“Cardinal Hosts Obama Despite Archdiocese’s Lawsuit, Obama’s Abortion Stance,” CNS News:
President Barack Obama, who is moving ahead with a regulation that forces observant American Catholics to act against their consciences and the teachings of their faith, will be one of the keynote speakers at an Oct. 18 white-tie fundraiser hosted by Cardinal Timothy Dolan, the archbishop of New York and president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.
[…]
Mitt Romney, who as governor of Massachusetts determined that Catholic hospitals in that state would be required to distribute Plan B abortion pills to rape victims, will join Obama as a keynote speaker at the white-tie dinner.
[…]
Obama is outspokenly and unambiguously pro-abortion. He is also the only sitting president in U.S. history to expressly support same-sex marriage.
In Illinois in 2001, Obama was the only state senator to speak on the senate floor against legislation that would have simply said a born baby is a “person,” a “human being,” a “child,” and an “individual” and thus entitled under the 14th Amendment to equal protection of the law.
In June, under Cardinal Dolan’s leadership, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops unanimously approved a statement condemning a regulation issued under the Obamacare law by Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius that requires virtually all health-care plans in the United States to cover, without cost-sharing, sterilizations, artificial contraception and abortion-inducing drugs.
The unanimous statement cited the bishops’ “vigorous opposition to this unjust and illegal mandate.” It pointed out that the regulation not only failed to exempt Catholic institutions such as hospitals, charities and universities, but also attacked the free exercise of religion of individual Catholic laypersons.
The bishops unanimously called the regulation a “violation of personal civil rights.”
[…]
On May 21, Cardinal Dolan’s Archdiocese of New York sued HHS Secretary Sebelius, Labor Secretary Hilda Solis and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner arguing the regulation violated the archdiocese’s First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion.
The lawsuit said the Obama administration was attempting to use a federal regulation to make Catholics act against their faith and was specifically designed to discriminate against the religious institutions, such as Catholic institutions, that oppose both abortion and contraception. The Archdiocese of New York’s lawsuit also suggested President Obama himself had been duplicitous.
“The legislative history of the Act [Obamacre] also demonstrates a clear congressional intent to prohibit the executive branch from requiring group health plans to provide abortion-related services,” the lawsuit said. “For example, the House of Representatives originally passed a bill that included an amendment by Congressman Bart Stupak prohibiting the use of federal funds for abortion services. The Senate version, however, lacked that restriction. To avoid a filibuster in the Senate, congressional proponents of the Act engaged in a procedure known as ‘budget reconciliation’ that required the House to adopt the Senate version of the bill largely in its entirety. Congressman Stupak and other pro-life House members, however, indicated that they would refuse to vote for the Senate version because it failed adequately to prohibit federal funding of abortion. In an attempt to address these concerns, President Obama issued an executive order providing that no executive agency would authorize the federal funding of abortion services.”
“The Act was, therefore, passed on the central premise that all agencies would uphold and follow ‘longstanding Federal laws to protect conscience’ and to prohibit federal funding of abortion,” said the archdiocese’s lawsuit. “That executive order was consistent with a 2009 speech that President Obama gave at the University of Notre Dame, in which he indicated that his Administration would honor the consciences of those who disagree with abortion, and draft sensible conscience clauses.”
Nonetheless, the New York Archdiocese’s lawsuit alleges, the Obama administration swiftly turned around and violated the assurance Obama had given Rep. Stupak to get Obamacare passed. It did so by forcing all health-plans—including those that would be bought or provided by Catholics—to cover abortion-inducing drugs.
“In less than two years, Defendants promulgated the U.S. Government Mandate, subverting the Act’s clear purpose to protect the rights of conscience,” said the lawsuit.
— Well, it may be a clear purpose to you. But we’ll have to wait and see what John Roberts sees when he looks through his magical, severely conservative / federalist X-Ray specs.
But I digress.
In stump speeches this summer, President Obama has repeatedly defended and boasted about this HHS regulation that the archdiocese of New York is arguing in federal court was designed with the “purpose” of discriminating against “organizations that oppose abortion and contraception.”
CNSNew.com contacted the the Archdiocese of New York on Monday and Tuesday to ask about the reported invitation to President Obama to keynote the Al Smith dinner, but did not get a response.
Late Tuesday, however, the New York Times posted an article with an explanation from the archdiocese on the invitation to Obama.
“It is the tradition of the Smith dinner to invite the presidential candidates in the presidential election years in the spirit of nonpartisanship, good humor and good fellowship,” archdiocese spokesman Joseph Zwilling told the Times.
In 2004, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops issued a statement on “Catholics in Political Life.” It said: “The Catholic community and Catholic institutions should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles. They should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions.”
It seems odd that an agnostic like me would have to make this clear to the Catholic Church, but I very much doubt that the idea of Christian charity and turning the other cheek was meant to be read as a willingness to tolerate and even embrace what to your faith is, in fact, the Devil — no matter that such a toleration is in keeping with the politically-charged false piety of “nonpartisanship, good humor and good fellowship.”
Because when you do, you invariably get some of that Beast stink all up in the fibers of your robe, and all over your sweet giant hat.
It’s not really a surprise that Cardinal Dolan is fundamentally unserious about protecting his flock and his belief, but then the Church has had a difficulty being serious my whole life. Sure the “You’ll realize we’re right” attitude has destroyed the Episcopal Church, but I’m sure we’ll love all keep loving all that Catholic money in perpetuity.
The truly awkward part being that, as a good Catholic, I’ll keep showing up on Sunday, but I don’t exactly have to put any money in the collection basket.
turning the other cheek
That practice has several purposes: non-escalation, keeping one’s hands clean, and showing with all clarity who is the malicious aggressor and who is not.
The drive-thru attendant at Chick-fil-A kept her cool and reacted graciously to the jagoff who felt so cock-sure about his moral obligation to heap insults upon her. Had she responded in kind, it would have been Yet Another Flame War. Instead, her refusal to be insulted made the jagoff back off and try to insist that he wasn’t really a jagoff. He saw himself in the mirror that she provided, just as the surface of calm water always does.
[it is not] a willingness to tolerate and even embrace what to your faith is, in fact, the Devil
Definitely not. You can’t serve God without offending the Devil, though all too many people think they can straddle that gulf without falling in. Like beltway Republicans who want to keep both their conservative creds AND the approval of their lefty peers, eventually something’s gotta give, and it usually ain’t the peer approval.
Shameful. And Dolan isn’t stupid–he has to know how the Dems are going to use this. So, what was your gripe again, Your Eminence?
Seems to be not all that serious, given your willingness to yuk it up with him during the campaign season. Not very St. John Fisher-ish.
You have to think about this in terms of Ministry, not politics.
That said, yeah, the politics suck.
If Dolan had refused to see Obama, would that have moved anyone an inch on the issue?
Gooby, plz.
The easy–as well as smart, and genuinely pastoral–thing is to cancel the dinner, or just break the hallowed “tradition” of inviting presidential candidates. Neither one of them is up to snuff in the religious freedom category, after all.
And as much as I enjoy your posts, Ernst, I really don’t see what kind of ministry opportunity the Smith Dinner is. Unless Dolan is going to break out the cluebat and swing it like a cricketer on PCP.
In which case, I’ll withdraw my objection.
I wonder who will kiss whose ring?
Certain Republicans make life difficult for conservatives.
http://bit.ly/Nobvsw
Defending Romney and combatting the ad, Romney spokesman Andrea Saul . . . let’s go to the quotes
“To that point, if people had been in Massachusetts, under Governor Romney’s health care plan, they would have had health care,” Andrea Saul, Romney’s campaign press secretary, said during an appearance on Fox News.
Where is my Etch-a-Sketch?
The Catholic Church doesn’t quote it a lot, but they have a bit of a thing about that whole “render unto Caesar” business.
Plus, as an institution the Church has a different sense of time. Politicians think in terms of whatever amount of time there is until the next election. The Church prefers to think in terms of centuries — but only if it feels hurried.
Thus the operative question is, is Dolan a representative of the Church, or is he a politician?
“Thus the operative question is, is Dolan a representative of the Church, or is he a politician?”
Are these, or in some sense, must these, be mutually exclusive? I make no claim to know, and merely ask to learn.
That’s a fair point, McGehee, and one of the things I appreciate about the Church–taking the long view.
But…there’s also the concept of “giving scandal.” Which, after the “Fortnight For Freedom” campaign of last month is a real problem. I attended one of anti-mandate rallies with my wife and the squad, and scandal is definitely being given by this “business as usual” decision.
– I concure with McGehee.The church didn’t get through WWII by frontal attacks on the Axis.
– Its two different temporal attitudes, both sides with politics aplenty.
If he’s a representative of his Church, how he plays politics will be informed accordingly.
Pope John Paul II had no divisions at all, but Stalin’s empire crumbled.
Arguments vary, Sdferr, but in my view, you don’t give up your religious principles for political correctness. Remember, this is over moral issues like abortion and same sex marriage and buying others contraceptives, and not so much things you can politically differ over, like how much taxes you should pay or if a road should be built.
But the Bishops have spent a long time not living up to that view, urging everyone to do the moral thing like “buy green lightbulbs,” so everyone gets to be confused. And with this dinner remain confused. And of course, the Church has taken the extremely lazy view of willingly outsourcing charity to government, so…
Amazing Dolan reference, Crawford.
As I said, I don’t know about these things. Notwithstanding my ignorance, I nevertheless imagine that the Catholic Church, if not simply on account of its name (and claim thereby) — kata holos — then on account of its great age and experience, would have a well developed doctrine regarding these matters and relations, and would teach that doctrine to its leadership — is what I was wondering about.
– Its a smart rabbit that runs to fight another day. Besides, I’ve never been convinced God punishes simply because you can’t save all the heathens that choose a souless hedonistic life.
– I would guess that most convert on their own steam through some sort of external intervention rather than the efforts of the Papal veil.
– Piety is found in the heart and in the trying, not judged by the failures or success.
The Church gets along and goes along.
BBH’s point is accurate. When shit got wiggy, the Church–with a few dozen highly notable and brilliant exceptions–kept their heads down.
Like Libertarians and the GOP, the smaller and more intellectually focused group holds its breath and keeps the lines of communication open.
– Sometimes its dowright amazing what you retain from Sunday school and Catachism classes that comes back to you in your dodage.
Baltimore Catechism, BBH? You bet you’ll remember that because Sister would give your knuckles a rap if you didn’t.
I feel filthy for making it.
At its height, our Baltimore catechism was generally pitching, defense and the three run homer. Small ball could take a hike.
Heh.
Stanley Kurtz: Obama’s Welfare Free Lunch: 1996
So, the church is either stupid enough to extend “nonpartisanship, good humor and good fellowship” to a political zealot who stabbed them once and will continue to do so, or its corrupt enough that it makes high-profile announcements and lawsuits in public, while cozying up with its so-called oppressors in private.
I suppose it could be a trap, and they’ll lock Obama in a dungeon until they’ve driven Lucifer out of him, but I’m not holding my breath.
“….I suppose it could be a trap…”
– The Wonce seems to have that talent all by himself.
“Pope John Paul II had no divisions at all, but Stalin’s empire crumbled.”
I don’t know–this sort of political canoodling seems more like Paul VI’s Ostpolitik than JPII’s approach.
I know next to nothing about Dolan, so my question about him wasn’t entirely rhetorical. I am fairly certain Pope Benedict XVI isn’t as engaged in temporal politics as his predecessor.
Prrhaps Dolan is lacking guidance from Rome, which would render him more politician than the hand and voice of an attentive Church.
Did John Paul II give political cover to the leaders of Stalin’s empire by inviting them to public dinners?
I don’t know – but it seems that an awful lot of folks are trying to rationalize what looks like an obvious lack of principle.
One thing I do know about Dolan: he is not the Pope.
The Al Smith Dinner benefits Catholic Charities so the invites are not so much about Romney or Obama as they are about filling seats and maximizing donations.
I’ll be satisfied if he gets heartily booed.
I’d rather they just talked among themselves. Got up to go out and have a smoke. Texted and talked on their phones and were generally disrespectful. Treat the Wonce like he treats us.
Yes, I know why they’re doing it, BT. I’m questioning the wisdom of making such compromises.
Dolan is in full but muted rebellion against Rome. He isn’t happy knowing he has reached his personal ceiling; that he’ll never be the Pope. Perhaps he has a breakaway dance planned? Since obviously Rome is so old and out of touch with modern thinking and values. Like that Constitution thinger some people want to cling to, you know.
I don’t see it as a compromise. Lawyers still are lawyering. I see it as tending the flock. Obama’s come and go, Catholic Charities and the Church have been around forever.
Maybe Cardinal Dolan is going to give Obama a shellacking for lying to him about a religious exemption? That would be epic and drive the new cycle for days.
The question is: how long would the Catholic church and charities be around if Obama had his way?
The Romans tried to wipe out the Church. They ended up Establishing it instead.
Obamas come and go. The Church is eternal.
Before Ms. Flucke declared there was a war on the women because of no free contraception mandates in all healthcare plans the church was sidling up to the left on far too many issues and nearly remaining silent on others that were supposedly of paramount moral importance to it. It would be nice to see an end to that pattern before I mount my horse and take part in yet another semi-doomed political cavalry charge.
I do see it as a compromise. So we disagree.
It could depend on events. That is, it remains possible there’s a dressing down in store, in which case, whoops, so much for teh vaunting civilitas.
The 2 Catholic liberals I know basically think the Church’s rules on social behavior are stupid and just disregard them. One of them actually worked a Planned Parenthood. Quote from a couple of years ago “The Pope is wrong on abortion”. As I’m not Catholic, I didn’t know whether you could just disregard the Pope’s opinion but they both do. Explain that one.
You pretty much can’t just disregard the Pope’s opinion if you’re a Catholic. He has a much bigger ruler to rap your knuckles with.
Matt, the Catholic Liberals you speak of are CINOs, to put it nicely.
According to Sullivan you can be a gay-married devout Catholic. And I’m a Rastfarian.
Spliff.
As I’m not Catholic, I didn’t know whether you could just disregard the Pope’s opinion but they both do. Explain that one.
The problem is you’re dealing with two victims of educational negligence, i.e., “glitterchesis.” So called because so much of Catholic parish education for youths involved banal art projects–my wife remembers glitter being a big part of it.
What they understand is the sum total of Catholicism is that God is love (and maybe that glitter is sticky). God really doesn’t worry about much–He’s kind of an amiable, endlessly affirming Grandpa in the sky. Think Michael Caine in “The Cider House Rules,” only with a fluffy white beard. For them, faith is purely a matter of subjective opinion, and one opinion is as good as another. Unless that “opinion” is held by the Pope, in which case it is clearly inferior to that of the Glitter Catholic.
The thing is, the Pope isn’t offering his “opinion,” he’s stating the millenia-old teaching of Church which he isn’t free to change to make PP employees feel more comfortable with their nasty business.
They wouldn’t know genuine Catholic teaching if it bit them on the ass. However, taught by the zeitgeist and a vacuum of genuine teaching, they value their pelvic recreation very highly. That, and being “nice,” is sufficient. Which is tragic, since in many cases their ignorance is not culpable, and they probably are nice people–leaving aside the rinsing off of blood at PP, of course.
The educational situation is getting better–for $8 you can get a paperback catechism, after all. And genuine teaching is percolating out there. But there’s two lost generations, wandering, smug, and covered with glitter.
There are accessible teaching alternatives though, still. Or newly still, in this case, since this case doesn’t have to take up the physical space and mass of the full books.
“But there’s two lost generations, wandering, smug, and covered with glitter.”
Dale, you may very well be describing a vast majority of those educated the past decade or two – secular and Catholic both.