“Radicalism and maliciousness are at work in Obama’s decision…”

Compelling words on the HHS ruling from columnist (and former Bush speechwriter) Michael Gerson in the Washington Post:

There would have been no controversy at all if President Obama had simply exempted religious institutions and ministries. But the administration insisted that the University of Notre Dame and St. Mary’s Hospital be forced to pay for the privilege of violating their convictions.

Obama chose to substantially burden a religious belief, by the most intrusive means, for a less-than-compelling state purpose — a marginal increase in access to contraceptives that are easily available elsewhere. The religious exemption granted by Obamacare is narrower than anywhere else in federal law — essentially covering the delivery of homilies and the distribution of sacraments. Serving the poor and healing the sick are regarded as secular pursuits — a determination that would have surprised Christianity’s founder.

Both radicalism and maliciousness are at work in Obama’s decision — an edict delivered with a sneer. It is the most transparently anti-Catholic maneuver by the federal government since the Blaine Amendment was proposed in 1875 — a measure designed to diminish public tolerance of Romanism, then regarded as foreign, authoritarian and illiberal. Modern liberalism has progressed to the point of adopting the attitudes and methods of 19th-century Republican nativists.

Read it all.


  1. “That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.”

    Vote the tyrant out.

  2. “But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.”

  3. Maybe the University of Notre Dam President Fr. John Jenkins will honor Obama with another graduation speech again this year and prosecute some more Pro Life protestors.

    “Notre Dame President: Pro-Abortion Obama “Honors” University With Speech”

    Is there any doubt why Obama felt he could make this decision with the sycophantic behavior displayed church leaders?

  4. “Military Is Telling Catholic Chaplains What They Can And Can’t Say About the Obama Administration

    The emerging conflict between the Catholic Church and the Obama administration may have a new front: in the U.S. military itself. All the bishops in the country sent out a letter to be read in their parishes promising that the Church “cannot-and will not-comply with this unjust law.”

    Even Archbishop Timothy Broglio, who is in charge of Catholic military chaplains sent out the same letter.

    But after he did, the Army’s Office of the Chief of Chaplains sent out another communication forbidding Catholic priests to read the letter, in part because it seemed to encourage civil disobedience, and could be read as seditious against the Commander-in-Chief. “

  5. deacon john m. bresnahan says:

    Considering what the chaplains have been ordered to not do by the Obama Admin, this admin’s promotion of government mucking around in church clergy policy, and now its latest Obamacare assault , I wonder how the head of Notre Dame enjoys the feeling of the Obama knife twisting and tearing in his back . I wonder how the nun who helped set up Obamacare enjoys the backstabbing from Obama that she gave to the bishops on the issue.
    And, of course, our self-proclaimed pious Catholic politicians, like Biden and Pelosi , will surely help drive in and twist the knife. I will be shocked and amazed if either of these ambitious worshippers of tyrranical government power suddenly do a St. Thomas More and show some courage in defense of the Catholic Church to which they brag they are members of. (Is Biden still praying those rosary beads he talked about?)

  6. I have never supported Obama in any way, but I did not until now find him unlikable as a person. What he did in this circumstance (lie to Bishop Dolan’s face, put out this horrid anti religious mandate, and announce it within days of the most public/political event on the Catholic calendar, the pro-life march in DC) was devious, malicious, and intended to poke a finger in the collective eye of Catholics. This was mean spirited at its core. Such a person who can do this, is not a nice guy.

  7. When he was running for President I was appalled that anyone with such a lack of experience could even be considered. I also thought he was one of the most arrogant people I have heard. Well the geniuses elected him and we have seen the results of his arrogance and inexperience.

  8. Thanks for the editing Deacon. ;)

  9. deacon john m. bresnahan says:

    Sadly, our bishops lost much of their credibility and influence because of their handling of rotten priests.
    Consequently, the most influential people defending the Church and the First Amendment will be Catholic laypersons. Fortunately, many Catholics ARE speaking out on the internet–and even in places in the liberal media where you would not expect it.
    Let’s hope and pray that Catholics will not lose heart and will keep defending the Church and the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution up to and including the next presidential election, if electoral action is finally needed to protect freedom of religion in this land.

  10. You would hope this would be a “wake up” call for ALL Catholics.

  11. If Obama wins and the Democrats lose the Senate and fail to re-take the House, he could very well be impeached if he doesn’t retract this mandate. I hope it’s clear to everyone by now that this guy detests our Constitution; his contempt for it in the past has been barely disguised. He thinks it is outmoded and should be replaced by one that states what the “government can do.” This is because he is, at his core, a statist who views the federal government as the teat on which we should all be sucking.

Leave a Comment