Skip to comments.Catholic Outcry Over Obama Administration's Birth Control Decision Could Factor In Presidential Race
Posted on 02/06/2012 10:18:11 PM PST by Steelfish
Catholic Outcry Over Obama Administration's Birth Control Decision Could Be Factor In Presidential Race By James Rosen Published February 06, 2012
Catholic pulpits and pews are increasingly inflamed with talk of a war on religion after the Obama administration's recent decision on employers' birth control coverage.
There can be no doubt that religious liberty in our country is in jeopardy, Monsignor W. Ronald Jameson warned on Saturday from inside Washingtons historic Cathedral of St. Matthew. This is the time to speak up. This is the time for all voices to be heard.
Jamesons dire warning to the Catholic faithful was focused on the controversial ruling that President Obama made last week, mandating that all employers, as part of the 2010 health care overhaul, must cover in full the cost of female contraception. The Roman Catholic Church, as a matter of doctrine, opposes the use of birth control. In an op-ed published Monday in USA Today, the presidents top health official, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, defended the ruling as striking the right balance between respecting religious freedom and providing critical health services to women.
This is not an easy issue, Sebelius wrote, adding that the Obama administration had taken pains to make allowances for the church. We specifically carved out from the policy religious organizations that primarily employ people of their own faith. This exemption includes churches and other houses of worship, and could also include other church-affiliated organizations.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
The first thing Freud would find is that Barry has 'mother issues' aka: an Oedipus Complex. The same thing that Adolph had with his 'dear mother'. It's easy to spot, just look at Moosehell - she's the boss (mother) that little Barry has to listen to. To boot he has an Inferiority Complex on steroids. If he wasn't POTUS he'd be out buying Six Corvettes to compensate for his 'lack of manliness'.
His new fetish of playing golf every chance he has is another symptom of his 'manliness issues'. Even though he still totally sucks, he's determined to hack away until he 'plays like a real man' and gets down in the 80's on a regular basis. (With all the rounds he's played so far he should be much better than he is.)
If he was a regular
citizen person his Dr would have him on a half-dozen psychotropic drugs. Ergo, he's so psychologically screwed-up he would never be allowed to own a firearm (I'm serious).
Catholics are nuts to fight this.
Best thing to do is go to cost-sharing like the Amish and Mennonite and others.(Medishare, Samaritan etc)
It would be self funded, qualify for exception and could take up to one fifth of the population out of government clutches.
It would be the end run of all end runs. And it would provide better options for their people. It would also be a model for every one else who is dying to get away from the encroaching totalitarian fascist commie.
There are more ways to skin this cat.
If they do, if they take money from the feds - this is what happens.
The feds don't have and money. They have to take it away from working citizens via taxes. Look at your pay stub and see how much is taken out for uncle sugar.
BTW, welcome to FR!
So, in a nutshell, he’s evil.
Thanks for the analysis. :)
Bammers is a classic example of the psychosis that stems from “father issues”. He would have been better off if his father had died. As it is, he was “abandoned”, and this is a real slam to anyone’s psyche.
Yes, that would likely follow Pope Pius XI's change in attitude toward Hitler:
"Pius XI was eager to negotiate concordats with any country that was willing to do so, thinking that written treaties were the best way to protect the Church's rights against governments increasingly inclined to interfere in such matters. Twelve concordats were signed during his reign with various types of governments, including some German state governments, and with Austria. When Adolf Hitler became Chancellor of Germany on 30 January 1933 and asked for a concordat, Pius XI accepted. Negotiations were conducted on his behalf by Cardinal Eugenio Pacelli, who later became Pope Pius XII (19391958). The Reichskonkordat was signed by Pacelli and by the German government in June 1933, and included guarantees of liberty for the Church, independence for Catholic organisations and youth groups, and religious teaching in schools.
In February 1936 Hitler sent Pius a telegram congratulating the Pope on the anniversary of his coronation but he responded with criticisms of what was happening in Germany, so much so that von Neurath the foreign secretary wanted to suppress it but Pius insisted it be forwarded."
[BTW - I am not against the Church's position on this matter, I only aim to prepare myself for possible outcomes by researching historical material. And I am open to my references being challenged as historically incorrect. I also note there are many search results based on writings from shortly after WWII and look forward to reading history written with a different political context.]
I tend to agree, mostly because I do not believe Obama lacks intelligence. Also, Obama has control of the media, the Church does not. He will use the pro-abortion media to bend the Church toward an agreement, FOR WHICH THERE IS HISTORICAL PRECEDENT. This is not to say there will not be protests, only that Obama has already made a determination of what is acceptable to him and to the Church*. It appears the outcome has been plotted.
* Obama acknowledges he has been plotting this out. Note that in 2009, at the speech at the University of Notre Dame, he stated, "Let's honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion, and draft a sensible conscience clause".
I don't understand the challenging nature of your post. My postings are simply at look at the past to try to predict the outcomes here (with open eyes), and hopefully contribute to a better outcome for the Church.
Perhaps a review of my response in Post 19 would be helpful.
From the link (bottom):"The concordat ... placed constraints on Catholics critical of the regime,..."
As posters challenge me, I am forced to learn of even more parallels with Obama. Note the following (I know, it is scary.):
"In early 1933 Hitler told Herman Rauschning that Bismarck had been stupid in starting a Kulturkampf and outlined his own strategy for dealing with the clergy which would based initially on a policy of toleration:
""We should trap the priests by their notorious greed and self indulgence. We shall thus be able to settle everything with them in perfect peace and harmony. I shall give them a few years reprieve. Why should we quarrel? They will swallow anything in order to keep their material advantages. Matters will never come to a head. They will recognise a firm will, and we need only show them once or twice who is the master. They will know which way the wind blows.
My apologies for feeling compelled to present this in the interest of caution to us all. I actually hope someone proves to me that it is historically inaccurate.
Given the "one year" reprieve Obama has given the Church, does anyone share (misery loves company) the chilling feeling that comes from learning that Obama's tactics toward the Catholic Church today MAY be based on a study of Hitler's approach to the Church?
Hitler had to kill Catholic priests because they wouldn’t knuckle under; the popes (Pius XI & Pius XII) were openly critical of National Socialism, and had the German clergy read pronouncements to that effect.
In Italy, in return for recognition of the Italian state, the Church was given a role in public education. That probably plays no small role in why the Italians never targeted Jews (though the Germans did after Mussolini was deposed, and they were basically occupying Italy).
Apparently all but the rabid liberal Catholics (ie nancy pelosi) are really ticked off.
Not quite everyone. Apparently Muslims and Amish were given waivers because they are against any form of insurance.
In discussing this with others, I can only conclude that Obama knows re-election is now impossible, and he will proceed full-speed ahead cramming what he can in before the election.
Not that Catholics will toss him out; they may help, but other religious groups are as threatened by this ruling as Catholics are.
When Obama was elected, one of the talking heads from the right said when people saw who they had ushered in with Obama they were going to realize these were “ugly people”. There is nothing “American” about Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Bloomberg here in NYC, any of the commissars who have destroyed life as we knew it even 10 years ago.
“Obama is very, v-e-r-y disturbed.......”
Obama didn’t even wait until after the election, that’s how bad it is. But I’m glad he exposed his crazy dictator personality BEFORE the General Election. If this doesn’t wake people up, nothing will.
Yes, it has been plotted. The Church benefits from federal monies to help run its hospital and educational facilities and there is no way it will relinquish those funds. Too bad.
You need to read Eric Metaxas’ bio of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, “Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy” to get a good picture of German church collaboration and submission to Nazi power.
Those looking for boogeymen and conspiracies invariably find them; the average Catholic had much more to fear from Stalin than Hitler (they learned that from Spain’s Civil War), but the Catholic Church never endorsed Nazism.
re: “Mark Steyn pointed out yesterday, filling in for Rush, it doesn’t matter whether they take money from the feds or not — the ruling applies to everyone. Also, since the rules cover insurers as well, there won’t be any insurers who can offer anything but the ObamaCare standard.”
Thanks for putting it in the proper perspective. The reason I even brought it up was because I heard that the Catholic church had supported Obamacare. I do understand that that is beside the point in this particular instance. The Obama administration is clearly pursuing an unConstitutional policy here (just one among many violations). There should be impeachment proceedings brought against him for this, but I doubt anyone has the guts to do it.
re: “This has nothing to do with “taking money from the feds”. It’s a mandate on ALL employers. It affects Catholic schools, which get no money from government at all, just as much as Catholic hospitals.
You can’t have a full-service hospital in this country and not take government money. Emergency rooms are required to treat all comers by law, or shut down. If you don’t take Medicare and Medicaid, that means you treat a good 1/2 of your patients — many of whom are the sickest patients you see — for free. That’s a recipe for bankruptcy, and quick bankruptcy at that.”
Thanks for setting me straight on this. I do appreciate the info. The Obama administration is clearly violating the First Amendment on this.