more recent times there has been the issue of prayer in schools, the celebration of religious holidays and public symbols, and the status of the Sabbath or Sunday blue laws. The emphasis has shifted from a preference given to the Protestant faith over the Catholic, to an atheistic secular humanism that is hostile to all faith. Today, there is a concerted effort to force the Church to compromise on matters like homosexuality, artificial contraception, and abortion. Will the Church face charges of hate-speech for opposing same-sex unions and homosexual acts? Will the Church be forced to pay for contraceptives, abortifacients and sterilization in healthcare plans? How far will this fight go and how strong and courageous will we find Catholic churchmen. And will the Catholic people stand with their shepherds or with an anti-Catholic modernity? We would expect that traditionalists would be of one mind with conservatives on such matters; but such is not always the case.

The Church would not argue that religious liberty is absolute or that it “necessarily” applies to all creeds equally. However, the principle of religious liberty and freedom of conscience are critical to the Church’s understanding of human dignity. The more a religion reflects the objective order and spiritual truth, the more that faith must remain free from coercion. Mormons once taught polygamy and were rightfully corrected by the federal government. Satanism is restricted on military bases because occult services in the nude conflict with the military code of conduct. Sometimes peculiar things are tolerated in other religions so that the Church herself might benefit from non-interference, matters like the pacifism of Quakers and rigid alcoholic temperance. Then there are acts that cause quite a bit of debate, matters like snake-handling, the prohibition of blood transfusions (Jehovah Witnesses) and interdictions toward inter-racial dating. However, there are also clear limits as with ritual euthanasia, human sacrifice, bondage or trafficking, and the abuse of children.

Furthermore, society has the right to defend itself against possible abuses committed on the pretext of freedom of religion. It is the special duty of government to provide this protection. However, government is not to act in an arbitrary fashion or in an unfair spirit of partisanship. Its action is to be controlled by juridical norms which are in conformity with the objective moral order. These norms arise out of the need for the effective safeguard of the rights of all citizens and for the peaceful settlement of conflicts of rights, also out of the need for an adequate care of genuine public peace, which comes about when men live together in good order and in true justice, and finally out of the need for a proper guardianship of public morality.

These matters constitute the basic component of the common welfare: they are what is meant by public order. For the rest, the usages of society are to be the usages of freedom in their full range: that is, the freedom of man is to be respected as far as possible and is not to be curtailed except when and insofar as necessary. (Dignitatis Humanae #7)

Given the persecution of the Church in England, the separation of the Church and state was interpreted as a way to protect our interests. While an ideal state is one where the Church and state are in harmony, history has proven that such unity is hard to achieve and even harder to maintain. There was also the unpleasant side-effect that with the Reformation, the creed of the land followed the local prince. While such was legally tolerated in Europe to prevent bloodshed, this arrangement was very unfair to Catholics who felt abandoned by Rome and a Catholic Europe. Religious liberty in the United States permitted the Church to expand at a rate that surprised even the Holy See. Marylanders rejoiced to be liberated from the penal laws. Our Catholic school system grew to be second to none. It must be added that the separation of Church and state never meant a disavowal of traditional religious values or culture. Such is the extreme that we see today from organizations like the ACLU and the liberal People for the American Way. The American state was viewed by many of our founders as a Christian one, not atheistic as some contend today.

The council further declares that the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person as this dignity is known through the revealed word of God and by reason itself.(2) This right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed and thus it is to become a civil right. (Dignitatis Humanae #2)

If everyone were Catholic, we might presume that the public values and laws would reflect this fact. But states that are largely Catholic do not always remain sympathetic to the Church. Mexico in the 1920’s would be a case in point. The rupture of the Reformation took place in what were formerly Catholic nations. Never underestimate original sin and the hunger of men for power.

While we might hope and work for the day when earthly realms would recognize Christ and his Church, we leave such eventualities to divine providence. Anything else would be a pelagian nod to earthly utopias. Our emphasis is always upon the kingdom of Christ which is ushered in by God’s grace.

Some critics, particularly within the SSPX, would criticize the model of religious liberty taught by the late Fr. John Courtney Murray. They go so far as to fault its promulgation at Vatican II as the source for global apostasy and secularization. However, Father Murray simply gave voice to what he saw as the American experiment. I would argue that it was not an ingredient in the subsequent conflict with modernity, Vatican II or no Vatican II.

It is simplistic to demonize the council or to give a heightened importance to the pre-conciliar Church that it did not possess. The council was an attempt by the Church to respond to a changing world. Not everything worked out and many purposely distorted the meaning and purpose of the gathering. However, the world’s bishops did gather, it was a legitimate council, and the Pope ratified it. Those who utterly reject it will find themselves in opposition to a crucial Church teaching— that the universal Magisterium so gathered is safeguarded by the Holy Spirit. It is no wonder that those who oppose the council are neither united to the majority of the world’s bishops nor in juridical union with the Holy See. There are only two options open to critics of the council. Either there was a misapplication of the council by those who invented a “spirit of Vatican II” or there is no supernatural agency protecting ecumenical councils, the Magisterium and the Pope. It is for this reason that castigating the council is a very dangerous thing for a “faithful” Catholic to do. It leads either to a Catholicized variation of Protestantism or to atheism.

It is true that Cardinal Ottaviani shared a number of concerns about the council and his view regarding Church/state relations. It is no secret that this holy prelate was unhappy, especially given that his schema for the council was brushed aside and replaced. But he was only one man and in the end he was obedient. The fact remains that the majority of the world’s bishops and the Pope signed off on the council documents. The issue here is clearly one of ecclesiology. Pope Benedict XVI was at the council and yet critics would try and tell him what was what. The arrogance in all this is insufferable.

Church social teaching cannot be merely theoretical but must reflect the pragmatic reality of the world where we find ourselves. While there are stable elements, the political teaching reacts to the world around us: the disappearance of monarchies, the rise of democracies, capitalism and the world economy, the threat of communism, and increased secularism. Today, we would also add the effect of technology and communication, as well as the rise of fundamentalist Islam and their lack of tolerance toward the Church. The Church is seeking for ways to grow and arguing for its right to exist, no matter how societies might change.

Some critics contend that the “post-Vatican II Church” is apparently afraid to sanction those teaching heresy or promoting immorality; however, it is quick to enforce “disciplinary rules.” They resent that Archbishop Lefebvre was disciplined for consecrating bishops without a papal mandate while heretical priests remain in “good standing” to teach heresy and to actively dissent. I would argue that it is no less scandalous for traditionalists to dismiss the guidance of the Holy See. More than discipline is at stake but a fundamental view regarding ecclesiology and divinely appointed authority. The scandal is worse for those who feign fidelity to the Holy See while failing truly to obey the successor of St. Peter. No one expects fidelity from the liberal dissenters. Their only deceit is that they might still claim to be Catholic; but that is a shallow lie through which all but the most ignorant can penetrate. I would also argue for a heavier hand by the Church but I am neither a bishop nor the pope. I am sure the shepherds have their reasons for what they do. I suspect that the most liberal dissenters just do not respond to sanctions. The issue is not whether leftist dissenters have been properly punished; but, rather have breakaway traditionalists displayed sufficient contrition to have the last of their sanctions removed? I would place the highest gravity or wrong with the SSPX. They should have known better. Who knows what good their presence within the Church would have merited these past forty years? Instead, they abandoned her and circled the wagons. The consecration of bishops against the will of the Holy See threatened a parallel church. It is no minor crime. It deserves penance prior to absolution. I think this is the ultimate holdup. They can quickly find fault in Rome but wrongly imagine that they are immaculate and had no other recourse. What they did was wrong. It was a grievous sin. The Pope removed their excommunication, not out of justice but from charity. Pope Benedict XVI is a gentle man where I would have given them ultimatums. I am not convinced that the SSPX will ever return to juridical unity. That is my opinion and I hope I am wrong. Those who too closely align themselves with them, even if just for an anachronistic love of the old liturgy, may find themselves ultimately outside the lawful Catholic Church. They will join the Orthodox churches of the East in their schism from Peter, the ROCK of the Church and Vicar of Christ.

Certainly the license to teach theology has been stripped from numerous liberal theologians. Many have faced discipline and censure, such as: Fr. Leonardo Boff, Fr. Charles Curran, Fr. Matthew Fox, Fr. Hans Kung, Sister Margaret Farley, and Sister Elizabeth Johnson. The latter two were quite recent and Sister Johnson was my academic advisor many years ago in seminary. I have read all her books and concur with the evaluation of the U.S. bishops about the improper use of metaphor. It is so peculiar that liberal dissenters grieve about their treatment from the “right-wing” Holy See and yet certain arrogant traditionalists cry like babies that they are the only ones getting rough treatment. I would give them all a swift kick in the pants!

While there is much talk about a silent schism and a liberal fifth column of bishops who oppose Rome while weak bishops look on passively, I would include all four of the SSPX bishops as still another column opposed to the Magisterial teaching office and the living Pope. Those who castigate the council and Rome will become sedevacantists, mark my words. Liberal bishops are dying off and yet many of them would still bend the knee to Rome. The SSPX bishops have made themselves autonomous and the arbiters of all things Catholic. They want Rome to bend to them! Only the Magisterium under the Pope has the authority to interpret past Magisterial documents. The wolves are coming from every side; yes even some of the so-called sheep-dogs may revert to their wolfish ancestry. Defenders of the SSPX are wrong to say that four bishops (who are even fighting among themselves) can trump the Pope and 5,000 bishops who teach and minister in union with him! Sorry, but they are very much mistaken.

Addressing traditionalists, the Pope has given you the freedom to worship with the Tridentine Mass. You should be satisfied with that, say your prayers, raise your families, and steer clear of critiquing a lawful council of Holy Mother Church and the Holy See. Do not join the renegades, no matter what pretense to holiness or devotion they might exhibit.

I love our traditions. I see continuity in our faith. There is no pre-Vatican II Church. There is no post-Vatican II Church. There are various disciplines and rites, but old or new, there is only the Mass— the sacrifice of Calvary from which we receive the “bread of life” and the chalice of salvation”— the real presence of the risen Lord.

But I have no stomach for trouble-makers on the left or right. Pope Benedict XVI is the Pope. He is Peter. He is the Vicar of Christ. If you want to be saved, be subject to him and to those bishops in union with him— period.

Filed under: Apologetics, Bishops, Catholic, Church, Faith, Fortnight for Freedom, Magisterium, Morality, Politics, Pope, Religion, Religious Liberty, Sin, Social Justice | 10 Comments »

The Scandal of Father Bob Pierson

Posted on August 24, 2012 by Father Joe

STEPHEN:

Father Joe, what is your take on Father Bob Pierson?

FATHER JOE:

I had heard of him but had not followed the recent business about his ten minute statement that went viral attacking the initiative supported by the U.S. bishops in opposition to so-called same-sex marriages.

What the priest fails to appreciate is that conscience must be properly informed. Freedom of conscience is not relative moral license. Otherwise, the cause of conscience could be rallied not only for homosexuality but also for other evils like polygamy, bestiality and pederasty. Rather, true liberty comes with an orientation to that which is true and good. Obedience to divine positive law (as revealed in the Church through Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition) and natural law (as ascertained through the right use of reason to the objective order) makes us truly free. The commission of sin and immoral acts brings not freedom but spiritual bondage.

The priest in the video takes statements from the Church and churchmen out of context, much as a fundamentalist minister might from the Bible to support his claims. Cardinal Ratzinger, i.e. the Pope, has certainly always taught about the obligation in following conscience; however, he has likewise insisted that homosexuality is a serious sexual disorientation and that the commission of genital acts associated with it are intrinsically immoral.

Notice that he quotes Cardinal Hume who wrote, “Love between two persons, whether of the same sex or of a different sex, is to be treasured and respected.” His quote came in the context of a larger statement in the UK on the homosexual question. While it is certainly permissible to exhibit fraternal and platonic love, as in most friendships, it would be wrong to equate these words with sexual activity and or anal or oral sex. This is another instance where the priest’s remarks are deliberately deceptive. He is well educated and knows what he is doing. This makes him all the more culpable.

Father Pierson is selective in his quotes from the universal catechism. Note that he does not read from CCC #1601: “The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life, is by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring; this covenant between baptized persons has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament.”

Although he attempts to bracket off sacramental marriage in the Church from civilly recognized marriages, such is only a shallow ploy to avoid personal censure and to elicit support from normally orthodox Catholics. The way that society views marriage informs and spills over into how the faithful understand the sacrament of marriage. Indeed, he, himself, is a staff member in an organization where a Protestant minister and an ex-Catholic bless same-sex unions. Understood in this light, Father Pierson is not only promoting immorality but is taking a heretical position toward one of the seven sacraments of the Church.

The speaker acknowledges that Pope Benedict XVI has declared that homosexuals should not be accepted as candidates for the priesthood. Father Pierson has “come out” that he is a homosexual who opposes Church teaching. We can only hope that he has kept his promise of celibacy. Regardless, he now ridicules the Holy Father and takes a scandalous position against the U.S. bishops and the Marriage Matters campaign. I should add, however, that marriage was threatened long before this issue of so-called same-sex marriage. Marriage was imperiled by growing rates of promiscuity, cohabitation, contraception, adultery, divorce (especially the no-fault variety), and remarriage outside the Church.

Father Pierson had resigned from his post as director of campus ministry after the Vatican officially barred men with “deep-seated homosexual tendencies” from ordination, and because of associated issues in the Church’s faith and moral teaching. “Because I can no longer honestly represent, explain and defend the Church’s teaching on homosexuality, I feel I must resign,” he said. It was also rumored that he was forced out, as he should have been, to avoid further intervention from higher-ups.

His local bishop, Archbishop John Nienstedt of St. Paul and Minneapolis has strenuously promoted the amendment in opposition to so-called same-sex marriage. He required parishioners in the archdiocese to recite A Prayer for Marriage as part of the General Intercessions at Masses. The U.S. bishops have been very clear in their opposition. Marriage is only genuine if it is between a MAN and a WOMAN.

Back in 1986, Cardinal Ratzinger, writing for the Vatican, made a statement for correction and support of a letter promulgated by the American bishops. Father Pierson selectively quoted him, but strangely and dishonestly, not this statement which speaks to the question at hand.

Follow this link for the statement:

Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons

ON THE PASTORAL CARE OF HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS

“Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder…. It is only in the marital relationship that the use of the sexual faculty can be morally good. A person engaging in homosexual behavior therefore acts immorally.”

“To choose someone of the same sex for one’s sexual activity is to annul the rich symbolism and meaning, not to mention the goals, of the Creator’s sexual design. Homosexual activity is not a complementary union, able to transmit life; and so it thwarts the call to a life of that form of self-giving which the Gospel says is the essence of Christian living. This does not mean that homosexual persons are not often generous and giving of themselves; but when they engage in homosexual activity they confirm within themselves a disordered sexual inclination which is essentially self-indulgent….”

“It is deplorable that homosexual persons have been and are the object of violent malice in speech or in action. Such treatment deserves condemnation from the Church’s pastors wherever it occurs. It reveals a kind of disregard for others which endangers the most fundamental principles of a healthy society. The intrinsic dignity of each person must always be respected in word, in action and in law.”

“But the proper reaction to crimes committed against homosexual persons should not be to claim that the homosexual condition is not disordered. When such a claim is made and when homosexual activity is consequently condoned, or when civil legislation is introduced to protect behavior to which no one has any conceivable right, neither the Church nor society at large should be surprised when other distorted notions and practices gain ground, and irrational and violent reactions increase.”

Father Bob Pierson, O.S.B. should be disciplined by his Benedictine order. He has caused scandal and given rise to public dissent from the Church. His faculties to function as a priest should be revoked or curtailed. As a man under ecclesial obedience, he should either publicly recant his dissent or face immediate dismissal. A priest who recommends mortal sin is no longer aligned with Christ. Even if he should be demented or ignorant, he is now on the side of the evil one.

STEPHEN:

Father Joe, I agree with everything you said, albeit except for maybe one small clarification. You write, “Understood in this light, Father Pierson is not only promoting immorality but is taking a heretical position toward one of the seven sacraments of the Church.” Father Bob would disagree as he was careful to differentiate between civil marriages, which are all “outside the Church” and the Church does not recognize anyway and “sacramental” marriages within the Church. Thus, Father Bob would argue that his voting NO on banning same sex “marriage” has nothing to do with Church teaching on sacramental marriage.

I completely agree this priest should be disciplined severely. But will he be? Almost certainly not, and this is the primary reason for our current crisis. Dietrich Von Hildebrand called it the “Lethargy of the Guardians” as far back as the 70’s. We have suffered under the complete unwillingness of ecclesiastical authority since Vatican II to discipline clerics and bishops for egregious sins against doctrine and the faith. What makes it worse is that the same ecclesiastical authority DOES discipline and bring the hammer down for breaking procedural rules/canon laws that have nothing to do with heresy or doctrine. This sets up a practice which lessens the credibility of the bishops who selectively punish lesser offenses while allowing the most egregious publicly scandalous statements from dissenting priests to go unpunished.

I would dare say it is a sin for this man’s bishop or superior not to discipline him in some way, including at minimum, silencing him on this issue to at least minimize further scandal. Will it happen? I’m willing to bet you a shiny nickel it will not. And it is a slap in the face to you and other good priests who would be punished in a second if you did something like deny Holy Communion to a practicing Lesbian Buddhist who introduced you to her “lover” in the sacristy before Mass.

FATHER JOE:

The priest has a track record beyond the video. (I have not directly linked the video, only a strong critique. Those who want to see it can Google the liberal propaganda.)

He recognizes same-sex marriages as valid, both civilly and in the eyes of God. What confuses the issue is that he denies that there has to be concurrence or approbation from the “institutional” Church. I do not have proof, but like some of his Episcopalian liberals, he would love to bless (and maybe has) these unions. He is a regular speaker at gay-lesbian conventions. Remember, too, that priests are only allowed to witness marriages in the U.S. that are also civilly recognized. We function as both civil magistrates and as ministers of the Church. This is not the case in many countries where Catholic couples are required to endure two ceremonies. Such only happens in the U.S. when there is a convalidation.

I should add, that the Church generally recognizes civil marriages between spouses who are not Catholic. If they are legitimately baptized, then there may be a sacramental character as well. Indeed, if there is a divorce and a desire to marry a Catholic, they would have to pursue a formal case annulment with no guarantees of success. Now we will further have to clarify that we do not recognize adulterous marriages or feigned same-sex marriages. I suspect, given the pressure from the Obama administration, that clergy will eventually have to forfeit their civil authority over marriages in order to distinguish the sacramental covenant from the civil legal contract. Once the definition of marriage diverges, we cannot be party to something in which we do not believe. This may already be happening in light of no fault divorce. I would also not be surprised if the government should seek to compel clergy to witness same-sex marriages. The rights of the Church are very much threatened. I pray that our bishops and priests will have the courage to face fines and imprisonment. The latter is quite possible, if the Church’s stand against homosexuality should be judged as a violation of civil rights laws and as hate-speech.

Further, the priest has been involved in the Catholic gay, lesbian, bi-sexual, transsexual community. He knows full well the canonical restraints upon Catholics and does not care. All this is to say that the video is deceptive propaganda. He is a liar. Even when he throws out crumbs of feigned respect to Church discipline, they are lies. If you are familiar with his work in Collegeville, then you would know that he also rejects the “proles” (open to human generation) element that is essential to the covenant of marriage. He literally believes that anal intercourse consummates the bond. It is in light of all this that I said that he is a heretic regarding the sacrament of marriage.

In regards to disciplinary measures, they may actually be in the works. Had he been a secular or diocesan priest matters might have been easier. The Benedictines tend to protect their own and have a rather progressive track record in his particular community. One of them (Fr. Anthony Ruff, OSB) recently attacked the corrected translation of the Mass at the national Call to Action convention. They also honored the Lesbian Buddhist-Catholic you mentioned and the pro-abortion Catholic Maryland governor was also in attendance. There are a lot of trouble-makers to go around these days.

Orthodox and traditional churchmen have a higher capacity for suffering in that they love the Church and seek to be obedient while the other side really does not care; liberal breakaway groups, as with Archbishop Milingo and Washington’s own Father George Stallings, were also censured and even faced excommunication. In this sense, there is some parallel. I suspect that many in the Church find the contemporary situation almost overwhelming given the pervasive dissent. During this silent and not so silent schism, there is also the worry that the wrong action might lead the ignorant or weak of faith out of the Church. You are right, not all shepherds are to be trusted. But we must also be careful NOT to spread calumny and to hurt good men who are doing their best.

Pope Benedict XVI seems to be hoping that attrition and orthodox replacements among the clergy might hold the answer. My worry is that he, himself, is not a young man. I have found an almost uncharitable delight in how Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone, the new Ordinary for San Francisco is making the gay establishment squirm and fret. They were pouting the other day because he outlawed drag queens at fundraisers! Really?

Again, do not be fooled. He might say that “…for committed, same-sex couples is not the Sacrament of Matrimony,” but he really does see it as analogous. Remember, sexual activity outside of marriage is a mortal sin. There is nothing equivalent to it. As a priest he knows this. He is talking out of both sides of his mouth. The Bishops are right on this one. So-called same-sex marriages are indeed a threat to the genuine covenant of marriage, natural or sacramental. There is no loop-hole or escape clause that would allow Catholics to support institutional sodomy.

STEPHEN:

Thanks for the background. In this video he seems to take the stance of…”who cares what the state of MN deems as ‘marriage’ since the Church only recognizes sacramental marriages anyway?” He argues the flip side of religious freedom by stating that the Church should not dictate to the state how it defines “marriage” as civil and Church marriages are separate entities and (in his mind) serve different purposes.

FATHER JOE:

The secular sphere in the public forum would not appreciate marriage as a sacrament. Rather, the point of intersection between the Church and state is the traditional view of marriage as a “natural bond.” The growing division between the Church’s view of marriage, as well as that of natural law, is the reason why someone like Bai Macfarlane has campaigned heavily for traditional marriage and against no fault divorce. Some of her supporters would claim that the conflict or opposition between the civil and ecclesial view of marriage has reached a breaking point, in both the heterosexual orientation and its permanence. They argue that clergy should opt out entirely from working within the system. They suggest that the priest who witnesses any marriage for the state has corrupted (by association) the Catholic understanding. This argument becomes even more defensible if society should formally equate same-sex unions with heterosexual marriages. While priests will not officiate at the feigned marriages of homosexuals and lesbians; will the truth be compromised by our continuing partnership with government in witnessing marriages and signing civil licenses? But what is the alternative? Priests in Europe and Asia often find that in the dual ceremony-system, couples tend to cohabitate if there is any extended duration between the vows before a judge and those before a priest.

The priest errs seriously, by his own admission, for failing to fault the homosexual lifestyle as sinful. Indeed, he seems to praise and to encourage the commission of evil. People of the same gender can be friends but they cannot be spouses. A legal fiction will not make it so.

Filed under: Anti-Catholicism, Apologetics, Bishops, Catholic, Celibacy, Church, Conscience, Discipleship, Faith, Family, Homosexuality, Magisterium, Marriage, Morality, News, Politics, Priests, Sacraments, Sexuality, Sin, Social Justice | 8 Comments »

Is the HHS Compromise Really a Compromise?

Posted on February 12, 2012 by Father Joe

CLICK HERE to read Cardinal Wuerl’s response to compromise.

CLICK HERE to read Cardinal Dolan’s letter to fellow bishops.

Who is the architect of this fiasco with the HHS?

The buck stops with the President and the head of the department, which he appointed: Kathleen Sebelius. What is her background as a “Catholic”?

When she was governor, Archbishop Joseph Naumann of Kansas City, Kansas told her that she “should stop receiving Communion until she publicly repudiates her support of abortion.” More recently, Archbishop Raymond F. Burke, former archbishop of St. Louis but now prefect for the Apostolic Signatura, the Vatican’s highest court, ruled that Mrs. Sebelius should not approach the altar for Communion in the United States. Despite pastoral admonition, she obstinately persists in serious sin and now she would entice the bishops and the rest of the Church to join her.

In 2008, Sebelius vetoed House Substitute for Senate Bill 389, titled the Comprehensive Abortion Reform Act by its sponsors. Proponents of the bill claimed the legislation would strengthen late-term abortion laws and prevent “coerced abortions” particularly with respect to minors.

She has been given high ratings and endorsement from Planned Parenthood, the biggest abortion provider around. It has made a financial “killing” in destroying unborn children under the banner of women’s rights.

The administration was SHOCKED into making a compromise… not because religious liberty was esteemed as an important value in itself.

The Obama administration hopes that the U.S. bishops will accept its proposed compromise (February 10, 2012). However, while we are still awaiting word from our shepherds, I still have serious reservations. The administration was shocked that even liberal Catholic voices were joining the chorus in deploring the initial policy as encroachment upon religious liberty. It was certain that there would be no movement of the Obama Whitehouse away from the giving women free access to contraception. But as Republicans picked up on the issue, election strategists urged an immediate counter-strategy. The offer of a year of grace was insufficient. Is this the best for which we can hope? Might this merely be a ploy to defuse the situation while really changing very little? Catholic parishes, schools, charities, and hospitals should not be forced to provide birth control to employees since such would violate Catholic teaching against artificial contraception. That is the bottom line!

Even if the institution is protected; what about the rights of individual believers? What about individuals and organizations that are not part of the Church administration but are Catholic in values? EWTN, for instance, is a lay organization with a lay board.

The sentiments of Catholics and other pro-life Christians would not be respected by this change. The Church is more than the institution but is found in her membership. Their personal religious rights and conscience would not be respected. I know a doctor who runs her own practice and refuses to prescribe birth control. Now, she would still be forced to pay for it as a health benefit for employees! That is wrong and the Church needs to be a voice for people like her. Similarly, I know a man who refused to take a vaccine because there was the remote use of embryonic material from an abortion. He would rather close shop than add his money to the purchase of abortifacients.

The First Amendment protects not only the rights of churches but the individuals who make up those faith communities. Even if Catholics should themselves personally dissent, continued membership implies that they still respect (on some level) the teachings and the authority of the Church. I suspect that President Obama miscalculated in thinking that Church teaching was subject to polls or that liberal Catholics could force further passivity upon the bishops. This new measure might protect Church institutions and pamper dissenters, but it would hang faithful Catholic citizens out to dry. Their rights would not be respected.

Nothing has really changed, what we have here is only magical sleight-of-hand.

The revised rule says that religious organizations would not have to offer or pay for contraception. So far, so good; but then it stipulates that health insurers would have to take up the cost and provide it directly to women for free. Does this really leave the employer out of the equation? It seems to me that what we have here is a new version of the old shell game. Nothing is really free. The money is going to have to come from somewhere. What will happen is that premiums will go up and people will pay more for a sick person’s needed antibiotic to make up for a promiscuous woman’s contraceptive.

What about those dioceses which are self-insured? Would this force us out of the insurance business?

Another wrinkle, and I see this as very problematical in my own Archdiocese, is that we are self-insured. There is no absolutely independent insurance entity to which we can give the dubious honor of providing contraception. I suppose such a measure would also make it hard for practicing Catholics to function at the leadership level or as CEOs of insurance agencies.

Where do we go from here?

It is not clear to me that the Obama administration really wants to go to the bargaining table. However, the bishops have suggested that this newest offer is a sign that he is willing to make some kind of compromise. It is my interpretation and I admit to being fallible, that there remains a serious hurdle and that we must take to heart Archbishop Timothy Dolan’s remarks in The Wall Street Journal, “Coercing religious ministries and citizens to pay directly for actions that violate their teaching is an unprecedented incursion into freedom of conscience.” This really says it all and is the line from which we must not retreat.

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has made this statement: “The only complete solution to this religious liberty problem is for HHS to rescind the mandate of these objectionable services.” The statement continues, “We will therefore continue–with no less vigor, no less sense of urgency–our efforts to correct this problem through the other two branches of government.”

We must urge Congress to pass the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act!

Filed under: Anti-Catholicism, Morality, Politics, Pro-Life, Religious Liberty, Sexuality, Social Justice, Uncategorized | 3 Comments »