First there was Michael Sean Winters, writing "J'Accuse!" in the National Catholic Reporter. "President Barack Obama," Winters wrote, "lost my vote yesterday when he declined to expand the exceedingly narrow conscience exemptions proposed by the Department of Health and Human Services. The issue of conscience protections is so foundational, I do not see how I ever could, in good conscience, vote for this man again."
Next up was E.J. Dionne, a good liberal Democrat (and Catholic), who used his Washington Post column to assail the President for how he "utterly botched the admittedly difficult question of how contraceptive services should be treated under the new health-care law."
Mark Shields, also Catholic, opined on the PBS NewsHour: "The fallout is cataclysmic for the White House and for the president."
Doug Kmiec, the former Reagan administration lawyer who backed Obama in 2008, now says he may not in 2012, over the contraception mandate, and that alone.
Of course we expect this reaction from conservatives, and from conservative Catholics. But those three liberal Catholic pundits are taking the president to task, variously, for trampling on the Catholic social justice tradition (theory being that Catholic organizations will close their doors rather than comply with the mandate, a move that's blamed on Obama, not on said organizations' refusal to follow the law like everyone else); reneging on his promise in his 2008 Notre Dame speech to find common ground on difficult issues; and snubbing Catholic supporters of health care reform who had bucked the Bishops by supporting the final package that contained no provision for abortion coverage but was falsely depicted as covering abortion by the Bishops.
Obama's greatest sin, in this view: violating the religious beliefs of the Catholic hierarchy. Not the beliefs or practices of lay Catholics, or the Catholic and non-Catholic employees of Catholic institutions.
Unnamed "political analysts," reports The Hill in its coverage of Kmiec's defection, "say the tension between the Catholic Church and Obama could hamper the president's bid for a second term."
For real? Since the Iowa caucuses all we've heard about is how this is an election about the economy, and that the so-called social issues, even for Republican voters, are taking the back burner while people worry about losing their jobs and their homes. One bright spot for Americans in dire economic straits is that they will soon have health insurance! Which will pay for them to plan their families so they can have a child once their house is no longer under water and they have a decent paying job. Are they really going to vote for Obama's opponent because the Catholic Bishops and their religious right allies (along with "political analysts") are angry with Obama over this insurance requirement? We have yet to see polling data on this, but I have a hard time seeing how this is true.
Did someone like Doug Kmiec help win Republican-leaning Catholic voters to Obama—or did Obama win them over himself? Will Winters and Shields and Dionne cause Catholic Democrats to flee Obama en masse? Maybe we'd know if any of the media outlets that published their opinions had asked a Catholic with ovaries.
Conservative directives of placing sexuality in the "protection" of marriage is secualry healthy!
Posted by jonandjasonsmom on February 6, 2012 at 11:46 AM
You wrote that , "Free exercise of religion has always been a right subject to abridgment when there are conflicts with mundane secular goals of society", when will you and other progressives admit that the Catholic, as well as Jewish and Muslim churches teach that human sexuality should be placed in marriage because that protective boundary is secularly healthy for ALL individuals-thus society?
MANY progresive authors at Religion Dispatches,some "reverends", have distorted Judeo/Christian Biblical TRUTHS by asking us to condone 3 LIBERAL LIES with regard to human sexuality, the first is "free love", which is the acceptance of hetero/homsexual SINS of fornication, sodomy, oral sex, and pornography!
We have MUCH data from our own CDC that these condoned sexual choices have NOT been free, but have harmed/killed millions with STD's, abortion..!
The second is "choice", which is ALWAYS the terminating of a growing unborn human life-go to www.abortionno.org and view the IMMORAL choice!
And lastly, the LIE of "protection with condoms", when we have data from the CDC that condoms CANNOT protect against many STD's because they are found in areas like the inner thighs-which are NOT covered by condoms,!
ALL of these LIES are NOT compatible with Christ's teachings -He said "go and SIN no more"-not just use a condom while you engage in sexual sin, and if that fails, you can make the "choice' to kill your unborn child!
We have data from our CDC- particularly the SAD statistics on how blacks are negatively affected by unmarried sexual choices-they engage in sex at higher rates than their peers--THUS more devastating numbers.
Although we have numbers for white and Hispanic
youth, which are also very troubling, the sad numbers reflect that black youth
are particularly negatively affected.
Blacks account for 12-13% of the U.S. population--yet they have higher
numbers as a percentage of their race in all of the following social ills:
POVERTY-The #1 group trapped in poverty are single female -headed
households--NO marriage--sadly, blacks have a 70% out--of-wedlock birth rate. We spend $100 billion on poverty-related programs.
STD's --Blacks have higher numbers of ALL STD's -not just HIV/AIDS! We spend $20 billion on screening/treatment.
CRIME--We know that black youth engage in higher rates of criminal
behavior and on
more black victims--we also know that 70% of the men in prison came from
homes with NO fathers--NO marriage! We spend $40,000/year per inmate for upkeep in prison?
ABORTION--We know that since 1973-Roe v. Wade that 45 million unborn babies
have been KILLED in legal abortion--BUT 1/3rd of those-15 million, were black.
We also have evidence of negative emotional effects of
pre-marital sex like
increased rates of depression and suicide, discussed in 2 new books, "Unprotected" by Dr. Miriam Grossman and "Hooked" by Dr.
McIlhaney discuss the hormonal influence with sexual choices.
GOD bless us everyone!
MRS. Laura Merriott
814 835-0249
I am going to be polite and not bother to argue the points your little rant, Ms. Merriot. Your stats are probably a load of horsecrap and frankly I doubt you will ever come to a reasonable POV. Its a great expression of your views. It's all well and good for those people who are serving only those of the Catholic faith. People who have subscribed to your view and accept it without question.
But that is not the case with Catholic groups as employers. If they are open to the public, employ and serve those of many faiths, then it is an unwarranted intrusion into something they have no business with.
Employers now have a mandate to provide health insurance which meets certain requirements. If they don't want to provide this sort of thing, then pay their employees for the cost of allowing them to obtain their own insurance. Its not their decision to make anyway.
Free Exercise of religion is not an excuse to ignore all other considerations and act like a complete jerkwad to others. Your right to free exercise of religion is limited to the extent where it does tangible harm to others.
It doesn't allow people to break facially secular laws. It doesn't allow parents to endanger their children for the sake of their faith. It doesn't allow human sacrifice.
Nobody else has a duty to bear the burden of your conscience.
Major Court decisions have ruled both for and against the free exercise of religion. They do rule unanimously for one's ability to believe what he will. Courts have ruled against handling poisonous snakes and drinking poisons and against refusing medical treatment. They have ruled for refusing medical treatment and for the use of illegal drugs in religious services.
But we do have a separation of church and state. When the state decides that we need licenses to drive for the safety of the people or that contraception or abortion will reduce the taxes for many will not have to pay for the education and imprisonment of unwanted children-- it is the state's right to do this. Perhaps if the Catholics would, based on their own finances or those of the Vatican, pay for all the expenses of the unwanted children perhaps we might reconsider their opposition.
As a former R.C. priest, I am concerned about the growing Roman Catholic domination of the mainstream U.S. media. Although the more liberal pundits sometimes balance the more conservative ones, as we see happening on the U.S. Supreme Court, 2/3rds of whose members are now Roman Catholics, the current controversy demonstrates that we can't count on even the LIBERALS being able to escape "the party line" of their doctrinaire church, which believes that it alone is wise enough and moral enough to value and represent humanity.
For all of you who haven't noticed the stranglehold that the Roman Catholic faith has over the U.S. mainstream media, I've been keeping track of the R.C. church power in America for years and have been reported my findings at JesusWouldBeFurious.Org/celebrities.html.
Here are the Catholics who tend to be more Liberal :
James Carville
Chris Matthews (has his own TV show)
Paul Begala
E. J. Dionne
Bill Press (ex-seminarian)
Michael Moore
Stephen Colbert (has his own TV show)(Devout)
Stephanie Miller (ex-Catholic?)
Phil Donahue (had his own TV show)
Lawrence O’Donnell (has his own TV show)
Mika Brezinski (has part of her own TV show)
Joan Walsh
Mark Shields
Here are the Catholics who tend to be more Conservative :
Allan Keyes
Brent Bozell III
Pat Buchanan
Baye Buchanan
Bill Bennett
Bill O'Reilly (has his own TV show) (has his own TV & radio shows)
Glen Beck (ex-Catholic, now atheist or Mormon?)
(had his own TV show)
Robert Bork
Mrs. Robert (Mary Ellen) Bork
Michael Novak
Phyllis Schlafly
Michelle Malkin
David Keene
Richard Viguerie
Kate O'Beirne
Terry Jeffries
Sean Hannity (ex-seminarian, has his own TV show)
Kelly Anne Fitzpatrick
Mary Matlin
John McLaughlin
(has his own TV show)
William A. Donohue (paid $400,000 a year to defend R.C. church)
George Weigel
Recently deceased:
Paul Weyrich
Cal Thomas
Fr. Richard Neuhaus
Tony Snow (spokesman for G.W.Bush White House)
Andrew Sullivan
Robert Novak
Moderate or Unidentified :
Bryant Gumbel
There's a good chance that well known NBC journalists Norah & Kelly O'Donnell (unrelated) are R.C.
I invite any corrections and/or additions at Ray@LiberalslikeChrist.org .
Does Rome have a right to establish and maintain employment law or not?
If so, do a people living under the Empire's jurisdiction have the right to flout that law?
Let's re-read Mark for the answer.
Matthew 22:20-22
20And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription?
21They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.
22When they had heard these words, they marveled, and left him, and went their way.
For the bishops of the Roman Catholic denomination to attack the president as an opponent of Catholicism is ludicrous. The laity of the Catholic Church are consistently more savvy and more progressive than their bishops are. I think most members of the Church will vote as they would without interference from their bishops. The president is not warring on the Church.
We are divided as a nation on the issue of reproductive choice but we have been for a very long time and Catholics probably tend, I suspect, to me more open on birth control than one might assume. Certainly, few Catholics refuse to practice birth control.
The bishops do not have much credibility. While no larger percentage of priests abused children and teenagers than professional people in other groups, I think, the bishops acted outrageously in covering abuse for too many years for anyone to take them at their word.
Abortion itself has nothing to do with any of this.
Fine analysis, Ms. Posner, of the disconnect between the U. S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, which ought to be named a "hate" group, and the rank and file congregant. We are not -- yet -- in a Taliban type society where religious impiety will get you snuffed by the state. What I always wonder is why these hypocrite congregants go on putting their hard-earned shekels in the plates on Sunday knowing that some of the money is being used to protect pedophile priests, while other funds are going to defeat rights you take for granted. Duh! Contraception for example. Pardon the joke, but it's redolent of robbing Peter to pay Paul.
Comments closed
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.