Obama Loses Catholics for the Common Good

I don’t think he’s the Machiavellian genius some people seem to think he is. I think he’s reasonably smart, but arrogant and therefore prone to the stupidity of which arrogance is the mother. It really doesn’t seem to occur to lefties in the full bloom of their “Mission to Civilize” hubris how tyrannically insufferable they can be. So they react with surprise to find out that it isn’t just bitter clingers in the flyover states with their primitive folkways who care about religious liberty, but even folks like Catholics for the Common Good and Michael Sean Winters.

Indeed, even the Church in ultraviolet blue Seattle is speaking out. Here’s good Abp. Sartain calling on the Church to resist the tyrant.

It is imperative for the blogosphere to make noise here, because the MSM is largely in the tank for Obama and is, with malice aforethought, deliberately lying to make it appear that this is merely some dumb bishops with hangups about sex trying to impose their will on defenseless people who just want health care coverage.

The amazing chutzpah of those who say, “Whether I contracept is none of your business” while holding a gun to our heads and demanding we pay for their contraceptives is truly breathtaking, particularly since they are not only robbing us, but forcing us to violate our consciences while they do it. Contraceptives are cheap as dirt and common as water. Let those who want them get them themselves and not gratuitously force those who think them immoral to pay for them. Painting this as “the Church imposing its morals” on them is like accusing the pistol-whipped victim of armed robbery of lack of charity. This is an act of war against Catholic conscience and religious liberty and a naked act of malice from the Obama Administration. There must be no compromise. It must be utterly defeated.

Update: Oops. I mistook Catholics for the Common Good (which has always been sound) with Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good (which was basically a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Obama campaign). Oh well. Still glad to see more people standing against our tyrannical God King’s draconian act.

  • Stakhanovite

    N.B. – Catholics for the Common Good never supporter Obama’s policies. You might be mistaking them for “Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good.”

    The point stands (vis a vis Kmiec, Michael Sean Winters, probably others), but Bill May & CCG have always done good work. No turnaround from them.

    • Andy, Bad Person

      Thanks for the heads-up! I never realized that they were two different groups. I was reading a bit more on their site, and they are very different from “Catholics in Alliance.” Let’s not fail to make that distinction again.

      • Margaret

        Seriously– Catholics for the Common Good is an upstanding outfit. Bill May and others have knocked themselves out throughout the whole Prop 8 thing in California. Really good stuff– they’ve given workshops in parishes all across the state, training the laity to defend marriage in understandable terms.

      • Stephen R

        No doubt the name collision was purely accidental.

        /sarcasm

      • Catholic Ohioan

        I had never heard of “Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good” until I heard Glenn Beck warn about the organization on his radio program on approx. March 1, 2012. The organization has been funded by George Soros, which may tell you something about their true Catholicity and/or their progressiveness. Apparently it is true that “Catholics for the Common Good” is an orthodox Catholic entity. Sad to say, it might be wise to be wary of the term “common good” these days…always pays to do some homework. Here’s a link to an article appearing in Catholic Advocate that tells more about “Catholics in Alliance…”
        http://www.catholicadvocate.com/2010/03/who-are-these-fake-catholic-groups/ God bless you all.

  • Stakhanovite

    (That should read as “never supported,” not “supporter.”)

  • http://www.findingfreedomteam.com/nanb Nan Balfour

    I agree. Obama believes he is so steeped in his rightness that it just doesn’t occur to him that there might be a “big picture” wrongness to his desire to help women. He is so entrenched inside the tiny circle that surrounds him, he has no perspective.
    And, since the MSM delight in keeping him there, it is up to us Catholics to shake up the status quo. Perhaps our version of the Arab Spring to be called the Christian Spring – pro-freedom uprisings sweeping across the nation.

  • Confederate Papist

    The whole act needs to be appealed.

    Whilst I pray that our effort to fight against HHS’s and Tyrant Obama’s attack on our Church results in victory, I hope the whole act is appealed because I will still be forced by the Federal Government to buy an insurance policy or pay a fine or go to jail.

    Regardless…I guess I must prepare myself for that anyway because I will refuse to pay…

    • Joseph

      Meanwhile, Washington State is about to strike down religious freedom and be the next Apple Inc. state to dismantle marriage. I haven’t heard a peep of this aside for one or two blogs. There needs to be an equal uproar for Washington.

      • Confederate Papist

        And California.

        Fed judges overturned what voters approved.

        Judicial tyranny!

  • Charles

    Mark, I just read something that perplexes me. According to NPR (I know, consider the source, right?) there are already 28 states that mandate contraceptive coverage, and 8 without religious conscience exemptions.. I wonder if that is true, and if true, what the bishops in those (unnamed) states are doing in response?

    Then, they also claim Georgetown University and Catholic Healthcare West, a network of 40 Catholic hospitals already offer contraceptive coverage. I’m sure there are hundreds of now nominally Catholic colleges that do the same, though the article doesn’t say this.

    Georgetown though, isn’t just any Catholic school. The Jesuits still supposedly call the shots there, and that they have such coverage seems to me to be a big deal.

    Is the just yet another example of feckless bishops falling down on the job again, or is there something else going on here? How much power do the local ordinaries have over a powerful institution like a hospital network, or major University? Shouldn’t they be laying down the law here? Is there a good reason that they can’t?

    Or is NPR not telling us something? What do you think?

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

    • Spastic Hedgehog

      I heard this too and wondered the same thing. Though I wonder what “contraceptive coverage” means: like can you get hormonal birth control for another medical use (like controlling migraines related to hormonal fluxes) or can you get hormonal birth control for, well, birth control?

    • http://davidgriffey.blogspot.com/ Dave G.

      I would like to see this one unpacked as well. It’s getting to be a more and more common issue brought up by those who support Obama’s mandate. And it is an issue, if it’s true. If the Catholic Church has been OK with this, at least on a state level, all along, then what’s the beef? What’s the difference? Is it Federal vs. State? Why the sudden uproar? Even if there is only one state that the Church is OK with, I’d like to know. I’ve been trying to find information that might explain it better than I’ve heard from the pundits.

      • R.C.

        The “beef” is that, in those particular states, the bishops have been cowardly or disobedient in not leading Catholics to chain themselves to the state-house gates in protest over the existing violations of conscience. (To say nothing of suing in Federal court over those violations of Constitutional free exercise of religion.)

        It has become a national spectacle, now, and touches not only the somewhat wobbly bishops who go along to get along in blue states, but now involves the more steely-spined bishops in red states.

        And, it was done in a sudden and high-handed way.

        As a consequence, the momentum is suddenly on the side of those opposing the Administration, and the wobblier bishops are belatedly looking around and saying, “Well, if a whole crowd of my fellow bishops are actually going to have my back on this, I suppose I can muster the intestinal fortitude to say something, myself.”

        But if this had been done in a more gradual and well-oiled way, it would have been the obedient and liberty-minded bishops who would now be isolated.

  • Stakhanovite

    Regarding those “28 states,” the U.S. bishops gave this explanation in their fact-sheet (“Six Things Everyone Should Know About The HHS Mandate):

    “The federal mandate is much stricter than existing state mandates. HHS chose the narrowest state-level religious exemption as the model for its own.That exemption was drafted by the ACLU and exists in only 3 states (New York, California, Oregon).Even without a religious exemption, religious employers can already avoid the contraceptive mandates in 28 states by self-insuring their prescription drug coverage, dropping that coverage altogether, or opting for regulation under a federal law (ERISA) that pre-empts state law.The HHS mandate closes off all these avenues of relief.”

    • Joseph

      So, if there are other avenues available, why is it that some Catholic institutions are happily providing contraceptives in their health care plans?

      • ds

        Because some very large catholic organizations are OK with paying for contraceptive coverage.

        That is very different from a federal mandate for everyone.

  • Dan C

    There is not much calculus in this move. Obama is hardly a Machiavellian genius. He does not have the true left. He lost the peace movement-and if those folks vote, would only vote Obama if the alternative was Santorum.
    The left is unlikely to turn out hard for him and he expect no help from the right wing.

    He himself is not a Machiavellian genius.

    • Confederate Papist

      You’re probably right.

      They’ll stay home than vote for his opponent like the conservatives did in 2008.

  • yan

    Count me as one that thought that Machiavellian genius was behind this. I have changed my opinion about the source of this reg to being the result of the mindset: ‘doot dee doot, promote abortion, i don’t care.’

    I know someone that used to work for the American Legion. Allow me to share what to me was a wonderful story. I think my friend–who, so you know his political biases, previously voted for John Kerry, and before that, Ralph Nader–says it best:

    “I don’t know if I have mentioned this to you before, but I have mentioned it to many Obama supporters before he was elected, and now again more recently I have made mention of it to them, as they have been scratching their heads at his utter lack of vision and leadership….When he was a senator on the veterans affairs committee I got to read his proposed legislation to fix veterans healthcare in the wake of the Walter Reed scandal (which is a military hospital anyway, but what difference does that make to Congress, not much). He was the last to propose something and I was totally blown away when I looked at it. First of all it was a huge bill. “What could all this be?”, I thought. Lo and behold it was every other Senator’s bill that had been previously proposed just pasted together. It didn’t even make sense as other more thoughtful legislators had differing opinions. It was the biggest joke I had ever read. There was no attempt to think through the problems and offer a solution that he believed in.

    “Now, for HHS, he appoints people who he is told will do a good job and as long as they have high ranking liberal bone fides, he says ok. Then they come up with thoughtless regs that Obama assumes are good policy since they are liberal (same with Obamacare, he did nothing but sign the bill, thank you Reid and Pelosi).

    “He never leads from the front. He just defends and plays the victim. America is seeing through this more and more, including his own base. When libs all whined that he needed to be tougher and really fight harder for liberal policy he answered not with leadership, but by blaming the Repubs even louder for obstructing (along with ‘any mess you see is Bush’s fault’). We must consider it a blessing that he has no leadership skills or this country would all be goose stepping right now. HHS liberal retards along with DOJ retards do not even care if it is constitutional or not. HHS will promote abortion and DOJ will defend it (just like DOJ does not defend the defense of marriage act, these honey badger a-holes just don’t give a sh-t).

    • Joseph

      You should send this narrative to his competitors, so that they may bring it up in the debates. That would be awesome to hear on national television. LOL.

      • Ronald King

        Joseph, As I sit here observing all of the intense reaction about this mandate, it appears to me that the outrage and the organizing of that outrage into a coherent national movement far surpasses the outrage with abortion. Am I wrong on this?

        • Joseph

          Hey Ronald,

          This is my last comment for a while… I’m going to take a break from this blog. But I thought I’d respond to you since you asked a question. I was not being totally serious with my response. But my dark side was entertaining the idea of seeing Obama squirm in a debate on national television because of a direct charge that he’s never really been a leader… which I kind of agree with. I’d just like to see him respond to that allegation. I know it’d be easy to dodge because it would be rather difficult to substantiate.

          As far as the “outrage”. I think there is quite a bit of honest outrage, some convenient outrage (politically expedient), and some fabricated outrage that comes with any sort of popular movement.

          Yes, I do think that this particular movement (whether coherent enough to remain so after the inevitable repeal we’ve yet to see) does surpass the abortion issue, simply because not all people joining hands (albeit, disingenuously for some) share the same perception of abortion. That doesn’t mean that abortion is not part of it as a large group of the honestly outraged still believe that it is. And, there is a concern that this particular power grab is a precursor to the government forcing Catholic hospitals to perform abortions or face certain consequences… and I don’t think that’s necessarily because the current government wants everyone to perform abortions but more because, I think, it’s become quite clear that the current government has the Catholic Church squarely in its crosshairs.

          I don’t know. I may have to think on it further because your question has got some gears turning in my head and I think I want to spend some time to better organize my thoughts. But what I did write was off the top of my head. I hope it was all relevant.

          If you respond, I’ll read your response… but I won’t reply cause I need a break. So don’t tempt me by asking me another question. LOL.

          • Ronald King

            My vision is blurry right now and you have just motivated me to take a break also. Thanks, Joseph. There is more I want to ask but I must prepare dinner for spouse. Just to spark your interest without you needing to respond, take a look at the Book of Jonah and think about what type of strategy needs to be employed with abortion, poverty, etc. without relying on the government. Thanks

            • Joseph

              Very, very last comment. I promise. I know where you’re going… and I agree. I’m always apt to say, jokingly, that I follow the words of the prophet Michael Jackson with his song “Man in the Mirror”. I do think that there needs to be some sort of action to prevent what we can of the coming persecution of the Church in America, but I just sincerely don’t know how to do it. So, thinking “Man in the Mirror” (which is a surprisingly Catholic song for being secular in reality) is about the only way that I know of that is guaranteed to work in some way (if anything, it will help me).

              I fear that this movement, like all popular movements, will be usurped by the conveniently outraged group (politically expedient). That’s why I think that, if it’s going to remain coherent, it must also remain authentically Catholic. I’d hate to see another “Tea Party” movement.

          • Rosemarie

            +J.M.J+

            Don’t forget that some of the so-called “contraceptives” employers will be forced to cover are actually abortifacients; like the IUD, certain birth control pills and, of course, Plan B (the “morning after” pill). Our outrage with this tyrannical decree is intertwined with the abortion issue; they are not two completely separate issues.

        • yan

          abortion has been a constitutional right for 39 years. the hhs regs were promulgated just last week and are an attempted advance in the culture wars. of course the opening of a new front is going to get an instant response from people. there is no reason to think that the reaction is a result of misplaced priorities or that somehow people should be more focused on abortion. we who are anti abortion have been so day in and day out for decades.

          • Ronald King

            Here is my thought. With this mandate people feel personally attacked, whereas, with abortion there is no personal attack and therefore less threatening. Just wondering.

            • yan

              i don’t think so. we got 100000 or so to march on washington for the anniversary of roe. how many are going to march on washington b/c of the hhs regs?

              don’t be so cynical my friend. there are plenty of genuine opportunities to be cynical but this isn’t one of them.

              • http://proecclesia.blogspot.com Jay Anderson

                Now there’s an idea. Maybe the Bishops or someone with sufficient clout should organize a march against the HHS mandate and encourage as many Catholics and non-Catholics alike to attend as possible. I’d bet the numbers would rival the March for Life.

                • Ronald King

                  If I remember correctly I was in the anti-war march in DC in ’71. I think there were over 200,000 at the time. When I was stationed in Taiwan we had an anti-war march on base. It was not received so well. Why not leave our work for a week and protest the whole damn thing in every city.

              • claire

                Actually.. for almost the last decade the March for Life, that protests the Roe v. Wade law, has reached numbers well above 100,000. Just a couple weeks ago the March had almost 400,000 participants.

  • math_geek

    Now that you mentioned the update. It piqued my curiosity with what the organization is up to. They don’t seem to be doing much, but they did post 5 Must Read articles in the past week. 3 were editorials on the HHS Conscience exemption decision. All 3 were “liberals” opposing Obama’s decision. Michael Sean Winters, EJ Dionne, and America Magazine.

    http://www.catholicsinalliance.org/mustreads2812.html

  • Gregory

    http://www.ronpaul2012.com/2012/02/09/ron-paul-issues-statement-on-obama-contraception-decision/

    Ron Paul Issues Statement on Obama Contraception Decision

    “I am the only GOP presidential candidate who has consistently opposed the federal promotion, funding, and mandating of contraception and abortion”
    LAKE JACKSON, Texas– Congressman and 2012 Republican Presidential candidate Ron Paul issued the following statement regarding the Obama Administration’s announcement that religious organizations must pay for contraception and sterilization under the national health care law:

    “Forcing private religious institutions to pay for contraception and sterilization as part of their health care plans is a direct assault on the First Amendment’s guarantee of religious liberty. On my first day as President, I will reverse this policy. Repealing the unconstitutional monstrosity known as ObamaCare is a major part of my Plan to Restore America.

    “I am the only GOP presidential candidate who has consistently opposed the federal promotion, funding, and mandating of contraception and abortion. Unlike Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum, I never voted to provide taxpayer funding to Planned Parenthood. And unlike Mitt Romney, whose Massachusetts health care plan contained a contraceptive mandate similar to the one contained in ObamaCare, I have never supported any government health care mandates.

    “When one compares my record with that of my opponents, it is clear that I am the only choice for Americans seeking a candidate they can trust to reverse the Obama administration’s assault on their religious and other liberties.”

    This is the most recent statement in a series of comments issued by Paul regarding this move by the Obama Administration. You can find the August 4th statement here, and find the October 3rd statement here, and the statement applauding Becket Fund’s defense of Belmont Abbey College here.

    • ds

      Does Herman Cain have a position? What about Ross Perot?

  • Gregory

    Ron Paul Issues Statement on Obama Contraception Decision

    “I am the only GOP presidential candidate who has consistently opposed the federal promotion, funding, and mandating of contraception and abortion”
    LAKE JACKSON, Texas– Congressman and 2012 Republican Presidential candidate Ron Paul issued the following statement regarding the Obama Administration’s announcement that religious organizations must pay for contraception and sterilization under the national health care law:

    “Forcing private religious institutions to pay for contraception and sterilization as part of their health care plans is a direct assault on the First Amendment’s guarantee of religious liberty. On my first day as President, I will reverse this policy. Repealing the unconstitutional monstrosity known as ObamaCare is a major part of my Plan to Restore America.

    “I am the only GOP presidential candidate who has consistently opposed the federal promotion, funding, and mandating of contraception and abortion. Unlike Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum, I never voted to provide taxpayer funding to Planned Parenthood. And unlike Mitt Romney, whose Massachusetts health care plan contained a contraceptive mandate similar to the one contained in ObamaCare, I have never supported any government health care mandates.

    “When one compares my record with that of my opponents, it is clear that I am the only choice for Americans seeking a candidate they can trust to reverse the Obama administration’s assault on their religious and other liberties.”

    This is the most recent statement in a series of comments issued by Paul regarding this move by the Obama Administration. You can find the August 4th statement here, and find the October 3rd statement here, and the statement applauding Becket Fund’s defense of Belmont Abbey College here.

  • Wryman

    So these restrictions are already in place in NY, California and Oregon????
    Aren’t there Catholic bishops there? Did they defy this? I don’t recall reading that any of them were hauled away in chains, or that institutions were closed.
    But here’s what I keep wondering: Do these Catholic hospitals PROVIDE contraceptives (and other immoral procedures) to their patients? If not, how do they get away with that in these aggressively secular states? and what would be the difference, morally, between giving someone else a contraceptive and providing contraceptive health insurance coverage? Not throwing rocks, I’m just wondering.

    • R.C.

      Wryman:

      To reiterate something I just said in reply to Dave G. (who asked a very similar question):

      The deal is that in those particular states, the bishops have been cowardly or disobedient in not leading Catholics to chain themselves to the state-house gates in protest over the existing violations of conscience. (To say nothing of suing in Federal court over those violations of Constitutional free exercise of religion.)

      They haven’t been firm about it because they could always argue that such a forceful reaction wasn’t, y’know, reeeealy needed because Catholic institutions, if they happened to feel as a matter of conscience that they couldn’t provide contraceptives, could always offer employees access to alternative insurance through a secular provider which meant it wasn’t really them providing the contraceptives, et cetera, et cetera, et alia, ad infinitum, ad nauseam.

      In short: They were willing to skate around the edges of their state-level mandate, at some inconvenience/cost to their own organizations, in order to avoid a fight about the issue.

      The national mandate, however, is different in that it was suddenly and bluntly declared in a high-handed way. It is also different in that the fines for obeying one’s conscience are exorbitant. (I believe the projected $10 million annual fine on Notre Dame has already been cited.) And it’s different because, being national, it hits not only the bishops in blue states who tend to lean left and be somewhat wobbly about the Church’s teachings on contraception, but also the other bishops in red states, who tend to be more steely-spined about that sort of thing.

      As a consequence, the momentum is suddenly on the side of those opposing the Administration, and the wobblier bishops are belatedly looking around and saying, “Well, if a whole crowd of my fellow bishops are actually going to have my back on this, I suppose I can muster the intestinal fortitude to say something, myself.”

      But if this had been done in a more gradual and well-oiled way, it would have been the obedient and liberty-minded bishops who would now be isolated, because its implementation would have been eased in like a gradually rising tide.

      It’s something for us to contemplate, really. Y’know that old saying that for evil to win, all that is required is for good people to stay silent and do nothing? Consider this: Sometimes the difference between Catholics (and Christians in general) speaking out and acting, and them staying silent and doing nothing, is how cleverly and gradually the evil is insinuated into and around them.

      The devil is like a roaring lion, seeking to devour…but man, oh, man, does his P.R. machine make him look cuddly. We are currently all in a tizzy for one reason alone: Tin-eared Obama and his epistemically-closed bubble of lefties couldn’t fathom how outrageous this move would seem. The P.R. machine, for a change, broke down.

      But they’ll have it repaired in a few days.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X