Translate

Friday, March 9, 2012

(UPDATED) MR. PRESIDENT, THIS ISN'T ABOUT BEING CATHOLIC; IT ISN'T ABOUT BIRTH CONTROL; IT'S ABOUT BEING AMERICAN!

CATHOLICS, BE AMERICANS, FLY YOUR FLAG AND GET OUT AND VOTE!

MY COMMENTS:
As Catholic Americans where are we with President Obama’s mandate that our Church’s self-insurance policies provide artificial birth control, sterilization and abortificiants to those who work for our Catholic institutions? We remain outraged and sickened by the President and his dissident Catholic Health and Human Services director Kathleen Sebelius (whose bishop has forbidden her to receive Holy Communion) who are trying every political trick possible to divide and conquer the Catholic Church by poisoning Catholics in general and Catholic women in particular against the Catholic bishops and our Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI.

In fact they are liars when they say the Catholic bishops are opposed to Women’s rights to “preventative health care.” No, the Catholic Church is opposed to government interfering with the practice of the Catholic Church and government, namely the President, trying to divide the Catholic Church for political gain against her bishops who are called to “teach, rule and sanctify" the Church.

Finally, as Catholic Americans where are we with President Obama’s mandate that our Church’s self-insurance policies provide artificial birth control, sterilization and abortificiants to those who work for our Catholic institutions? We remain outraged and sickened by the President and his dissident Catholic Health and Human Services director Kathleen Sebelius (whose bishop has forbidden her to receive Holy Communion) who are trying every political trick possible to divide and conquer the Catholic Church by poisoning Catholics in general and Catholic women in particular against the Catholic bishops and our Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI. In fact they are liars when they say the Catholic bishops are opposed to Women’s rights to “preventative health care.” No, the Catholic Church is opposed to government interfering with the practice of the Catholic Church and government, namely the President, trying to divide the Catholic Church for political gain against her bishops who are called to “teach, rule and sanctify the Church.

President Obama has used the “smoke and mirrors” of Ms. Sandra Fluke to make this a women’s rights issue in the political arena. While I wouldn’t call Fluke the names Rush Limbaugh did, I think we can call her a political far left shrill for President Obama. She attends a Catholic University, Georgetown, and laments that her student health insurance policy provided by Georgetown doesn’t pay for birth control if she or others have a need for it. This is also about denigrating the Catholic Church and making us look like we are against women’s services. If Fluke or others are using birth control in order to fornicate, which Georgetown as a Catholic University teaches is immoral, sinful and makes those who do it liable to be judged by God, then we can call them sinners against divine law and revealed truth. That’s the issue for us as Catholics isn’t it?

She uses extreme examples about the cost of birth control and she lies about why a Catholic University isn’t providing the means by which a person would break natural law (divine law) without the fear of the natural consequences of sex, the pro-creation of a child! She is asking religious employers to provide pork to their employees and free of charge, but in this case the pork is the “pill” which is as seriously immoral to make Catholics provide as it is for Jews and Muslims to be mandated to provide free pork to their employees.

Catholics are opposed to President Obama and his government’s interference into the Catholic Church, not because we are Catholics, but because we are Americans. I hope all Americans will join us in opposing him on Election Day!

From her very own leftist mouth:

The view from the right on this leftist's agenda and subverting the truth:

18 comments:

Brigid Rauch said...

If you had read Ms. Fluke's actual testimony, http://www.buzzfeed.com/boxofficebuz/transcript-of-testimony-by-sandra-fluke-48z2, you would have discovered that she testified about other women, not herself, attempting to purchase birth control. She mentioned a married couple using contraception, something some would consider wrong but hardly what most people think of as fornication. The other women she mentioned were prescribed birth control tablets for legitimate medical reasons.
The cost mentioned is substantially higher than the $20/month you suggest. The sly reference to Starbucks, implying that the women involved have money to spend on frivolous items, was just plain nasty.
You may have made those who agree with you nod their heads approvingly, but any person with an open mind will come away thinking that you have exaggerated any threat to the Church in an effort to discredit Obama. How does one preach the Truth with lies?

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

Brigid, most Catholic insurance policies, in fact the one that our school uses, allows for birth control pills for non birth control needs! The teacher at our school simply has to have her doctor certify for our insurance company the reason why the "pill" is prescribed, which in that case would be medicine for a particular illness, not medication to prevent the "disease" of a child. Fluke used her Catholic university's insurance policy as a diatribe against the Catholic Church for political reasons.
The issue isn't birth control or the Church being agaisnt weomen's health, it is about President Obama forcing our self-insurance programs to provide birth control as a medication to prevent the disease of the child, pure and simple. Dissident Catholics are hardly in a place to be prophetic to President Obama and his shrills in his administration and in the left wing of the Democrat party. Going against natural law which is always seriously or gravely wrong, knowing that it is gravely wrong and doing it with full consent of the will is a mortal sin and punishable at the time of our judgement if we are impenitent with the fires of hell. That's the Church's teaching and what the Church must proclaim and without government interference of forcing the Catholic Church through our self-insurance policies to provide "pork" to those who want it when the "pork" in this instance is the pill for birth control! If you say she isn't the one using the pill and spending so much money on it and that she is as chaste as the new driven snow, then I would apologize, but I think you are being disingenuous about this as you may well be a Catholic dissenter and thus unable to stand up to the cultural forces opposed to natural law, a product of Divine Law.

Carol H. said...

Brigid,

Before you call a Holy Priest a liar, maybe you need to reexamine your "facts".

What was Ms. Fluke doing there in the first place? Did she think that anyone off the street can just drive to DC and testify as an expert without credentials? As a law student she should have known better.

It seems pretty obvious to me that she found a platform to use to springboard her future legal career. The liberal media has embraced her because she is a poster-child for their leftist agenda. I guarantee that she would not have been treated so kindly if she were a housewife standing up for the Church and her teachings.

Also, women can get birth control for free if they know where to go. If they don't, they just need to ask their doctors where to go.

It is wrong to force a Church to pay for something that it has stood against for 2000 years. President Obama told Bishop Dolan last year that the Church would be exempt from this. President Obama is the one who lied, NOT Fr. McDonald!

William Meyer said...

One of the many damages done to our society by the lawyers is the perversion of meaning applied to the word "fact".

To most of us, fact means something known to be true; to a lawyer, it may refer to an (unproved) allegation.

Even worse, many commentators and even news readers (I won't call them journalists--few of these actually exist today) use the term to refer to nothing more meaningful than statements heard. Note that this may include gossip, wild-eyed guesses, and whatnot.

Finally, since it is very difficult to find in our society anyone whose primary education included any study of logic and reason, the word is--perhaps most often--used to refer to things which are mere opinions.

Gene said...

Well, Fr. has forbidden me to use the words "moron," "idiot," "tramp,"
"slut," or "bimbo" on the BLOG, so I cannot respond here...sorry.

Sherlock Holmes said...

I believe that Brigid Rauch is our old friend/troll, Pater Ignotus, a.k.a...............

Sherlock Holmes said...

I believe Brigid Rauch is our old friend/troll, Pater Ignotus, a.k.a..........

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

I know for a fact that Brigid is not PI as she comments on other blogs.

Anonymous said...

Rauch? Perhaps it is the Smoke itself that is offended.

rcg

Brigid Rauch said...

If I may - the post I responded to seemed to imply that Ms. Fluke was a fornicator who wanted Georgetown to pay for her birth control even though she had plenty of money to pay for this on her own. I replied by selecting examples of the actual testimony.
In response, others have accused Ms. Fluke of having ulterior motives and have applied names Father did not use, and have accused me of being a troll! Father, even though your employee received the medication for licit purposes, Ms. Fluke testified about someone unable to do so! At the very least, there is a problem there.

And yes, I am a Catholic dissident; emphasis on "Catholic". Those who do not love the Church just walk away. AS someone who loves the Church, I try to change her course while keeping charity in mind. I don't always succeed in restraining my sarcasm. But I would remind all here that Jesus Himself always spoke with respect and kindness, except when addressing religious authorities!

Sherlock Holmes said...

I stand corrected. Even the greatest fictional sleuth or PI (private investigator not you know who) doesn't always get it right. I had thought it so elementary, since the tone of the reply sounded familiar. Mea culpa, my dear Father!

Hammer of Fascists said...

Ummm, Brigid: Regarding birth control costs, two words--Planned Parenthood. In some cases they'll even provide it free, as Carol H mentioned. This $3000 a year cost that Ms. Fluke suggested is the false statement.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

Brigid, I would say two things, why in the world is the Obama administration telling Catholic employers to provide a specific coverage the Catholic Church deems immoral? We're not talking about extreme situations here, we talking about birth control for what it is intended to do, we talking about sterilization and we're talking about abortificiants.
If our government considers this so critical (although many insurers have not and do not,religious or otherwise)then why in the world doesn't the government then provide these offensive "medications" directly itself in a budgeted item and then all a woman has to do is provide the doctor's prescription to any drugstore in America and receive it free. Why is Obama hellbent on making the Church provide this? That's the question!

In terms of your reason to dissent, your mantra is quite old and tiresome. You will have to quote me where in the New Testament, Jesus treated his apostles in the manner you suggest he treated Jewish religious authorities. Where does Jesus say this about Saint Peter or Judas? These are His leaders and the foundation of His subsequent religious leaders that He Himself will call but through the Holy Spirit.
Are you speaking of dissenting from the Pope when he writes an encyclical highlight the Divine Truth of natural law? Are you dissenting from his prophetic role as the Bishop of Rome? Are you dissenting again from natural law when bishops uphold that marriage is between one woman and one man and that sex is appropriately experienced in marriage as the marriage act and has two natures, unitive and procreative?
I don't want to attribute anything to you that you in fact are not dissenting from, but if you are, you are far from what Jesus was criticizing in Jewish religious authorities of his day. He was criticizing their hypocrisy in not following what the truth they taught. Jesus criticizes Peter for his ignorance of who Jesus is and the nature of Jesus' death. Judas is criticized for betraying Jesus. And those who harm of child (abortion amongst the worse) of it being better to have a millstone around their neck and plunged into the sea.

Gene said...

Ho hum. Another angry woman with a Daddy complex seeking an antagonist. Dissenters do not stay in the Churhc because they love it. They stay in because it is all about them...me, me, me. "Trying to change her course while keeping charity in mind...." How magnanimous. You know what, if you love the Church so much, by all means leave. And, don't let the Thurible hit you in the tail on the way out.

Anonymous said...

I have been following the discussion here with great interest, and with great concern. I am following it with great interest because I am learning more about the authentic teaching of our Church. I am also learning more about the complexities faced by both the Bishops and the Obama Administration in trying to reach an outcome that will be acceptable to different parties who begin from very different fundamental premises. I am deliberately avoiding the word compromise because the Church cannot compromise on matters of absolute moral truth or on the vital importance of her free exercise of religion under the First Amendment. But is there a way for the Obama Administration, and the Bishops, to practice politics as “the art of the possible” while honoring our Catholic freedom of conscience given that the Single Payer option for universal health care apparently proved to be impossible? I certainly hope so because a “war” between the Bishops and the Administration will help neither the Church nor the Republic.
I follow the discussion with great concern, then, because I am detecting clear indications of the incivility that has afflicted so much of our political conversation and that now seems to be afflicting our own religious conversation as well. Is it really necessary for us to converse in a manner that disrespects, derides, and even demonizes the other even if we disagree strongly? I am not cynical enough to believe that the divisions and accompanying rhetorical excesses within the Body of Christ are intended by the Administration. But if I did believe that, why would I want to play along? I do understand that passionate convictions may sometimes result in heated rhetoric but I also believe that, in general, civility is an important virtue. Of course, Jesus knew not only how to be civil, but also when, how, and to whom to be uncivil. Let us pray for the wisdom and discernment to be able to make the necessary distinctions ourselves.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

Thanks for your thoughtful insights!

Gene said...

Incivility? LOL! What a presumptuous prig you must be. You know, I always get a kick out of you people who want to chide those of us who are outraged and angry at the attacks on the Church from within and without and who choose to include ridicule, wit, and innuendo in our counter-attacks.

Did you ever consider how "uncivil" it is for the so-called dissidents within the Church to obtrude themselves into every conversation and to openly attack the Pope, Priests, the faithful, and the Magisterium?

And, how uncivil is it for some malignant hysteric to come on a Blog that is obviously given over primarily to the discussion of traditional Catholic spirituality and the TLM and offer to "guide the Church" while suggesting that Jesus was some anti-authoritarian hippie?

How uncivil is it for some modernist demi-priest to come on here attacking Fr. with snide innuendo and snotty remarks? Please. We have been civil far too long. So, why don't you get upset at the real incivilities instead of whining about a bit of outspoken disgust? I'll bet you liked Neville Chamberlain a lot, didn't you?

Anonymous said...

It appears based on the squealing from the Government and its hidden supporters in this matter, the Church and Her Faithful have hit a nerve and therefore the proper tactic. I am pleasantly surprise it is so simple: point out when someone is lying, cite the Constitution, admit that it is the Bishops who lead the Church and not a self appointed rabble. The next step is what several here have pointed out: the 'dissidents' are actually subversive operatives working inside our House to stab the Holy Mother Church in the back. They have perfectly fine alternatives that offer them EVERYTHING they want in Anglican, Methodist, and even Baptist Churches. Everything except a Bishop's head on a platter. Some of it could be traced to the sex scandal, it could be a misguided sense of justice. But at its heart is is simply hatred for the Church validated by anything that appeals to that kind of mind.

And it is becoming tiresome trying find, for them!, a logical reason, a mature motivation, for this open attack. It is now time for us to become passive aggressive. To simply tell them we will not comply and with no further discussion go about our business. They will use that as an excuse to become openly violent, although along a scale or echelon of violence that will start with 'civil' courts not coincidentally enforced by police. From there they will seize the wealth and estate of the Church so what they do in their final act cannot be seen except by the press that they, again not coincidentally, control.

War is not started with the first shot. It is started when they move their guns within range.

rcg