Lessons from the Lectionary

I am not for a moment about to suggest that this is the way God intended us to interpret this, but for those who happened to attend daily Mass on the Friday before the MA special election and the anniversary of Obama’s inauguration, you were treated to this story about how the people complained against Samuel and demanded that they be given a king to rule over them as other nations have.

http://bit.ly/7HFp4E

God, through Samuel, warned the people that if this were to happen, the king would quickly use his authority to tax them, take their property, oppress them with labor, and make their lives generally miserable, and that eventually they would complain to God to remove the king, and God would not listen to their complaints.

But, the people would not listen and insisted that they be given a king.  And so, God told Samuel to give them exactly what they want.  And wouldn’t you know – eventually they complained to God about the king.  Funny how that happens.

And it is also funny how history just keeps repeating itself even into our day – when even in our free republic we get caught up in the moment and cry out for a king of sorts;  someone to rule over us in a way where we don’t have to worry about anything.  He will provide everything for us.  And before we know it we get exactly what we wished for only to regret that moment of weakness.

If you ask me, that reading just happened to be in the right place at the right time for Americans to reflect on the choices we make through our voting, and the discernment we should take when deciding.

In fact, that whole series of readings was interesting given the events of the world.  On Wednesday, January 20 – the anniversary of Obama’s inauguration – daily Mass-goers woke up to the news that MA had elected a republican senator, and were then treated to the story of David and Goliath for the first reading.

Just sayin’….

Share

Pro Life Hero Defies Party and Vows to Continue Fight

bart_stupak_official_109th_congress_photoThe New York Times today has a fascinating profile of Rep. Bart Stupak of Michigan. Most readers of St. Michael Society are aware that Rep. Stupak is a pro-life hero, especially during the healthcare debate.  His principled stand in the House of Representatives resulted in the passage of a truly pro-life amendment, which is attached to the House healthcare bill. The profile details the many attacks, some personal, hurled at Rep. Stupak.

Blessed are ye when they shall revile you, and persecute you, and speak all that is evil against you, untruly, for my sake: Be glad and rejoice, for your reward is very great in heaven. For so they persecuted the prophets that were before you. – Matthew 5:11-12

Now the House and Senate will attempt to reconcile the two bills passed in each chamber.  Rep. Stupak claims he has 10 or 11 other pro-life Democrats willing to stand with him to ensure that if any legislation passes it will be pro-life. Look for the attacks and pressure to escalate from pro-abortion forces. Leadership will attempt to pry away votes with bribes, threats and attacks. Projects and funding will be dangled in front of their noses. Others will be threatened with removal of key committee assignments.

For what doth it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his own soul? Or what exchange shall a man give for his soul? – Matthew 16:26

But for the special few, among them Rep. Stupak, the personal attacks will come. Let’s pray for them. Pray that they remain strong and courageous in this fight.

Saint Michael the Archangel,
defend us in battle.
Be our protection against the wickedness and snares of the devil.
May God rebuke him, we humbly pray;
and do Thou, O Prince of the Heavenly Host -
by the Divine Power of God -
cast into hell, satan and all the evil spirits,
who roam throughout the world seeking the ruin of souls.

Amen. 

Share

The Health Care Police

It makes perfect sense.  If the government is in charge of health care – lowering costs, rationing care, deciding what needs immediate treatment – then it seems reasonable that eventually they may have to pay you a visit to make sure you are keeping your home in a way that maximizes good health.

Don’t think it could happen?  Neither did people in the UK until it was reported this week that Health and Safety inspectors will be given “unprecedented access” to family homes to make sure that citizens are protecting their children from household accidents.

As I said, this makes perfect sense.  People cannot cry for a public option and then complain when the government takes reasonable steps to mitigate rising costs.  All we can hope is that the government doesn’t abuse this power.  But, who could stop them once they are in charge of health care?

Join Our Mailing List
Email:


For Email Marketing you can trust

Share

Pro-Aborts in Full Damage Control Mode; Attack Catholic Church

The abortion industry is in full damage control mode after Saturday’s vote in the House passing the Stupak Amendment, which makes sure that no government money funds abortion. It passed the House with 240 bi-partisan votes, which is 20 more votes than what the overall healthcare passed with.

 NARAL Pro-Choice America president Nancy Keenan and Catholics for a Free Choice president Jon O’Brien took to the pages of Politico today to lash out against the country’s Catholic bishops and their supposed “double standard.”

 Nancy and Jon are clearly grasping at straws in their attack on the Catholic bishops. Here’s their op-ed below with our comments in red. Enjoy.

  Thomelogohe Catholic bishops’ double standard
By: Nancy Keenan and Jon O’Brien 
November 10, 2009 05:28 PM EST

 As advocates for reproductive health, we are outraged at what transpired in the House over the weekend.

 Translation: We want Americans to pay for abortions and we are livid that pro-lifers voted to make sure women pay for their own abortions.

 The passage of the Stupak-Pitts amendment goes far beyond the status quo on abortion restrictions and would make it nearly impossible for insurance plans in the new system to offer abortion coverage. 

 Actually, the Stupak-Pitts amendment put back the status quo on abortion restrictions into the healthcare bill – otherwise the bill would have blown the status quo out of the water by allowing the federal government to pay for abortion on demand.

This campaign succeeded in large part because its supporters perpetuated falsehoods about abortion coverage in the new system. 

 Why must the abortion industry continue to outright lie when it comes to this? I mean, doesn’t it get old once even liberal media outlets are proving you wrong? See the FactCheck.org article here, the TIME mag article here and the AP story here. FactCheck says: “Despite what Obama said, the House bill would allow abortions to be covered by a federal plan and by federally subsidized private plans.”

Most notably, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and its allies in the House distorted the facts about the health reform proposal by claiming that the proposed system would have used federal dollars to cover abortion care. They’re wrong. 

 See comment above. No, Nancy & Jon – you and everyone perpetuating your myths are wrong.

The original House bill included a compromise that required all plans to separate public and private dollars in the new system — ensuring that no tax dollars would ever cover abortion services. 

 Sure they did and it’s called the Capps Amendment which is a bookkeeping scheme and phony compromise. First, the amendment was written by staff to Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Ca.), and offered by Rep. Lois Capps (D-Ca.), both of whom have 100 percent pro-abortion career records. Secondly, the Capps Amendment explicitly authorizes the federal government to pay for abortions and those that sign up for the public plan will be charged an “abortion surcharge.”

In fact, the bishops should be familiar with this arrangement because it reflects the same principle of separation that guides their financial interaction with the federal government. The bishops have a long history of almost unlimited access to enormous quantities of federal funding. When it comes to funding for Catholic schools and hospitals or programs run by Catholic Charities, they accept federal funding with open arms. The bishops never question their own ability to lawfully manage funds from separate sources to ensure that tax dollars don’t finance religious practices. 

 Catholics hold that a government-run “anything” should only be considered as an absolute last resort. We believe in subsidiarity - that the government shouldn’t take away from individuals what they (the individuals) can accomplish “by their own enterprise and industry.” (Pope Pius XI). Catholic Charities does great work, work that cannot be done if the government itself were handling. In fact, there is great risk to individual freedom once the government takes over something.

 Yet they reject the idea that others could do the same. This is the very definition of hypocrisy. 

 And you think that the government will siphon out funds and make sure Americans don’t pay for abortions? Are you serious?

For example, Catholic hospitals depend on federal funding. Indiana has 35 Catholic hospitals and 26 other Catholic health-care facilities. In 2007, 58 percent of patients who visited these facilities were covered by Medicaid or Medicare, a proportion reflected across the country. With well over half of their revenue coming from the government, it is safe to say that Catholic hospitals survive on government funding as well as contributions from private sources. 

Here’s where you both really took a wrong turn. One in six patients in the US is cared for in a Catholic hospital and you know where poor patients are sent who don’t have insurance? To a Catholic hospital. You fail to mention that the Senate bill lacks any sort of conscience protections for doctors and other healthcare professionals who decline to perform or refer for abortions – that’s because you want to force all doctors to perform abortions or don’t even become an ob-gyn, right? In a recent survey of faith-based physicians, when asked if they would do abortions or quit their jobs if the government forced them to make that decision, 95% said they’d quit. What if Catholic hospitals are forced to close or rather than perform abortions? Who will care for the hundreds of thousands of patients then? Some doctors have something to say about that here.

Catholic Charities, the domestic direct service arm of the bishops, also depends on state and federal dollars. Sixty-seven percent of Catholic Charities’ income comes from government funding. That represents over $2.6 billion in 2008 — an amount that is more than three times as large as the next largest charitable recipient of federal funds, the YMCA. Just as Catholic hospitals do, Catholic Charities receives enormous quantities of government dollars while abiding by existing constitutional and statutory requirements that prevent government sponsorship of religion. 

 What does this have to do with anything? Planned Parenthood gets hundreds of millions of dollars a year from taxpayers.

The bishops know that a vast majority of Americans, including Catholics, disagree with their hard-line dictates regarding reproductive-health care, including the bishops’ opposition to contraception.

 That is what the Catholic Church believes and has passed on through the centuries. It’s not a matter of debate. Accept that they have a different view than you both and move on.

However, when it comes to health care reform — from which many millions of people will benefit — the bishops injected divisive politics into the process and overran a compromise that would have guaranteed that no federal dollars would cover abortion care. 

 1) Rory Cooper at Heritage says that The U.S. Conference of Bishops has every constitutional protection under the first amendment to petition their government, without fear that the head of the Progressive Caucus will use the IRS to intimidate them, or call them “bullies.” 2) There is no compromise on federal funding of abortion – the government either funds abortion or it doesn’t. There never was a compromise that the bishops overran.

As this debate moves forward, U.S. senators and the public should challenge the bishops’ hypocrisy. If separation of federal funds and private dollars works for the church hierarchy, then it should also work for women’s reproductive-health care. 

 Catholics are called to live their faith in every area of their lives and government is no different (see Bishop Tobin’s  smackdown of Patrick Kennedy when politicians fail to do this in the public square). It’s the job of the Catholic bishops to lead and educate Catholics. U.S. Senators should be listening to their constituents – the majority of whom oppose government funding of abortion and who oppose a government takeover of healthcare overall.

Nancy Keenan is president of NARAL Pro-Choice America and Jon O’Brien is president of Catholics for Choice.

 © 2009 Capitol News Company, LLC 

Join Our Mailing List
Email:


For Email Marketing you can trust

Share

Abortion Czar via Health Care Bill?

The House Health Care Bill to be voted on in Congress this week essentially establishes former Kansas Governor, now Health and Human Services Secretary, Kathleen Sebelius the Administration’s Abortion Czar with power to determine abortion funding.  While Governor of Kansas, Ms. Sebelius was considered one of the most pro-abortion Governors in the country, receiving abortion industry dollars for her campaigns and appearing at Planned Parenthood fundraisers.  Here is what the current health care bill to be voted on in the House this weekend says about abortion.

On line 17, p. 110, section 222 under “Abortions for which Public Funding is Allowed” the Health and Human Services Secretary is given the authority to determine when abortion is allowed under the government-run plan. 

This is not only abhorrent it is in an inherent conflict of interest given the long relationship Secretary Sebelius has with the abortion industry.  We bet Planned Parenthood and the abortion industry can’t wait to have their fox guarding the henhouse.

Share

Abortion and Health Care – What you need to know

All health care bills making way through Congress mandate government funding of abortion

All health care bills making way through Congress mandate government funding of abortion

Mandated government-funded abortion in Healthcare?

Current health care reform bills making their way through Congress, if passed, would represent the largest expansion of government funding of abortion in history. In fact the public option and the Capps Amendment mandate Americans subsidize abortion and would, for the first time in history, establish two federal government agencies to oversee mandated government funding of abortion. In three recent national polls the American people have spoken in overwhelming majorities that they do not support government funding of abortion in health care reform.

The proposed “public plan” would pay for elective abortions, which would be direct funding of elective abortion with federal funds. This abortion coverage would not be optional – no one would be able to enroll in federal insurance plans without paying an abortion surcharge.

The abortion industry and its allies on Capitol Hill have put forward a phony Washington amendment – introduced by Representative Lois Capps http://bit.ly/O3jBM, who has a long standing pro-abortion voting record, which they falsely claim does not include government funding of abortion. This is untrue, and even the pro-choice leaning media that have researched this – the Associated Press, Time Magazine, and FactCheck.org – http://bit.ly/3LqYz4 - have reported that all bills in Congress mandate government funding of abortion in health care.

It is unfortunate that liberal politicians in Washington would use health care reform as a way to pay back their abortion industry supporters by creating two new federal agencies that would oversee mandated government funding of abortion. The only way to make sure abortion is not funded by government dollars through the health care legislation is to have an amendment specifically written into the legislation- something that 5 different committees in both the House and the Senate have rejected.

Hyde Amendment vs. Capps Amendment

Liberal Democrats and pro-abortion groups are using manipulative language to say that abortion will not be paid for under the healthcare legislation by hiding behind both the Hyde Amendment and the phony Capps Amendment.

The Hyde amendment does TWO things, no federal funding for abortion and no federal funding for coverage that includes abortion. The Capps amendment does the opposite. It uses federal funds for abortion in the public option and funds abortion coverage through affordability credits.

The current healthcare proposals completely bypass the Hyde Amendment, which only applies to funds that go through Health & Human Services Appropriations, specifically Medicaid. The argument is a moot one.

To learn more and Stop The Abortion Mandate please visit

http://stoptheabortionmandate.com/

http://www.aul.org/

 

Share

Archbishop Defends Order to Kathleen Sebelius to Forgo Communion

In a recent interview, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius was asked about her Catholic faith in relation to her views on abortion, and her feelings about being told by Archbishop Joseph Naumann of Kansas City to not present herself for communion given her public actions in support of abortion.

Click here if the following video fails to load…

 

Secretary Sebelius tries to suggest that she was merely fulfilling her role as public servant by upholding the law – that she was separating her personal faith from her public duty.   The problem is that the Archbishop was not upset by her upholding current law, but by her vetos of newly passed laws that would have placed reasonable restrictions on abortion.   This was not a case of upholding law, but of thwarting the legislative process to uphold a radical pro-abortion agenda.

Secretary Sebelius misrepresents the issue by her attempt to invoke separation of church and state,” wrote Naumann.  “At no time did I ask her not to execute her oath of office. 

“Secretary Sebelius makes it appear that she was asked not to receive Holy Communion because she was the victim of merely upholding the law.  In reality, Secretary Sebelius opposed even such modest restrictions on abortion as parental notification of minors, required waiting periods before an abortion, as well as meaningful regulation of abortion clinics to protect, at least, the mother’s health.”

Here is the article from LifeSiteNews.com that recaps the Sebelius interview and presents the Archbishop’s defense.

Patrick Looby, Fredericksburg, VA

Share