Obama is an anti-Catholic Tyrant

…as Frank Beckwith adroitly points out. In his comboxes, the best a proponent of Obama’s tyranny can do in argument for his position is to say, in essence, “We have the power to make you crawl. So there.” Pure might-makes-right worship of the state.

Some liberalism.

  • http://timothyjones.typepad.com/old_world_swine/ Old World Swine

    He may regret it. Catholics have been duped by duplicitous politicians, led by the nose, prodded, coaxed into denying their principles… but he lacks the subtlety of mind and the patience for that.

    It will be exhilarating to stomp all over his line in the sand.

  • Sad

    Your view of religious freedom is being able to impose your religious will on secular or non-Catholic employees. Religious freedom is being able to get appropriate healthcare regardless of what religion your employer practices. I fear you people are too lost to understand this, though.

    • rakowskidp

      Hey, look! Is this just the latest incarnation of Reality Check/Judas/Porphyry?

      Ironic that you speak of imposition. That’s precisely what the government is doing in imposing requirements on what services Catholic institutions must cover in their employer-provided health care benefits. Work for a Catholic institution and disagree? Find another job.

      • Sad

        No, it’s not. Catholic institutions are exempt. Those purporting to be Catholic institutions that actually serve and employ people of all faiths should provide those employees and patients adequate health care, whatever that may be. My religion does not ban contraceptives. By you not offering me contraceptives in my health plan, you are violating my religious freedom.

        • http://www.rosariesforlife.com Dave

          So let’s get this straight, by not offering contraception, which is by no stretch of the imagination “medicine”, in a health plan, it violates your religious freedom….

          OoooooooooK

        • Margaret

          So wait a minute– a hospital that provides health case to everyone, specifically because they are motivated by the Christian obligation to care for the sick are in fact only “purporting” to be Catholic institutions? Huh?!??

        • Thomas R

          That makes no sense unless your religion requires contraceptives. Even then why couldn’t you buy your own?

          If I worked at a Jewish hospital I’m not going to demand they buy me bacon or pizza.

    • Peter

      Sad,

      Your view of religious freedom is that not only should you be able to have contraceptives, but that someone else must pay for them, regardless of what he or she believes.

    • Ye Olde Statistician

      But pregnancy is not a disease. The healthcare in context is called “pre-natal care” and “pediatrics.”

  • randy

    It is great for womans rights

    • Sad

      Great for women’s rights = bad for the Catholic Church

    • rakowskidp

      I’d like someone to explain what this decision has to do with women’s rights. Women still have the right to work for non-Catholic employers who offer coverage for their desired services.

      And this goes for the Komen reversal as well. I’d like someone to tell me what services women would’ve lost if Komen had held to their original decision to stop providing funds to PP. And PP doesn’t do mammograms, they only provide referrals. Are American women so collectively stupid that they’d be unable to find an alternative provider to write these referrals?

      • Joseph

        PP, Komen, Obama and his worshippers sure seem to think so.

        • rakowskidp

          Right. And they’re the ones who defend the dignity and moral agency of women…

  • http://www.rosariesforlife.com Dave

    I like the idea of the guy who said that Catholic-run organizations should now serve only Catholics (thus qualifying for the exemption) and put up a huge sign on their premises:

    “Now Serving Catholics Only By Order of the President of the United States.”

    • Sad

      The days of Catholics controlling the sexuality of women are over in this country. I understand if it is going to take you guys a little time to let it sink in.

      • http://www.rosariesforlife.com Dave

        I think, sadly, that the writing is on the wall, that the days of this country are over. We’re in the last stages of a Roman empire style collapse. Enjoy your pyrrhic victory for now.

      • Chris

        Country? What country? We’re nothing but an amalgam of cable channels and Smartphone data plans.

        • Adolfo

          That was REALLY funny, Chris. Made me chortle and such.

      • Tim

        Bummer. I was rather enjoying controlling women to be sexually uninterested in me.

        With that said, does anyone want a female-sexuality-controller? It still works with the Turbo-Graphics 16 (don’t ask me why).

      • rakowskidp

        We control the sexuality of women? I guess that’s why there’s no lesbianism, adultery, abortion, pre/extramarital sex, out-of-wedlock births, or sales of birth control pills. Oh, wait…

        • Sad

          Thanks for proving my point.

          • Jared

            Hey, Reality. How’s the new screen name working out?

            • Chris

              At least the name change is appropriate. May he or she come to know the happiness that comes from the truth.

          • rakowskidp

            I can’t recall any source of Catholic teaching in which we claimed the ability to eliminate what we regard as sin. That’s quite different than suggesting that we should be forced to fund it.

      • Jack

        Catholic women are free. They are not controlled.

        • Joseph

          Like some modern-media bots… who go by certain names… like… Reality Check (a.k.a. Judas, Sad, etc.)

      • Ye Olde Statistician

        And yet in the period between the Volkerwanderung and the Rediscovery of Roman Law, women achieved their most pervasive role in society, up to and including political rule of kingdoms. And all this without becoming either surrogate male wannabes or “uncontrolling their sexuality”

        Alas, to the Late Modern, as Sad so eponymously seems to be, “sexuality” is equated only with the indulgence of appetites and with the exercise of power.

      • Thomas R

        ??? In the 1950s my Aunt got pregnant out of wedlock. Adultery and fornication have occurred, even in majority Catholic nations, as long as there has been majority Catholic nations.

        This is about the Catholic Church not wanting to support things they don’t believe in. Is that really so hard for you to comprehend?

        I mean the ability of Mennonites to control male-aggression, if we term all war as that, has never been very strong. Still to require Mennonite Universities to have military programs would be wrong. Why is this so difficult for you?

    • Jack

      All at-risk Catholic run enterprises should post such signs at all entrances… RCIA groups nationwide would overflow.

  • Jack

    Free market ideology in its pure form mandates that any people can group together to offer whatever goods or services they wish to the population at large. Likewise they may also freely offer whatever compensations they wish to attract workers to help them produce and deliver those goods.

    It is the free choice of individuals whether to accept or decline the compensation offered by accepting or declining the job.

    A group of citizens united to offer medical, social, and education services and offers compensation which they deem competitive and desirable. If other citizens don’t like the offer, they are not forced to work there.

    The DNC unilateraly rescinds freedom for the market by decree. I never voted for that… Anf neither did any other free man. Tyranny is as tyrants do. Judge by acts.

    • Sad

      “It is the free choice of [Catholic Institutions] whether to accept or decline the [federal funding and tax exemptions] offered by accepting or declining the [a national healthcare plan that is going to provide millions upon millions of uninsured people, of all races, gender, and religion, with healthcare].”

      • Mark Shea

        This rule affects all Catholic institutions, regardless of whether they receive federal funds. But then you knew that.

        • Tim

          No, I think it doesn’t apply if Catholics only serve and employ other Catholics.

          So basically the government is encouraging discrimination.

          • Dan F.

            yeah, that’s the ‘religious exemption’ that was offered by HHS for which no Catholic instituion qualifies.

            In fact, I have seen it credibly asserted that because local parishes employ non-Catholics (in particular as organists, janitors or secretaries) AND serve their local communities (many run soup kitchens, provide youth basketball leagues etc.) without asking to see baptismal certificates that even local parishes might not really be exempt.

            • Tim

              No more spreadin’ the Good News (unless that good news is “free condoms!”).

      • Jack

        True. However, 23.9% of Americans identify themselves as Catholic (approximately 72 million of a national population of 306 million residents), so it stands to reason that about 24% of the “federal funding and tax exemptions” came from Catholic citizens.

        Catholic funds are aggregated with the funds of other citizens via taxes, and Catholic services are offered to all citizens equally.

        Simply put, your position is that elected citizens may take funds from free citizens and then exclude them from the benefit their return.

        If it is, as you infer, just and fair to deny a group of free citizens their proportionate share of the returns gained by aggregating funds with other citrizens, then it is consequentially fair and just to also deny those citizens the opportunity to contribute into the fund.

        Let the non-Catholics pool their funds and deliver whatever services they choose to market as healthcare, and let the Catholics pool their funds to offer whatever services they choose.

        That’s a representational government and a free market in action. The DNC is neither.

  • Jack

    It is not unreasonable to conjecture that the next DNC act will use the FDA to mandate that all food service establishments offer all food types to all citizens. McLobster Thermidor would be required by law.

  • ds

    Not trollin here, but 28 states already require coverage for contraception. It’s not like no catholic institutions at all are providing contraceptive coverage and now they’ll be forced to.

    Dominican is part of the Catholic Healthcare West System. A spokeswoman for the 40-hospital chain confirmed that it has offered the benefits since 1997.

    http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2011/12/02/143022996/catholic-groups-fight-contraceptive-rule-but-many-already-offer-coverage

    Is this really as big a deal as it’s being made out to be? There appears to be some precedent here…

    • http://www.rosariesforlife.com Dave

      It’s nice that this is being brought to our attention. I guess we have 28 states to fight against as well as the Feds. Many Catholic hospitals are Catholic-in-name-only anyway, so this doesn’t really surprise me, but I think what happened is that the HHS has awakened a sleeping giant.

  • Jack

    There will always be traitors in any group.

  • Jack

    To sum up, by refusing to provide a small handful of the tens of thousands of “medical” services and procedures (ie those which undeniably prevent or destroy living humans) Catholic citizens should be refused the right to participate in democratic processes, but must pay for it.

    Smells like taxation without representation.

  • http://www.rosariesforlife.com Dave

    Upon reflection, Obama is making Romney (or whoever else gets the nomination) look a lot better in my eyes. No, Romney hasn’t changed, but if Obama is willing to strike at religious freedom in a re-election year, what would he do if he actually gets re-elected?!?

  • http://www.2catholicmen.blogspot.com Ben

    All part of the change you can believe in. I believed this change was coming about three years ago.

  • Este

    That’s a little bit extreme calling him an anti-Catholic Tyrant. He’s the natural born president of the United States and at worst a liberal christian not a muslim nor an atheist.
    A little more moderation would restore the credibility of this blog.

    • Adolfo

      Mark didn’t call him an atheist. Mark didn’t call him a Muslim. If you’ve ever visited this blog before, you’ll know he thinks the “birthers” are nuts. He’s just telling the truth about Obama. The President has done much to usurp freedom (furthering the policies of his predecessor) and with this mandate has taken aim at the Church. So, yes, Obama’s an anti-Catholic tyrant.

      • Thomas R

        Agreed one can be an Anti-Catholic tyrant and still be a native-born Christian. I think some of England’s rulers were anti-Catholic tyrants who were also Christian Englishman. Oliver Cromwell might fit that.

        That being said “tyrant” usually does mean a leader who illegally took control of a government. That doesn’t fit Obama as he was selected in a free and fair election.

      • Este

        Never said Mark called him an atheist but not even the nutty birthers called him a tyrant. That is extreme

        • Andy, Bad Person

          It’s true. Obama is indefinitely detaining people without trial, executing citizens without due process, and eliminating religious freedom for his own citizens.

          But it’s calling him a tyrant that’s really extreme.

        • Thomas R

          It is a bit extreme in that Obama was legally elected and will face another election. Still people call Chavez a tyrant and he was elected. It’s hyperbole, but it comes from somewhere.

  • http://www.hancaquam.blogspot.com PNP, OP

    The obvious response to this power grab–assuming its upheld in court and that B.O. isn’t in the W.H. come 2013–is for Catholic institutions to fire all non-Catholics and then hire only faithful Catholics. Then, those who have been fired can blame B.O. for their unemployment. Problem solved.

    Fr. Philip Neri, OP


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X