Monday, May 21, 2012

Catholics Suing Obama

Hard to believe it has come to this, but here we are.

Very pleasant surprise to see Notre Dame has joined the lawsuit.

Disgustingly, Cardinal O'Malley's name is not among the shepherds who are protecting the freedom of their flock to practice our religion.

The Archdiocese of Boston did not join the effort, although it supports the legal challenges. “There is no need for every single diocese or other Catholic organization to sue,’’ Terrence Donilon, archdiocese spokesman, said in a statement. “The various plaintiffs reflect a broad cross-section of Catholic institutions, and together they represent the wide variety of issues, impacts, economic consequences, and divergent facts that exist among Catholic organizations nationwide.’’


So if every single Catholic diocese sued Obama, that wouldn't have a devastating impact.

Is Terry Donilon that dumb?

You know what makes this particularly disturbing?

I recently discovered that at least one high-ranking Boston Archdiocesan official is leveraging the assisted suicide bill to fundraise for the Archdiocese.

Ergo, they can work to elect the communists, help institute tyranny and totalitarianism, collaborate with them and publicly honor them, enter into contracts with them that compels them to hire killers and give a free ride the victims to the facility where they will be killed - refuse to defend religious freedom, then they use the evil and chaos they help institute and support to approach prolifers and ask them for money to fight against their own march towards death.

Give us a break.

Why would Boston have to fight it anyway? Vermont just fought it.

There is no need for every single diocese or other Catholic organization to fight it, is there? The plaintiffs in Vermont reflect a broad cross-section of Catholic institutions, and together they represent the wide variety of issues, impacts, economic consequences, and divergent facts that exist among Catholic organizations nationwide.

How's that for duplicity?

One wonders why they are suddenly so concerned about killing off weak and sick people. They have spent their lives getting this agenda into place.

But I digress.

I love this quote from beezabul's headquarters:

White House spokesman Jay Carney said in February that Obama takes objectors' concerns "very seriously" and is "very aware of and engaged in this issue."

"We are very sensitive and understand some of the concerns that have been expressed," Carney told reporters.



The concerns are duly noted and they are very aware and very serious and very sensitive. Warms the cockles of your heart doesn't it.


"We're not trying to win an argument here. ... We're trying to implement a policy that will affect millions of women."


Get it?

Millions of women employed by the Catholic Church and Catholic businesses are sleeping around with men so destitute that neither one of them can scrape up ten dollars to purchase contraception. There simply must be a way to get these women contraception.

I doubt it, but even if it were true, Catholics who employ these women have the constitutional right to teach them how to distinguish an immoral jerk who sees children as a punishment for sex and will never have the ambition to do what it takes to provide a roof over her head - from a man who will bring her joy, happiness and the provisions families need for physical and spiritual survival.

If the government wants to subvert our messages and provide women with free contraception, they are free to do so.

Forcing the Catholic Church to pay for abortifacients would be overtly unconstitutional, so Obama IS claiming the contraception will be free. Correct?

Then nothing is stopping them from handing out free contraceptives right at the pharmacy. I don't think anyone in the Catholic Church could have any objection to that plan. We would be free to catechize and witness. They are free to subvert the message and hand out free contraception. Pass them out at Whole Foods and Starbucks. Pass them out on the Commuter rail. If women are stupid enough to buy into pumping her body full of estrogens to sleep around with destitute and immoral men, Catholics won't stop it.

We can, and by gum will, advise women about what the government is doing to them physically, intellectually and spiritually. Rational and courageous Catholics will not collaborate, pay for or hire a subcontractor to provide any of these services. It is against our religion. By doing so, not only would we be doing a terrible disservice to uncatechized women, the government would be forcing us to take an action that is contrary to our own salvation. These actions are against our constitutional rights.

The intellectual dishonesty is really creepy.

The number of people who enjoin in this lawsuit should increase by thousands of parties. There should be a very public and ugly donnybrook. Preparation should begin to shut down Catholic Charities and missions and our hospitals.

Handing our employees over to be sexually exploited by the culture the Obama administration is ushering in, that is not an option.

Stand up and fight.

7 comments:

Adrienne said...

Carol - spot on!

I must link to this later...

StevenD-Jasper said...

"There is no need for every single diocese or other Catholic organization to sue"

..and plus, they can't serve 2 masters, Jack Conners and Christ. Christ will have to go...

Carol said...

Thanks Adrienne!

Steve, There is no question that the Archbishop's pockets are being lined by the Democratic National Committee through Jack Conners and friends.

I have my own theories on the actions and inactions of the agents of change they have placed in the Chancery. Very difficult to watch.

I will be honest and say that my first reaction caused a torrential outpouring of uncharitable remarks from my tongue...which drove me right to the Confessional!

Carol said...

Thanks Adrienne!

Steve, There is no question that the Archbishop's pockets are being lined by the Democratic National Committee through Jack Conners and friends.

I have my own theories on the actions and inactions of the agents of change they have placed in the Chancery. Very difficult to watch.

I will be honest and say that my first reaction caused a torrential outpouring of uncharitable remarks from my tongue...which drove me right to the Confessional!

Anonymous said...

Is a California bishop (or all of that state's hierarchy) trying to undermine the lawsuits against the Obamandate?

According to "Bishop Blaire Seeks 'Wider Consultation' on Religious Liberty" in the May 22nd issue of the Jesuit America magazine:

In California, Bishop Stephen E. Blaire of the Diocese of Stockton expressed some guarded concerns about the opening of this latest front in the U.S. bishops’ continuing religious liberty campaign. Bishop Blaire is chairman of the U.S. bishops’ Committee on Domestic Justice and Human Development.

“The bishops that I am in contact with in California are strong supporters of the importance of defending and strengthening religious liberty in our country,” Bishop Blaire said. “I do think there are probably some different concerns with how it is being done,” he added.

According to Bishop Blaire, attorneys for California dioceses “did have some concerns with this strategy,” expressed a desire for more consultation and worried about possible legislative and judicial repercussions because of it in California.

Bishops Blaire acknowledged that “there is a concern among some bishops that there ought to have been more of a wider consultation” regarding overall strategy on the religious liberty question.

“The question is what is our focus as bishops and that we have opportunity to clarify our focus and that we are all in agreement on focus.” He said some bishops appear to be speaking exclusively on the mandate itself “that it is imposed … as a violation of [individual] conscience."

He said there are other bishops who see the crucial question as the religious liberty of the church itself and its freedom “to exercise her mission through her institutions.” He added, “I think that it’s important that there be a broader discussion of these issues [at the June U.S. bishops meeting in Atlanta]” so that U.S. bishops can clarify their message “and not allow it to be co-opted.”

Bishop Blaire explained he was worried that some national groups appear to be seizing on the issue and transforming the dispute over religious liberty into a political fight.

“I am concerned that in addressing the H.H.S. mandate,” he said, “that it be clear that what we are dealing with is a matter of religious liberty and the intrusion of government into the church and that it not be perceived as a woman’s issue or a contraceptive issue.

“I think there are different groups that are trying to co-opt this and make it into political issue, and that’s why we need to have a deeper discussion as bishops.”

Bishop Blaire believes discussions with the Obama administration toward a resolution of the dispute could be fruitful even as alternative remedies are explored. He worried that some groups “very far to the right” are trying to use the conflict as “an anti-Obama campaign.”

“I think our rhetoric has to be that of bishops of the church who are seeking to be faithful to the Gospel, that our one concern is that we make sure the church is free to carry out her mission as given to her by Christ, and that remains our focus.” If the bishops can maintain that focus, he said, “the people rally behind us,” but the bishops lose their support when the conflict is seen as too political.

Bishop Blaire said the upcoming meeting in Atlanta should offer an opportunity for a “thorough and careful discussion” about focus in the religious liberty campaign and Catholic “principles of cooperation that need to be applied in any kind of accommodation.”

breathnach said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
breathnach said...

Bishop Blaire=Neville Chamberlain