In defense of the Catholic Church

 

By Sara Perla

The Washington Post

 

Among many mistaken claims that have been made in the last few weeks, one is that according to many in the media, I do not exist.  Nor do many of my friends.

Who am I?  A single, chaste, Catholic woman who has studied to understand church teaching on contraception, and finds herself happy as she freely lives out that teaching.

Who are many of my friends?  Catholic parents who use natural family planning to space their children or avoid pregnancy altogether at times for good reasons. They claim— it seems justifiably—that self-control is their birth control. These men and women never claim that it is easy to raise a family in today’s world, but they do so with love.  Most of the critics of natural family planning have never tried it.  Others have tried it and found it difficult.

Jon O’Brien’s recent piece entitled, “Did the bishops forget about women?” was particularly striking.  They have not forgotten me, Mr. O’Brien.
Full Story

Cardinal Dolan: religious liberty concerns ‘off the table’ for White House

New York City, N.Y., Mar 6, 2012 / 04:09 am (CNA/EWTN News).- Cardinal Timothy M. Dolan of New York is urging his fellow bishops to “prepare for tough times” after the Obama administration told the bishops’ conference that it is not willing to address religious liberty concerns raised by its contraception mandate.

In a March 2 letter to all U.S. bishops, Cardinal Dolan explained that White House officials told staffers from the bishops’ conference at a recent meeting that revisiting the mandate or broadening the exemption in order to address “the broader concerns of religious freedom” is “off the table.”

Instead, the administration encouraged the bishops to listen to those who accept the new policy.

“The White House seems to think we bishops simply do not know or understand Catholic teaching,” the newly-elevated cardinal said.

He stated in his letter that “religious freedom is under attack” and that “we will not cease our struggle to protect it.”

The president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops also outlined ways in which the conference will continue its “strong efforts of advocacy and education.”

He said that the bishops’ conference is working to provide catechetical resources on the Church’s teaching about religious freedom, as well as liturgical aids to encourage prayer and inform Catholics about ongoing plans to resist the threats to religious liberty. 

“We did not ask for this fight, but we will not run from it,” he said.
Full Story

ObamaCare fines religious institutions $100 a day per employee for failing to provide contraception

WASHINGTON, D.C., March 6, 2012, (LifeSiteNews.com)—The price of following your conscience is high – especially if you resist the mandate to furnish your employees with reproductive products and services that violate your religious beliefs.

According to a report released by the Congressional Research Service,  religious institutions that fail to provide abortifacient drugs to their employees could be fined $100 a day for each of its employees.

According to the memo, “The Secretary [of HHS] may impose a civil monetary penalty on insurance insurers that fail to comply with the [health care reform law’s] requirements,” such as failing to provide contraception, sterilization, or abortion-inducing drugs. “The maximum penalty imposed by the PHSA is $100 per day for each individual with respect to which such a failure occurs.”

Such steep fees could bankrupt religious institutions that do not qualify for an exemption. The Catholic hospitals associated with the Catholic Health Association alone account for 530,673 full-time and 235,221 part-time employees. Collectively, those hospitals could face millions of dollars in fees each day. 

The problem, however, is far from unique to the Roman Catholic Church.

Dr. Matthew Harrison, president of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod (LCMS), testified before Congress earlier this month that, according to his preliminary research, his denomination could face “tens of millions of dollars” in fines if it loses its grandfathered status.
Full Story

The Parable of the Kosher Deli

Bishop Lori Testifies Before the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform:

For my testimony today, I would like to tell a story. Let’s call it The Parable of the Kosher Deli.

Once upon a time, a new law is proposed, so that any business that serves food must serve pork.

There is a narrow exception for kosher catering halls attached to synagogues, since they serve mostly members of that synagogue, but kosher delicatessens are still subject to the mandate.

The Orthodox Jewish community — whose members run kosher delis and many other restaurants and grocers besides — expresses its outrage at the new government mandate.

And they are joined by others who have no problem eating pork — not just the many Jews who eat pork, but people of all faiths — because these others recognize the threat to the principle of religious liberty.

They recognize as well the practical impact of the damage to that principle.

They know that, if the mandate stands, they might be the next ones forced — under threat of severe government sanction — to violate their most deeply held beliefs, especially their unpopular beliefs.

Meanwhile, those who support the mandate respond, “But pork is good for you.”

It is, after all, the “other white meat.”

Other supporters add, “So many Jews eat pork, and those who don’t should just get with the times.”

Still others say, “Those Orthodox are just trying to impose their beliefs on everyone else.”

But in our hypothetical, those arguments fail in the public debate, because people widely recognize the following:

First, although people may reasonably debate whether pork is good for you, that’s not the question posed by the nationwide pork mandate.

Instead, the mandate generates the question whether people who believe — even if they believe in error — that pork is not good for you should be forced by government to serve pork within their very own institutions. In a nation committed to religious liberty and diversity, the answer, of course, is: No.

Second, the fact that some (or even most) Jews eat pork is simply irrelevant. The fact remains that some Jews do not — and they do not out of their most deeply held religious convictions.

Does the fact that large majorities in society — even large majorities within the protesting religious community — reject a particular religious belief make it permissible for the government to weigh in on one side of that dispute? Does it allow government to punish that minority belief with its coercive power?

In a nation committed to religious liberty and diversity, the answer, of course, is: No.

Third, the charge that the Orthodox Jews are imposing their beliefs on others has it exactly backwards.

Again, the question generated by a government mandate is whether the government will impose its belief that eating pork is good on objecting Orthodox Jews.

Meanwhile, there is no imposition at all on the freedom of those who want to eat pork. That is, they are subject to no government interference at all in their choice to eat pork, and pork is ubiquitous and cheap, available at the overwhelming majority of restaurants and grocers.

Indeed, some pork producers and retailers, and even the government itself, are so eager to promote the eating of pork that they sometimes give pork away for free.

In this context, the question is this: Can a customer come to a kosher deli, demand to be served a ham sandwich, and if refused, bring down severe government sanction on the deli?

In a nation committed to religious liberty and diversity, the answer, of course, is: No.

So, in our hypothetical story, because the hypothetical nation is indeed committed to religious liberty and diversity, these arguments carry the day.

In response, those proposing the new law claim to hear and understand the concerns of kosher deli owners and offer them a new “accommodation.”

You are free to call yourself a kosher deli; you are free not to place ham sandwiches on your menu; you are free not to be the person to prepare the sandwich and hand it over the counter to the customer.

But we will force your meat supplier to set up a kiosk on your premises and to offer, prepare and serve ham sandwiches to all of your customers free of charge to them. And when you get your monthly bill from your meat supplier, it will include the cost of any of the “free” ham sandwiches that your customers may accept.

And you will, of course, be required to pay that bill.

Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/the-parable-of-the-kosher-deli/#ixzz1oI3st1NT

Ave Maria files suit against Obama Administration

Below are exceprts from an excellent letter written by Ave Maria University president, Jim Towey, regarding the lawsuit the university has filed in response to the Obama Administrations attack on religious freedom.

"It is a sad day when an American citizen or organization has no choice but to sue its own government in order to exercise religious liberty rights guaranteed by our nation’s Constitution."

"Let me be clear: a woman’s right to contraception is not an issue in this case, nor is it at Ave Maria. Employees at Ave Maria and elsewhere are free to decide on their own whether to use birth control. Never before has the federal government bullied groups like ours into doctrinal conformance on an issue with such religious and moral gravity."

"Allowing a U.S. president of any political party or religious affiliation to force conformance to his or her religious or secular orthodoxy through executive action, is a perilous precedent..."
Full Story

Why Baptists are standing with Catholics

By Bryant Wright, Richard Land and O. S. Hawkins

We acknowledge that Roman Catholics and Southern Baptists have differing views on how we understand and practice our faith, stemming from our differing concepts of what we view as our supreme authority. For Southern Baptists, authority is in Scripture alone. For Catholics, authority is in Scripture and the church.

For example, most Baptists have a different perspective than do Catholics on the use of contraceptives by a married couple, because we believe Scripture does not condemn it, yet we hold an almost identical perspective on abortion because of the Bible’s clear teaching on the sanctity of every human life.

Despite our theological differences, we cannot remain silent while others find their First Amendment freedom of religion rights trampled.

As Baptists we defend Catholics’ right to not have their consciences coerced by government edict on the issue of contraception.

In the Manhattan Declaration (2009), Orthodox, Catholic, and Evangelical Christians proclaimed, “Christians confess that God alone is Lord of the conscience. Immunity from religious coercion is the cornerstone of an unconstrained conscience.”

Pope John Paul II wrote that religious freedom is the “first freedom.” It is, he continued, “the premise and guarantee of all freedoms that ensure the common good.”
Finish Story

Separation of Church and State Revisited

Separation of Church and State Revisited: Fr. James V. Schall, S.J. writes what Obama's Catholic supporters refuse to believe it: POTUS not only disrespects the Church, he lacks regard for the Constitution too.

 Caesar: Render unto me the things that are God’s.

"This nation was once called the “land of the free and the home of the brave.” The brave and the free are now those who fear being “destroyed” by the state that once “separated” the two powers. We are being asked to render to Caesar the things that are God’s."
Full Story

How important is using accurate language when discussing the mandate?

I came across this article about the importance of controlling the language in the dabate about the HHS mandate.

Pay close attention to the media’s reporting on President Obama’s mandate on contraception, sterilization, and abortion-inducing pharmaceuticals. When you hear the subject reported, it’s rarely reported with that specificity, with that accuracy. Typically, the media simply refers to the Obama mandate on “contraception.” That’s it. Many reporters are leaving out the words “abortion-inducing pharmaceuticals.” It’s a rather significant—indeed, fatal—omission.
Read more.

An update from Cardinal Dolan

Cardinal Dolan just posted this update this morning. Well said, sobering message.

Over the last six months or so, the Catholic Church in the United States has found itself in some tension with the executive branch of the federal government over a very grave issue:  religious freedom.  Can a government bureau, in this case the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), define for us or any faith community what is ministry and how it can be exercised?  Can government also coerce the church to violate its conscience?

I wanted to let you, the great people of the archdiocese, know how we’re doing in this fight.  Thank you for your extraordinary unity, support, and encouragement.  Throughout all the archdiocese, our people – both as patriotic citizens and committed Catholics — have been very effective in letting government know that we are not at peace at all with this attempt to curtail the  freedom of religion and sanctity of conviction we cherish as both Catholics and Americans.

This has not been a fight of our choosing.  We’d rather not be in it.  We’d prefer to concentrate on the noble tasks of healing the sick, teaching our youth, and helping the poor, all now in jeopardy due to this bureaucratic intrusion into the internal life of the church.  And we were doing all of those noble works rather well, I dare say, without these radical new mandates from the government.  The Catholic Church in America has a long tradition of partnership with government and the wider community in the service of the sick, our children, our elders, and the poor at home and abroad.  We’d sure rather be partnering than punching.
Nor is this a “Catholic” fight alone.  As a nurse from Harrison emailed me, “Cardinal, I’m not so much mad about all this as a Catholic, but as an American.”  It was a Baptist minister, Governor Mike Huckabee, who observed, “In this matter, we’re all Catholics.”

And it is not just about sterilization, abortifacients, and chemical contraception.  Pure and simple, it’s about religious freedom, the sacred right, protected by our constitution, of any Church to define its own teaching and ministry.

When the President announced on January 20^th that the choking mandates from HHS would remain — a shock to me, since he had personally assured me that he would do nothing to impede the good work of the Church in health care, education, and charity, and that he considered the protection of conscience a sacred duty — not only you, but men and women of every faith, or none at all, rallied in protest.  The worry that we bishops had expressed — that such government control was contrary to our deepest political values — was eloquently articulated by constitutional scholars and leaders of every creed.  Even newspaper editorials supported us!

On February 10^th, the President announced that the insurance providers would have to pay the bill, not the Church’s schools, hospitals, clinics, or vast network of charitable outreach.  He considered this “concession” adequate.

Did this help?  We bishops wondered if it would, and announced at first that, while withholding final judgment, we would certainly give it close scrutiny.

Well, we have — and we’re still as worried as ever.  For one, there was not even a nod to the deeper concerns about trespassing upon religious freedom, or of modifying the HHS’ attempt to define the how and who of our ministry through the suffocating mandates.

Two, since a big part of our ministries are “self-insured,” how is this going to help us?  We’ll still have to pay!  And what about individual believers being coerced to pay?

Three, there was still no resolution about the handcuffs placed upon renowned Catholic charitable agencies, both national and international, and their exclusion from contracts just because they will not refer victims of human trafficking, immigrants and refugees, and the hungry of the world, for abortions, sterilization, or contraception.

So, we have given it careful study.  Our conclusion: we’re still very worried.  There seem far more questions than answers, more confusion than clarity.
Continue Reading

Conscience Amendment Loses in the Senate

The 'conscience amendment' authored by Senator Roy Blunt (R-MO), that would have protected religious freedom, lost in the senate this morning by a vote of 51-48. Both Texas senators voted for the amendment. This vote is a reminder of the grave threats opposed to religious freedom in our country and why we must continue pushing forward in this fight.

Senate Defeats Blunt Amendment to Stop Obama HHS Mandate

"It is imperative that the entire Catholic community in the United States comes to realize the grave threats to the Church's public moral witness." - Pope Benedict XVI