US Senate Denies Free Exercise of Religion, Tables the Blunt Amendment

By Deacon Keith Fournier
3/5/2012
Catholic Online (www.catholic.org)

In addition to the Right to Religious Freedom, what is also at risk is access to Catholic Health Care in the United States for those who need it the most

In the history of the United States of America, from the beginning, Catholic Hospitals existed to care for the sick. The Catholic Church is currently one of the very largest health care providers in the United States of America. If this Administration persists in its iron handed effort to compel the Church to bend the knee to a new Caesar, that service to the Nation is placed in jeopardy. It appears that the administration wants to remove the vital role of mediating institutions such as the Church in serving the Common Good of society through providing health care. One must now ask - Why?

Facebook Delicous MySpace

Twitter Stumble Digg

More Destinations

WASHINGTON, DC (Catholic Online) - Since January 20, 2012 when the unjust Edict issued by Kathleen Sebelius, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, was issued, Catholics have heard strongly worded and courageous letters read at Mass, written by the Catholic Bishops of the United States. Every single US Bishop has stood up to this injustice. We have been asked to rise up in prayer, fasting and concerted Catholic Action.We have only just begun our fight.

The mandate requires all employers, including Catholic and other religious employers, to provide sterilization, abortion inducing drugs and contraception in their health care plans, making them available for free. The alleged "exemption" for religious employers did not cover hospitals, universities, soup kitchens, outreaches to the poor and many other expressions of our Catholic faith and mission. The alleged compromise later offered was simply sophistry. It accomplished nothing, except perhaps pouring salt into the wound.

Catholics believe that the Gospel of Jesus Christ demands a response which goes beyond the walls of our Church buildings. We are our brother and sister's keeper. We do not reach out to people in need because they are Catholic. We reach out to people in need because we are Catholic.We will not retreat from the world because we are called into it by the God who still loves the world so much that he sends his Son.We believe that the Church is the Body of Christ, continuing every aspect of His redemtive mission until he returns.

The HHS Edict is a violation of the Free Exercise of Religion. That protection, enshrined in the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights, is based upon the Fundamental Human right to Religious Freedom secured by the Natural Law. The HHS Edict is an unjust law which must be opposed. The Federal Government of the United States is trying to force the Catholic Church to act against its deeply held religious convictions and to violate conscience.

Failure to comply with the HHS Edict will bring punitive measures upon the Church and her institutions in the form of onerous fines. They would have the practical result of closing many of the Church's outreaches, ministries and institutions of care and compassion. Certainly this not only injures the Church, it injures American society. What is at stake is the continued existence of many of the Catholic outreaches in the United States.

In his recent letter to the US Bishops, Cardinal Dolan wrote, "The regulations struck at the heart of our fundamental right to religious liberty, which affects our ability to serve those outside our faith community." He is absolutely correct.

Concerning the purported "accommodation" he wrote "On Friday, February 10, the Administration issued the final rules. By their very terms, the rules were reaffirmed "without change." The mandate to provide the illicit services remains. The exceedingly narrow exemption for churches remains. Despite the outcry, all the threats to religious liberty posed by the initial rules remain."

His summary of the threat to Religious Freedom reminded us, "Religious freedom is a fundamental right of all. This right does not depend on any government's decision to grant it: it is God-given, and just societies recognize and respect its free exercise. The free exercise of religion extends well beyond the freedom of worship. It also forbids government from forcing people or groups to violate their most deeply held religious convictions, and from interfering in the internal affairs of religious organizations."

"Recent actions by the Administration have attempted to reduce this free exercise to a "privilege" arbitrarily granted by the government as a mere exemption from an all-encompassing, extreme form of secularism. The exemption is too narrowly defined, because it does not exempt most non-profit religious employers, the religiously affiliated insurer, the self-insured employer, the for-profit religious employer, or other private businesses owned and operated by people who rightly object to paying for abortion inducing drugs, sterilization, and contraception. And because it is instituted only by executive whim, even this unduly narrow exemption can be taken away easily."

"In the United States, religious liberty does not depend on the benevolence of who is regulating us. It is our "first freedom" and respect for it must be broad and inclusive-not narrow and exclusive. Catholics and other people of faith and good will are not second class citizens. And it is not for the government to decide which of our ministries is "religious enough" to warrant religious freedom protection."

The Cardinal puts the real issue forward, "This is not just about contraception, abortion-causing drugs, and sterilization - although all should recognize the injustices involved in making them part of a universal ...

1 | 2 Next Page

Rate This Article

Was this helpful to you? Very Helpful Somewhat Helpful Not Helpful at All

Would you be interested in more articles like this? Yes, I am Interested No, I am not Interested

Rate Article

1 - 10 of 63 Comments

JoAnn
1 year ago
Rob: I don't believe anyone on this board was called a Communist, Marxist or a Socialist personally, or anything else for that matter. I believe the administration was called that. But what do you expect. If it talks like a duck and walks like a duck, it's a duck. How is that calling names? If you call someone a conservative, and they ARE a conservative, then it's true.. If you call someone a liberal and they ARE a liberal, then it's true. How come when you call a Marxist a Marxist, or a Communist, a Communist, that's calling them names. The truth is the truth. Name calling to me is calling someone stupid or nuts or rediculous, or more vicious words, etc. simply because they don't agree with you. Am I wrong about this? Enlighten me. What would you call someone that purposely attacks your Faith and has declared war on your Churh? What would you call someone that has nothing but disdain dripping from their mouth regarding Christianity? What would you call someone that has set the State Department on the Vatican insinuating that the Vatican is laudering money? I'm sorry my friend, but I see Europe in the 30's happening all over again. God bless.
vance
1 year ago
Rob, you, Jeff Caperton, Bulbajer, mgm, Everrett and others have well articulated who you guys are and what you represent. I've said all along that this is fine, OK. You guys keep we the faithful on our toes and that's a good thing. Yes, your Dear Leader, Barry Soetoro, is a Saul Alinskyite Communist. We all know that Alinsky dedicated his book, "Rules For Radicals" to Lucifer because he is the ultimate Radical. And yes, your Dear Leader, Barry Soetoro, is dismantling this country before our very eyes. His attack on the Catholic Church is in line with his Marxist predecessors in Cuba, Venezuela, China, Vietnam, and Mexico 1920-1940. The "Ball" is now on the Laps of the Bishops. They were ordered by Barry Soetoro to comply with HHS rules or suffer the consequences. Will the Bishops comply to the dictates of Commissar Sebelius?? We will see what happens. We the faithful do not want your Marxism.
Rob
1 year ago
Not calling names? Maybe not directly, but you can't mistake the passive aggressive natureof all these posts. If you tow the line on the conservative ideology = good. If you disagree in any manner you are a communist, marxist trying to overthrow the government. Not sure how you are narrowly defining talking down to someone, but it's pretty apparent on this board.
JoAnn
1 year ago
Vance: Thanks. Jeffrey must have gotten this board confused with one of the liberal sites.. I have not, at any time, seen anyone on this board call anyone any names. Have you? That's a liberal trait. I have seen "war monger" a couple of times, but I believe, that came from the Ron Paul suppoorters. Even the liberals that are here regularly haven't even called anyone any names.. We've had some "intense fellowship" but it's been respectful. Thanks for having my back. I've got yours also, but you seem to hold your own very well. God bless.
Vance
1 year ago
Jeffrey Caperton, I haven't been ignoring you. I'm just enjoying JoAnn's responses to your posts.
vance
1 year ago
I hope Santorum sticks to a simple message - Freedom and Overturn Obamacare. The Marxist Media Complex is pulling out all the stops to keep him on the phoney issue of Birth Control. Santorum should keep the focus on Obama and the Marxist Democrat Party's trampling on the 1st Amendment. Romney is out their with millions of dollars smearing Santorum and Gingrich but yet he is only getting 37% of the vote. Obama and the Communist Democrat Party are salivating over a Romney nomination because they have another loser McCain and a Bob Dole. Do you ever notice that Ron Paul beats his con artist drum that he is mister Constitution, yet he never has anything to say about Obamacare?? His mantra is get out of Afghanistan and legalize vise but that's it. What a fraud.
JoAnn
1 year ago
Jeffrey Caperton: You are way off base, my friend. What christian did I call an atheist or communist. I did not and never have called anyone on this board either one. Are you sure you are reading MY posts? What's the matter, did I hit a nerve? I believe, what I said that started this whole conversation is that we have a choice. Are we going to live in communisim or are we going to fight to save the Republic. And, if you have been reading the articles, especially the one about the persecution of the Church, it seems to me that I have been right on all along. God bless.
Jeffrey Caperton
1 year ago
Pete Brady, you are right. The Bill of Rights were amended to the U.S. Constitution as a means to "PREVENT the 50% plus 1 from 'ruling' over the 50% minus one". However, the constitution also set up elections of representatives who enact laws and the president, also elected, who approves and enforces laws, so, as long as the law passes constitutional muster, "50% plus 1" can pretty much run roughshod over the "50% minus one" when it comes to legislative and economic priorities. And, since McCulloch v. Maryland ("Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consist with the letter and spirit of the constitution, are constitutional."), it has been, I should not say simple, but reasonably efficacious, to cite the "necessary and proper" clause to defend enacted federal law (It is not so efficacious for the states). You and I can disagree with government, pray or call each other expletives and Congress cannot tell us we cannot. Other than that,the "majority rules". I agree with you that we need to evaluate at a very fundamental level the purpose of law and the purpose of government, and perhaps, even more useful, come up with a definition of liberty that is more than simply doing what we bloody well please, but, in the end, who do you think will decide what is the purpose of law or government? 50% plus 1.
Jeffrey Caperton
1 year ago
Forgive me JoAnn, but that has very little to do with communism. The closest word I can find that fits your definition is totalitarianism and that can originate from the left or the right. There are a number of long and short definitions of communism, but Wikipedia has a reasonably concise definition as "a hypothetical stage of historical development posited as classless, moneyless, stateless social order structured upon common ownership of the means of production, as well as a social, political and economic ideology that aims at the establishment of this social order", making communism, at best, an extremely flawed working economic hypothesis. Regardless of the definition, the problem I have with the word is that communism is often associated with atheism (Marx's ideas of religion was that it is nothing more than a means to make the masses more docile in order to facilitate economic exploitation). While I think name-calling is childish at best, if we insist upon engaging in name-calling (Which it seems that Americans, Christian or otherwise, are determined to continue), we should first know what we are calling people and, second, consider whether or not it is fair (I do not mention "kind" because name-calling is, by definition, unkind), and suggesting to a Christian that he or she is an atheist merely because he or she does not share your partisan political views is, in my estimation, a very serious charge. Perhaps we should choose our words more carefully.
Pete Brady
1 year ago
@ Jeffrey Caperton: Our Constitution was constructed to PREVENT the 50% plus 1 from "ruling" over the 50% minus one. We must ask ourselves "what is the purpose of law; what is the purpose of government?" It is not what we have become all to accustomed to thinking it should do. It is not about preventing, improving, or protecting us from ourselves. An honest evaluation of much that is given as "law" can be recognized as simply someone else's desire to RULE over others. Frederic Bastiat described it well. "This must be said: There are too many "great" men in the world - legislators, leaders of the people, fathers of nations, and so on, and so on. Too many persons place themselves above mankind; they make a career of organizing it, patronizing it, and ruling it. ...//... My attitude toward all other persons is well illustrated by this story from a celebrated traveler: He arrived one day in the midst of a tribe of savages, where a child had just been born. A crowd of soothsayers, magicians, and quacks - armed with rings, hooks, and cords - surrounded it. One said: 'This child will never smell the perfume of the peace-pipe unless I stretch his nostrils.' Another said: 'He will never be able to hear unless I draw his earlobes down to his shoulders.' A third said: 'He will never see the sunshine unless I slant his eyes.' Another said: 'He will never stand upright unless I bend his legs.' A fifth said: 'He will never learn to think unless I flatten his skull.' 'Stop,' cried the traveler. 'What God does is well done. Do not claim to know more than He. God has given organs to this frail creature; let them develop and grow strong by exercise, use, experience, and liberty." The question, then, is this: Are we to be "ruled" or did we not, instead, establish a Constitution dedicated to securing "the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity?"

Prev12 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next

Comments submitted must be civil, remain on-topic and not violate any laws including copyright. We reserve the right to delete any comments which are abusive, inappropriate or not constructive to the discussion.

Though we invite robust discussion, we reserve the right to not publish any comment which denigrates the human person, undermines marriage and the family, or advocates for positions which openly oppose the teaching of the Catholic Church.

This is a supervised forum and the Editors of Catholic Online retain the right to direct it.

We also reserve the right to block any commenter for repeated violations. Your email address is required to post, but it will not be published on the site.

We ask that you NOT post your comment more than once. Catholic Online is growing and our ability to review all comments sometimes results in a delay in their publication.

Name *

Email *

Comment *

Send me important information from Catholic Online and it's partners. See Sample

Post Comment