Mike Benz: How NGOs Have Dominated the World, Who’s Behind Them, & How They’re Now Undermining Trump

Pope Francis urges voters to 'choose the lesser evil' between Harris and...

SHORT COMPILATION OF OBAMA & FRIENDS TELLING THE WORLD WHO BHO IS

Cashless and Debt Ridden Society || CBDC Currency || Towards The NSL || ...

How Catholic Insurance Companies Outsource Contraceptive Coverage

policy-ish


by JULIE ROVNER
September 17, 201412:02 PM ET

Contraceptive coverage has long been required by state laws or sought by nonreligious employers the religious health plans serve.iStockphoto

Catholic and other religious hospitals and universities have been arguing in federal court for much of the past two years that they shouldn't have to offer or facilitate birth control as part of their employee health plans because it violates their religious beliefs.

But what happens when the insurance company is itself Catholic? It turns out that Catholic health plans have for years been arranging for outside firms to provide contraceptive coverage to their enrollees.

That's because such coverage has long been required by state laws or sought by nonreligious employers the religious health plans serve.

The federal health law requires most health insurance plans, including all new plans in the individual and small group markets, to provide contraceptive coverage at no out-of-pocket cost to women.

That divergence between the Catholic court claim that any link to contraceptive coverage is forbidden and the actions of Catholic insurance plans is likely to draw more attention as more large Catholic hospital systems add insurance plans to their portfolios.

Already a bishop in Arkansas is raising questions about one of the insurers in his state.

No one is keeping track of just how many Catholic health plans are entering the insurance market and selling to non-Catholics. The latest entry is Catholic Health Initiatives, the nation's fifth-largest nonprofit health system, with facilities in 18 states.

Juan Serrano, who heads CHI's new insurance subsidiary, Prominence Health, said in an interview that over the next year and a half, Prominence plans to "expand our health plan footprint into additional Catholic Health Initiative markets ... where they make the most sense."

He said that "as relates to the mandated benefits that are required in the marketplace, we are taking the same position that has been taken by other Catholic health plans, and it is to cede or contract with a third-party administrator who will administer the ERD-related benefits in an arm's-length manner."

ERD refers to the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care, a document from the Conference of Catholic Bishops that among other things makes contraception off-limits for Catholic institutions.

While CHI's third-party strategy might please health law advocates, the bishop who heads the Diocese of Little Rock, Ark., raised a red flag when the company purchased QualChoice, its first commercial plan in that state, last spring.

"Having given this matter serious thought and prayer, I am not fully convinced by CHI's reasoning that their acquisition of QualChoice will pose no moral or ethical conflicts," Bishop Anthony Taylor said in a statement.

MergerWatch, a reproductive health advocacy group that tracks deals involving secular and religious health institutions, is keeping a close eye on Catholic plans in the commercial market.

"We're now seeing more and more of these plans moving into the commercial market in a big way," said Lois Uttley, director of the group. "Under the Affordable Care Act, these plans are supposed to be covering contraception. So they have to figure out some way to get that to their enrollees, despite their religious objections to contraception."

MergerWatch has been closely watching how Fidelis Care, a Catholic-owned insurer that this year was the second-most-popular plan on the New York state health exchange, is handling reproductive health services.

Fidelis has arranged for a third party to provide women's reproductive health services, although that's not clear on the plan's website. In its handbook for health care providers Fidelis explains it "has elected not to offer all reproductive and family planning services, including abortion, sterilization, and artificial contraception, as a standard benefit nor to receive premium dollars from the State of New York for such services."

Instead, the company "will inform these same providers that the New York State of Health Marketplace has approved Unified IPA, LLC to provide New York State of Health marketplace-mandated family planning services, independent of Fidelis Care." The online marketplace operates under the health law, offering competing plans to people who generally don't have approved employer-based coverage.

A spokeswoman for Fidelis wrote in an email that health plan members need not worry about getting special access to the outside insurer because "the process is seamless for members. Providers simply bill the outside firm."

Mike Elliott, a principal with Unified IPA, the outside firm, says he contracts with the same health care providers that Fidelis does and works with the same pharmacy benefit firms to ensure that prescriptions are filled without Fidelis having to participate.

"From the member's perspective they're getting to see the same doctor, they have the same benefit package ... and we utilize the same ID number as the health plan," said Elliott, who says he has been providing reproductive health services to religious health plans for nearly three decades.

With Fidelis, that process has not been exactly seamless, says MergerWatch. Uttley said her group called several health plans asking about contraceptive coverage, and the response from Fidelis "was particularly confusing. The customer service woman said, 'Well, Fidelis covers contraception if you need it to regulate yourself,' whatever that means. If you need it for other reasons, you have to call this IPA."

That's troublesome, said Uttley, because "that's confusing even to a sophisticated insurance consumer used to having health insurance, and what we have now coming into the marketplace is a lot of people who have never had insurance. It's enough of a challenge to get them to understand how health insurance works without having this wrinkle in it."

Another problem for the group is that Fidelis, unlike many other nonreligious health plans, refuses to allow Planned Parenthood into its network of covered providers, "not even for prenatal or primary care," Uttley said. "It's not clear to us that women enrolling in Fidelis in New York understand they can't use that coverage at a Planned Parenthood if that's been their primary source of family planning services in the past."

In Arkansas, the bishop's concerns remain unresolved. Taylor sought clarification from the Vatican, and according to diocesan spokesman Dennis Lee, "Bishop Taylor has received a substantive response from the Vatican regarding CHI's acquisition of QualChoice, and he is actively involved in ongoing, private discussions with CHI on how best to comply with the Vatican's response."

The issues are clearer to other Catholic health plans that don't have to meet the needs of non-Catholics in the commercial insurance market. They're arguing in court that any participation with the contraceptive mandate is forbidden.

The Little Sisters of the Poor religious order, which provides long-term-care services with employees insured by Christian Brothers Services, is rejecting the Obama administration's newest policy: allowing religious employers to notify the government, instead of their insurer, that they have a religious objection to providing contraceptive coverage. "Any provision of the Mandate's services through the plan ... would violate the Christian Brothers' and Little Sisters' faith," the lawyers argue.

In the case of Christian Brothers, the administration argues that because it is itself a religious plan, it is exempt from the requirements anyway.

Source

.

Adventists Respond to Supreme Court Decision about Religious Rights

By AT News Team, July 1, 2014

The Seventh-day Adventist Church in North America released an official statement yesterday saying that it was "encouraged" by the decision announced this week by the Supreme Court of the United States in the "Hobby Lobby case." Other Adventists expressed reservations and concerns about the same decision.

The denomination's official statement gave emphasis to the fact that the decision "reaffirmed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which safeguards the broad religious liberty protections available to all people of faith." The denomination's religious liberty lobbyists had worked for the passage of RFRA and are vigilant about any court decision or government policy that seems to weaken the law.

The statement also pointed out that the case is one "in which religious liberty and the right to healthcare intersected. ... The court’s ruling was the result of appeals by two family owned, for profit companies, Hobby Lobby Stores and Conestoga Woods Specialties, that objected to providing certain forms of birth control as required under the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The question for the Court was whether these companies could claim an exemption from this requirement under the First Amendment and the RFRA."

The statement made it clear that Adventist beliefs about religious liberty and health care were in tension in this case. On the one hand, "the Church is concerned with any attempt to weaken or restrict the interpretation of the [RFRA] legislation which protects religious freedom." On the other hand, the church operates "one of the largest hospital systems in the U.S. and "in its Fundamental Beliefs and teachings as based on the Bible, does not object to providing the methods of contraception at issue. ... However, [it] has a long history of defending religious freedom not just for itself but all people of faith."

The bottom line for the statement: "The Adventist Church believes that while the provision of contraception is an important goal of the ACA, it is one the government can reach without forcing family held companies to violate their sincerely held religious beliefs."

The issue that the statement does not address is a concern that several Adventists have expressed to Adventist Today in the last few days. Does religious liberty include the right to force one's employees to go along with the beliefs of employers? For example if an employer does not believe in blood transfusions, does that individual have a religious right to force their employees to have a health plan which does not cover blood transfusions?

The Supreme Court decision actually goes out of the way to exclude this particular example, "but it is unclear what logic is involved here. Was that simply a political ploy on the part of the court since the blood transfusion issue makes the larger issue much more clear."

"Usually religious rights are defined in terms of being protected from the government restricting one from doing something that you feel God wants you to do," writes another reader. "It seems to have moved to a new thing all together when it is about a 'right' to exercise authority over or dictate to employees or others." He pointed out that the majority of the justices on the court are Catholics and they wrote a decision that essentially supports Catholic theology, but none of them are Jehovah's Witnesses, so it may not be surprising that they exempted the same treatment for a Jehovah's Witnesses doctrine.

"I am surprised that the Adventist Church spoke out on this issue," one pastor from California told Adventist Today. "It is so controversial and lacks a really clear-cut religious liberty issue, it seems like it might have been a good time to say nothing."

Source

.

German Bishops Say Catholics Reject Rules On Divorce, Birth Control, Premarital And Gay Sex

Reuters | by Tom Heneghan

Posted: 02/03/2014 3:46 pm EST Updated: 02/03/2014 3:59 pm EST


 




PARIS, Feb 3 (Reuters) - Germany's Catholic bishops, responding to a worldwide Vatican survey, said on Monday that many Church teachings on sexual morality were either unknown to the faithful there or rejected as unrealistic and heartless.

They said the survey, drawn up for a synod on possible reforms in October, showed most German Catholics disputed Church bans on birth control and premarital or gay sex and criticized rules barring the divorced from remarriage in church.

The results will not be news to many Catholics, especially in affluent Western countries, but the blunt official admission of this wide gap between policy and practice is uncommon and bound to raise pressure on Pope Francis to introduce reforms.

Bishops in Germany, one of the richest and most influential national churches in the 1.2-billion-strong Catholic world, have been pressing the Vatican to reform, especially over divorce.

A statement from the German bishops conference called the results "a sober inventory of what German Catholics appreciate about Church teaching on marriage and the family and what they find offputting or unacceptable, either mostly or completely."

Since his election last March, Pope Francis has hinted at possible reform on divorce and at a more welcoming approach to homosexuals. But he has stressed he does not want to change core Church teachings such as the ban on women priests.

WIDESPREAD REJECTION

The bishops' report said many Germans still respect the Church's ideal of stable marriages and a happy family life.

"The Church's statements on premarital sexual relations, homosexuality, on those divorced and remarried, and on birth control, by contrast, are virtually never accepted, or are expressly rejected in the vast majority of cases," it said.

"Almost all couples who wish to marry in church have already been living together," it said. Less than three percent of Catholic couples, it said, use the rhythm method of birth control favoured by the Church rather than the pill, condom or other methods.

While almost all German Catholics approved artificial birth control, the "vast majority are against abortion", it added.

There was a "marked tendency" among Catholics to accept legal recognition of same-sex unions as "a commandment of justice" and they felt the Church should bless them, the report said, although most did not want gay marriage to be legalised.

The report said many Germans cannot understand the rule that divorced Catholics cannot remarry in church and must be denied the sacraments if they opt for a civil ceremony.

Especially faithful churchgoers in this situation see this as "unjustified discrimination and ... merciless," it said.


ADVISORY ETHICS

Pope Francis has suggested the Church wants to show mercy towards divorced Catholics and might ease the rules, taking an example from the Orthodox churches that allow remarriage.

The report said divorced and remarried couples have "become a normal part of pastoral reality in Germany" but gave no figures. In the United States, an estimated 4.5 million of nearly 30 million married Catholics are divorced and remarried.

The German bishops suggested the Church should move away from what it called its "prohibition ethics" of rules against certain acts or views and stress "advisory ethics" meant to help Catholics live better lives.

In sexual morality, it should find a way of presenting its views that does not make people feel it is hostile to sex.

The report further said the Vatican should "take married couples and families seriously" and actively involve them in preparing the synod due to discuss possible reforms in October. (Editing by Mark Heinrich)


Source
.

Vatican blasts back at UN report on pedophile priests, abortion

Published February 05, 2014
FoxNews.com





Feb. 17, 2013: Faithful gather to listen to pope Benedict XVI's Angelus prayer in St. Peter's square at the Vatican. (AP)

VATICAN CITY – The Vatican blasted back at a UN-authored Rights of Children report, saying its criticism of the church's stand on homosexuality is driven by critics of the church's "non-negotiable" teachings.

The U.N. Committee on the Rights of the Child, whose members have included such nations as Saudi Arabia, Syria, Uganda and Thailand,accused the Vatican Wednesday of "systematically" adopting policies that allowed priests to rape and molest tens of thousands of children over decades, and urged it to open its files on pedophiles and bishops who concealed their crimes.

Archbishop Silvano Tomasi, the head of the Holy See's delegation to the United Nations in Geneva, told Vatican Radio that non-governmental organizations which favor gay marriage probably influenced the committee to reinforce an "ideological line" in the report. He did not note the irony of nations like Syria, which has used poison gas on children, Uganda, where kids have been forced to fight, kill and die in wars and Thailand, which has long been accused of tolerating a child sex trade, having served on the committee, which currently consists of representatives from 18 nations.

The UN report also severely criticized the Holy See for its attitudes toward homosexuality, contraception and abortion and said it should change its own canon law to ensure children's rights and their access to health care are guaranteed.

The church's critics believe the report will put renewed pressure on Pope Francis to move decisively on the abuse front and make good on pledges to create a Vatican commission to study sex abuse and recommend best practices to fight it. The commission was announced at the spur of the moment in December, but few details have been released since then.

"This report gives hope to the hundreds of thousands of deeply wounded and still suffering clergy sex abuse victims across the world," said Barbara Blaine, president of the main U.S. victim's group SNAP. "Now it's up to secular officials to follow the U.N.'s lead and step in to safeguard the vulnerable because Catholic officials are either incapable or unwilling to do so."

The committee issued its recommendations after subjecting the Holy See to a daylong interrogation last month on its implementation of the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, the key U.N. treaty on child protection, which the Holy See ratified in 1990.

The report called for Francis' nascent abuse commission to conduct an independent investigation of all cases of priestly abuse and the way the Catholic hierarchy has responded over time, and urged the Holy See to establish clear rules for the mandatory reporting of abuse to police and to support laws that allow victims to report crimes even after the statute of limitations has expired.

The committee also urged the Vatican to amend its canon law to identify circumstances where access to abortion can be permitted for children, such as to save the life of a young mother. It urged the Holy See to ensure that sex education, including access to information about contraception and preventing HIV, is mandatory in Catholic schools. It called for the Holy See to use its moral authority to condemn discrimination against homosexual children or children raised by same-sex couples.

The Vatican said it would study the report and in a statement reiterated its commitment to defending and protecting children's rights that are enshrined in the treaty. But it took issue with the committee's recommendations to change core church teaching on life.

"The Holy See does, however, regret to see in some points of the concluding observations an attempt to interfere with Catholic Church teaching on the dignity of human person and in the exercise of religious freedom," the Vatican said.

Austen Ivereigh, coordinator of Catholic Voices, a church advocacy group, said the report was a "shocking display of ignorance and high-handedness."

He said it failed to acknowledge the progress that has been made in recent years and that the Catholic Church in many places is now considered a leader in safeguarding children. And he noted that the committee seemed unable to grasp the distinction between the responsibilities and jurisdiction of the Holy See, and local churches on the ground.

"It takes no account of the particularities of the Holy See, treating it as if it were the HQ of a multinational corporation," he said in an e-mail

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Source
.
.

The Catholic Supreme Court’s War on Women

Jamie Stiehm


By Jamie Stiehm January 7, 2014



Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor just dropped the ball on American women and girls.


Et tu, Justice Sonia Sotomayor? Really, we can't trust you on women's health and human rights? The lady from the Bronx just dropped the ball on American women and girls as surely as she did the sparkling ball at midnight on New Year's Eve in Times Square. Or maybe she's just a good Catholic girl.

The Supreme Court is now best understood as the Extreme Court. One big reason why is that six out of nine Justices are Catholic. Let's be forthright about that. (The other three are Jewish.) Sotomayor, appointed by President Obama, is a Catholic who put her religion ahead of her jurisprudence. What a surprise, but that is no small thing.

In a stay order applying to an appeal by a Colorado nunnery, the Little Sisters of the Poor, Justice Sotomayor undermined the new Affordable Care Act's sensible policy on contraception. She blocked the most simple of rules – lenient rules – that required the Little Sisters to affirm their religious beliefs against making contraception available to its members. They objected to filling out a one-page form. What could be easier than nuns claiming they don't believe in contraception?

[See a collection of political cartoons on the Catholic contraception controversy.]

Sotomayor's blow brings us to confront an uncomfortable reality. More than WASPS, Methodists, Jews, Quakers or Baptists, Catholics often try to impose their beliefs on you, me, public discourse and institutions. Especially if "you" are female. This is not true of all Catholics – just look at House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi. But right now, the climate is so cold when it comes to defending our settled legal ground that Sotomayor's stay is tantamount to selling out the sisterhood. And sisterhood is not as powerful as it used to be, ladies.

Catholics in high places of power have the most trouble, I've noticed, practicing the separation of church and state. The pugnacious Catholic Justice, Antonin Scalia, is the most aggressive offender on the Court, but not the only one. Of course, we can't know for sure what Sotomayor was thinking, but it seems she has joined the ranks of the five Republican Catholic men on the John Roberts Court in showing a clear religious bias when it comes to women's rights and liberties. We can no longer be silent about this. Thomas Jefferson, the principal champion of the separation between state and church, was thinking particularly of pernicious Rome in his writings. He deeply distrusted the narrowness of Vatican hegemony.

The seemingly innocent Little Sisters likely were likely not acting alone in their trouble-making. Their big brothers, the meddlesome American Roman Catholic Archbishops are bound to be involved. They seek and wield tremendous power and influence in the political sphere. Big city mayors know their penchant for control all too well. Their principal target for years on end has been squelching women and girls – even when they should have focused on their own men and boys.

[Check out 2013: The Year in Cartoons.]

In one stroke with ominous implications, there's no such thing as Catholic justice or mercy for women on the Supreme Court, not even from a woman. The rock of Rome refuses to budge on women's reproductive rights and the Supreme Court is getting good and ready to strike down Roe v. Wade, which became the law of the land 40 years ago. President Clinton had it exactly right in his formulation: abortion should be safe, legal and rare.

Meanwhile, the forces arrayed against women's right to self-determination have been busy taking their campaign to the statehouses. In roughly half of them, women's human rights have been eroded. On the airwaves, the anti-woman conspiracy goes on, with Rush Limbaugh leading the pack of thousands of men. He uses the Obamacare contraception mandate to say, just about every workaday, that young women are just using the government to get sex, or some such thing. He wins the prize for virulently infecting the public dis-coarse.

With friends like Sonia, we don't need opponents like Rush.


Source
.

Supreme Court won’t hear challenge to Obamacare’s employer mandate

By Aaron Blake



December 2 at 12:22 pm


The Supreme Court opted Monday not to take up a case challenging Obamacare's requirement that most employers provide health insurance to their employees.

The court instead opted to leave in place an appeals court's ruling striking down the lawsuit, which was brought by Liberty University, an evangelical college in Virginia.

It is the second time the court has opted not to hear an appeal to the health-care law's employer mandate. The court previously declined to review the employer mandate while taking up the individual health-insurance mandate — a mandate that it eventually upheld.

The health-care law requires employers with at least 50 workers to provide basic health insurance coverage.

The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va., originally struck down Liberty's lawsuit.

"...it is simply another example of Congress’s longstanding authority to regulate employee compensation offered and paid for by employers in interstate commerce," the appeals court wrote.

The court announced last week that it will also hear a case challenging Obamacare's requirement that employers provide health insurance that includes contraception.

For more on the Supreme Court's moves today, see Robert Barnes's recap.


Source


 Related

Current U.S. Supreme Court Members

The following table lists the current members of the United States Supreme Court, including the Chief Justice and eight Associate Justices.

See Also: Past U.S. Supreme Court Members

	Service			Birth
Name, state	Assoc. Justice	Chief Justice	Yrs	Place	Date	Died	Religion
Antonin Scalia, DC	1986–		—	N.J.	1936	—	Roman Catholic
Anthony M. Kennedy, Calif.	1988–		—	Calif.	1936	—	Roman Catholic
Clarence Thomas, DC	1991–		—	Ga.	1948	—	Roman Catholic
Ruth Bader Ginsburg, DC	1993–		—	N.Y.	1933	—	Jewish
Stephen G. Breyer, Mass.	1994–		—	Calif.	1938	—	Jewish
John G. Roberts, DC		2005–	—	N.Y.	1955	—	Roman Catholic
Samuel A. Alito, Jr., N.J.	2006–		—	N.J.	1950	—	Roman Catholic
Sonia Sotomayor N.Y.	2009–		—	N.Y.	1954	—	Roman Catholic
Elena Kagan N.Y.	2010–		—	N.Y.	1960	—	Jewish

.
 Source
 .

Romney ad hits Obama for 'war on religion'

August 9th, 2012

07:53 AM ET

Posted by

CNN's Kevin Liptak

(CNN) - After weeks of attacking President Barack Obama's economic record, Mitt Romney took a sharply different tack Thursday in his latest television ad, going after the president for policies the Republican challenger amounts to a "war on religion."

In the spot, which also features footage from Romney's trip in July to Poland, an announcer says Obama's heath care law forces religious institutions to "go against their faith."

"Who shares your values?" the announcer asks. "President Obama used his healthcare plan to declare war on religion, forcing religious institutions to go against their faith. Mitt Romney believes that's wrong."

In a press release that accompanied the ad, the campaign justifies the "war on religion" claim using an editorial published in the San Antonio Express News in February, as a political firestorm waged over a controversial federal rule requiring employers cover contraception in their health insurance plans.

The rule in question mandated all employers, including religiously affiliated organizations like hospitals and colleges, provide free contraception to employees through health insurance plans. Churches were exempted from the law.

After uproar from conservatives and religious groups, Obama announced an accommodation to the rule on February 10. Under the new plan, religiously affiliated universities and hospitals will not be forced to offer contraception coverage to their employees. Insurers will be required, however, to offer complete coverage free of charge to any women who work at such institutions.

A poll taken in March by the Public Religion Research Institute showed a majority of Americans - 54% - said religiously affiliated colleges and universities should be required to provide employees with health care plans that cover contraception.

Romney's thirty-second ad, titled "Be Not Afraid," does not directly reference the contraception rule, or the subsequent accommodation from the Obama adminstration.

After the "war on religion" segment, the ad uses a clip of Romney speaking in Poland.

"In 1979, a son of Poland, Pope John Paul II, spoke words that would bring down an empire: 'Be not afraid,'" Romney is showed saying.

"When religious freedom is threatened, who do you want to stand with?" the announcer asks.

Romney's speech in Warsaw marked his last public remarks on a week long, three-country foreign swing in July that was meant to bolster his foreign policy credentials. The trip also brought the candidate to London and Israel - two stops marred by stumbles, including a suggestion that the organizers of the London Olympics were ill prepared to host the 2012 Games. In Israel, his remarks in support of the Jewish state provoked an angry response from Palestinian leaders. But his stop in Poland was largely free of any major gaffe from the candidate.

In Thursday's ad, Romney is shown meeting with Lech Walesa, the shipyard worker who went on to inspire the Solidarity trade union and the eventual fall of the Iron Curtain. When Romney was in Poland, Walesa effectively endorsed him for president.

Romney's ad Thursday could be seen as a direct appeal to Catholic voters, who according to national exit polls went for Obama over Sen. John McCain in 2008 54%-45%. Organizations of Catholic bishops have led the charge against the contraception provision in Obama's heath care law.

Obama, who was campaigning in Colorado Wednesday, also subtly harkened back to February's debate over contraception. He was introduced by Georgetown University Law Center graduate Sandra Fluke, who was at the center of the controversy earlier this year after testifying to Congress about the importance of providing birth control to employees of religiously affiliated institutions.

Responding to the Romney ad, an Obama spokeswoman defended the president's contraception stance.

“President Obama believes that, in 2012, women should have access to free contraception as part of their health insurance, and he has done so in a way that respects religious liberty," Lis Smith wrote. "Churches are completely exempt and religiously affiliated organizations that object to providing the service will never have to pay for contraception. Mitt Romney apparently disagrees with this approach and it’s no surprise why. He has pledged to ‘get rid of’ of federal funding for Planned Parenthood and would take women’s health back to the 1950’s. Women can’t afford his extreme policies."

Source

Pelosi: Catholic Archdioceses Were Not ‘Speaking’ for Catholic Church When They Sued Administration

By Elizabeth Harrington

June 7, 2012

Then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi kisses the ring of Pope Benedict XVI as President George W. Bush and First Lady Laura Bush when the pope visited Washington, D.C., in April 2008. (AP Photo)

(CNSNews.com) - House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D.-Calif.) said on Thursday that the 43 Catholic institutions—including the Archdiocese of Washington, D.C., the Archdiocese of St. Louis and the Archdiocese of New York--that are suing the Obama administration over its regulation mandating that all health-care plans must cover sterilizations, contraceptives and abortifacients are not speaking for the Catholic Church.

When the lawsuits were filed in a coordinated action on May 21, Archbishop Robert J. Carlson of St. Louis spoke at a press conference, giving a quite different impression. "The mandate set to take effect in August of this year requires us to violate our teaching on sterilization, contraception, and abortion-inducing drugs," Archbishop Carlson said in explaining the lawsuits that were filed simultaneously in 12 different federal court districts across the country by Catholic archdiocoeses, dioceses, universities, schools and charitable organizations. "The Catholic Church, led by the U.S.C.C.B. [U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops], has pursued every imaginable avenue to correct this problem without litigation," said the archbishop. "But in a few short months, the federal government will force Catholic institutions to choose between violating the law and violating our moral convictions. Right now, the future is unclear, and any scenario that forces us to violate our moral convictions is unacceptable."

CNSNews.com asked Pelosi, who is Catholic, whether she supported her church in the lawsuits it has filed, which argue that the administration’s regulation violates the freedom of religion guaranteed by the First Amendment.

“What about the 43 Catholic institutions [that] have now sued the administration over the regulation that requires them to provide contraceptives, sterilizations, and abortifacients in their health care plans?” CNSNews.com asked. “They say that violates their religious freedom. Do you support the Catholic Church in their lawsuits against the administration?”

“Well, I don’t think that’s the entire Catholic Church,” Pelosi responded. “Those people have a right to sue, but I don’t think they’re speaking ex cathedra for the Catholic Church.

“And there are people in the Catholic Church, including some of the bishops, who have suggested that some of this may be premature,” Pelosi said.

It is unclear why Pelosi would have pointed out that when an archbishop—such as Cardinal Timothy Dolan of New York, Cardinal Donald Wuerl of Washington, D.C. or Archbishop Carlson of St. Louis—sues the federal government in actions designed to protect the First Amendment rights of American Catholics he is not speaking "ex cathedra."

“Ex cathedra” refers to the infallible authority that Catholics believe the pope exerts when he makes a formal and solemn declaration on matters of faith and morals. It is not a term to describe lawsuits the church files in civilian courts.

In a 1993 audience, Pope John Paul II quoted the first Vatican Council in explaining the Catholic understanding of the “ex cathedra” authority of the pope.

“When the Roman Pontiff speaks ex cathedra, that is, when in exercising his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians he defines with his supreme apostolic authority that a doctrine on faith and morals is to be held by the whole Church, through the divine assistance promised him in the person of St. Peter, he enjoys that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer wished to endow his Church in defining a doctrine on faith and morals,” said the Vatican Council.

The Catholic teachings that sterilization, artificial contraception and abortion are morally wrong—the basis for the suits that the archdioceses, dioceses, universities, schools and charitable organizations have brought against the Obama administration--are in fact inalterable teachings that the church says are rooted in natural law.

The Archdiocese of Washington, D.C., states in its lawsuit: “The Catholic Church views abortion, sterilization, and contraception as intrinsically immoral, and prohibits Catholic organizations from condoning or facilitating those practices.”

“The Government may not interfere with or otherwise question the final decision of the Catholic Church that its religious organizations must abide by these views,” says the lawsuit. “Plaintiffs have therefore made the internal decision that the health plans they offer to their employees may not cover, subsidize, or facilitate abortion, sterilization, or contraception. The U.S. Government Mandate interferes with Plaintiffs’ internal decisions concerning their structure and mission by requiring them to facilitate practices that directly conflict with Catholic beliefs.”

When CNSNews.com tried to ask Pelosi if she agreed with her church’s teaching on sterilization--which is one of the moral issues at the center of the church’s lawsuit against the Obamacare regulation--Pelosi cut the question off.

“You know what, I do my religion on Sunday in church, and I try to go other days of the week. I don’t do it at this press conference,” she said.

On other occasions, Pelosi has volunteered opinions about her religious faith and how it impacts her legislative agenda.

In 2010, speaking at a conference at the Capitol, Pelosi said the her favorite word was “the Word,” namely, Jesus Christ, and that she believed she had an obligation to “give voice to what the means in terms of public policy.”

“They ask me all the time, ‘What is your favorite this? What is your favorite that? What is your favorite that?’ And one time, ‘What is your favorite word?’” Pelosi said then.

“And I said, ‘My favorite word? That is really easy. My favorite word is the Word, is the Word. And that is everything. It says it all for us. And you know the biblical reference, you know the Gospel reference of the Word.”

“And that Word," Pelosi continued, "is, we have to give voice to what that means in terms of public policy that would be in keeping with the values of the Word. The Word. Isn’t it a beautiful word when you think of it? It just covers everything. The Word.

“Fill it in with anything you want. But, of course, we know it means: ‘The Word was made flesh and dwelt amongst us.’ And that’s the great mystery of our faith. He will come again. He will come again,” said Pelosi. “So, we have to make sure we’re prepared to answer in this life, or otherwise, as to how we have measured up.”

At the same event, Pelosi revealed that she had told Catholic bishops that she wanted them to “instruct” people from the pulpit that supporting immigration reform was “a manifestation of our living the Gospels.”

“I would hope that there’s one thing that we can do working together as we go forward that speaks to what the Bible tells us about the dignity and worth of every person, and that is on the subject of immigration,” Pelosi said. “Because I think the church is going to have to play a very major role in how we, in how people are treated.”

“The cardinals, the archbishops, the bishops that come to me and say, ‘We want you to pass immigration reform,’ and I say, ‘But I want you to speak about it from the pulpit,’” said Pelosi. “I want you to instruct your, whatever the communication is -- the people, some of them, oppose immigration reform are sitting in those pews and you have to tell them that this is a manifestation of our living the Gospels.”

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops submitted formal comments to the Department of Health and Human Services when it first proposed the sterilization-contraception-abortifacient mandate declaring the bishops' view that the regulation was an "unprecedented attack on religious liberty." Later, most American bishops had their priests read a letter from the pulpit at Sunday Mass that said of the regulation: "We cannot--we will not--comply with this unjust law."

Source

Stand Up for Religious Freedom—One More Time!

June 7, 2012 By Kathy Schiffer

Our work isn’t done, folks.

Apparently, some in the White House and the media think that the Church’s opposition to the HHS Mandate has lost steam. But just to be sure you know how great this is for women, the White House staged a June 7 “Women’s Health Town Hall” which they describe as “an interactive, open dialogue about how the health care law, the Affordable Care Act, is improving the health of women and their families.”

Tomorrow, June 8, is your chance to let them know how wrong they are, and how women and men value their First Amendment freedom of religion.

In March 2012, concerned Americans gathered in 163 cities across America in defense of religious liberty, and to protest the HHS Mandate. At noon on June 8, there will be a second rally. Concerned Americans in at least 160 cities will once again come together in a sign of solidarity.

For information about the events and the speakers, and to find a rally in your community (or to start your own), visit StandUpforReligiousFreedom.com.

Source

Archbishop: Religious liberty campaign not meant to 'throw' election

WASHINGTON (CNS) -- The U.S. Catholic Church's challenges to the federal government's contraceptive mandate under the health care law is not an attempt to "throw" the presidential election in favor of one candidate or against another, said the chairman of the bishops' Ad Hoc Committee on Religious Freedom. Speaking with members of the Catholic Press Association in a conference call June 6, Baltimore Archbishop William E. Lori said the bishops' campaign emerged because of the federal government's attempt to force religious organizations to pay for health services that violate fundamental religious principles. The mandate was announced Aug. 1, 2011, as part of the rules the Department of Health and Human Services is issuing to implement the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act passed in 2010. Along with the mandate, HHS released a four-pronged religious exemption that has raised objections among Catholic Church officials and others who say it is so narrow that most religious employers will not qualify. On Jan. 20 of this year, HHS announced that nonprofit groups that do not provide contraceptive coverage because of their religious beliefs will get an additional year "to adapt to this new rule." Said Archbishop Lori in the 45-minute session: "It's important to say the struggle we are engaging in here is not a partisan issue. We didn't choose the time. We didn't choose the place. We're not trying to throw an election. We're simply trying to defend fundamental freedoms. It's not a Republican or Democratic issue. It's not a Catholic issue. It's a freedom issue," he said.

- - -

Source

The battle among Catholic bishops

E.J. Dionne Jr.
Opinion Writer


By E.J. Dionne Jr., Published: May 23

There is a healthy struggle brewing among the nation’s Roman Catholic bishops. A previously silent group, upset over conservative colleagues defining the church’s public posture and eagerly picking fights with President Obama, has had enough.

The headlines this week were about lawsuits brought by 43 Catholic organizations, including 13 dioceses, to overturn regulations issued by the Obama administration that require insurance plans to cover contraception under the new health-care law. But the other side of this news was also significant: The vast majority of the nation’s 195 dioceses did not go to court.

It turns out that many bishops, notably the church leadership in California, saw the litigation as premature. They are upset that the lawsuits were brought without a broader discussion among the entire membership of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and wanted to delay action until the conference’s June meeting.

Until now, bishops who believed that their leadership was aligning the institutional church too closely with the political right had voiced their doubts internally. While the more moderate and liberal bishops kept their qualms out of public view, conservative bishops have been outspoken in condemning the Obama administration and pushing a “Fortnight for Freedom” campaign aimed at highlighting “threats to religious freedom, both at home and abroad.”

But in recent months, a series of events — among them the Vatican’s rebuke of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious, encouraged by right-wing U.S. bishops — have angered more progressive Catholics and led to talk among the disgruntled faithful of the need for a “Catholic spring” to challenge the hierarchy’s shift to the right.

Bishop Stephen E. Blaire of Stockton, Calif., broke the silence on his side Tuesday in an interview with Kevin Clarke of the Jesuit magazine America. Blaire expressed concern that some groups “very far to the right” are turning the controversy over the contraception rules into “an anti-Obama campaign.”

“I think there are different groups that are trying to co-opt this and make it into [a] political issue, and that’s why we need to have a deeper discussion as bishops,” he said. “I think our rhetoric has to be that of bishops of the church who are seeking to be faithful to the Gospel, that our one concern is that we make sure the church is free to carry out her mission as given to her by Christ, and that remains our focus.”

Clarke also paraphrased Blaire as believing that “the bishops lose their support when the conflict is seen as too political.”

Blaire’s words were diplomatic. But in a letter to the national bishops conference that has not been released publicly, lawyers for California’s bishops said the lawsuits would be “imprudent” and “ill-advised.” The letter was not answered by the national bishops group before the suits were announced.

Already, there are reports that some bishops will play down or largely ignore the Fortnight for Freedom campaign, scheduled for June 21 to July 4, in their own dioceses. These bishops fear that it has become enmeshed in Republican election-year politics and see many of its chief promoters, notably Archbishop William E. Lori of Baltimore, as too strident.

The irony in the current acrimony is that Catholics were broadly united in January across political lines in opposing the Department of Health and Human Services’ initial rules on contraception because they exempted only a narrow category of religious institutions from the mandate.

Facing this challenge, the president fashioned a compromise under which employees of Catholic organizations such as hospitals and social service agencies would still have access to contraceptive services but the religious entities would not have to pay for them. This compromise was accepted by most progressive Catholics, though many of them still favor rewriting the underlying regulations to acknowledge the religious character of the church’s welfare and educational work.

But where the progressives favor pursuing further negotiations with the administration, the conservative bishops have acted as if it never made any concessions at all. Significantly, Blaire identified with the conciliatory approach. As Clarke wrote, “Bishop Blaire believes discussions with the Obama administration toward a resolution of the dispute could be fruitful even as alternative remedies are explored.”

For too long, the Catholic Church’s stance on public issues has been defined by the outspokenness of its most conservative bishops and the reticence of moderate and progressive prelates. Signs that this might finally be changing are encouraging for the church, and for American politics.

ejdionne@washpost.com

Source

Sebelius Talks Separation of Church and State at Georgetown Ceremony

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius addressed Georgetown University graduates at an awards ceremony Friday despite opposition from conservative Catholics over her invitation.

Although Sebelius did not directly address the controversy surrounding the birth control mandate she helped craft, she cited John F. Kennedy's famous 1960 speech on the separation of church and state.

"In that talk to Protestant ministers, Kennedy talked about his vision of religion and the public square, and said he believed in an America, and I quote, 'where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials – and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against us all," she recalled.

That "conversation" about the "intersection … of religious freedom with policy decisions" continues, she acknowledged.

Controversy arose earlier this month when it was announced that Sebelius would be delivering the address at a Public Policy Institute awards ceremony. Seen as the key person behind the Obama administration's contraception mandate, which requires religious employers to provide health insurance that covers contraception, sterilization and some abortifacient drugs, many conservatives questioned why she was being allowed to speak at the oldest Catholic and Jesuit university in the country.

The Archdiocese of Washington called the invitation of Sebelius "shocking" and "distressing."

The issue for concern, the archdiocese said Tuesday, was "the selection of a featured speaker whose actions as a public official present the most direct challenge to religious liberty in recent history and the apparent lack of unity with and disregard for the bishops and so many others across the nation who are committed to the defense of freedom of religion."

According to Politico, there were only about 20 protesters demonstrating against Sebelius' speech. One protester also interrupted the HHS secretary near the beginning of her address with shouts about abortion.

Notably, the graduates expressed their support for Sebelius with two standing ovations – when she walked on to the podium and at the end of her speech.

During her speech, Sebelius talked about the difficulty of making public policy choices and recognized that there will always be disagreements.

"Today, there are serious debates underway about the direction of our country – debates about the size and role of government, about America's role as a global economic and military leader, about the moral and economic imperative of providing health care to all our citizens," she said. "People have deeply-held beliefs on all sides of these discussions, and you, as public policy leaders, will be called on to help move these debates forward.

"Contributing to these debates will require more than just the quantitative skills you have learned at Georgetown. It will also require the ethical skills you have honed – the ability to weigh different views, see issues from other points of view, and in the end, follow your own moral compass."

While Georgetown University President John J. DeGioia stated this week that his invitation to Sebelius should neither be viewed as an endorsement of her views nor as a challenge to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (which officially rejected the birth control mandate for its violation of religious freedom), some have accused the university of deliberately taking sides by inviting a pro-choice Catholic to speak at the ceremony. Robert George, director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions at Princeton University, argued that Georgetown had decided to stand against Catholic bishops in the administration's "war" on religion.

"By honoring Secretary Sebelius, they can help to undermine the bishops' credibility and blunt the force of their witness as leaders of the Catholic church. I get it. It's a bold and clever move. Although I find its substance appalling, I can't help but admire its shrewdness," George expressed.

The Cardinal Newman Society, a conservative Catholic organization, also launched a petition highlighting the controversy, called GeorgetownScandal.com.

"It is scandalous and outrageous that America's oldest Catholic and Jesuit university has elected to provide this prestigious platform to a publicly 'pro-choice' Catholic who is most responsible for the Obama administration's effort to restrict the Constitution's first freedom – the right to free exercise of religion – while threatening the survival of many Catholic and other religious colleges and universities, schools, charities, hospitals and other apostolates," a letter on the website, addressed to DeGioia, stated.

Source

United States, the interventionist turnover of the bishops approaches phase two

03/10/2012

Timothy Dolan

The bishops are not only targeting ethically unacceptable choices on contraception, but also the death penalty. A new very Ratzinger-oriented course

GIACOMO GALEAZZI

vatican city

A “political” choice of U.S. bishops. At the Holy Trinity High School in Hicksville, the president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Cardinal Timothy Dolan announces “phase two” of the U.S. church, lined up for what he called the “battle for religious liberty”, against the “radical and unprecedented intrusion by the government in the minds of believers”.

On the other hand, in recent weeks three quarters of the U.S. episcopate has publicly expressed itself in defence of religious freedom. In late January, Benedict XVI recommended U.S. bishops to “prepare committed lay leaders and present a compelling articulation of the Christian view of man and society”. That is, “essential components of the new evangelization”. The Church does not exist to ensure things go well in the world but to save it, so when it proposes to save it, it contributes by making worldly things go well too. And many lay Christians involved in politics consider their work as “an essential component of the new evangelization”.

Read more

.

Obama joins in assailing Limbaugh slur of Georgetown student

3 hours 56 min ago

In this Jan. 27, 2010 photo, radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh speaks during a Miss America news conference at Planet Hollywood in Las Vegas. (AP Photo/Las Vegas News Bureau, Brian Jones)

Stepping into an emerging culture clash over women, President Barack Obama made a supportive phone call Friday to a law student who testified before Congress about the need for birth control coverage, only to be called a "slut" by Rush Limbaugh.

For Obama, it was an emphatic plunge into the latest flare-up on social issues. Democratic officeholders and liberal advocacy have accused Republicans of waging a "war on women" because of GOP stances on contraception and abortion rights, and Limbaugh's tirade on his radio talk show was seen as an escalation.

In addition to her call from the president, the third-year Georgetown University law student, Sandra Fluke, was backed by members of Congress, women's groups, and the administration and faculty at her Roman Catholic university.

Demands for Limbaugh's sponsors to pull their ads from his rocketed through cyberspace, and at least three companies, Quicken Loans and bedding retailers Sleep Train and Sleep Number, bowed to the pressure.

Obama considers Limbaugh's remarks "reprehensible," according to White House spokesman Jay Carney. He said the president called Fluke to "express his disappointment that she has been the subject of inappropriate personal attacks" and to thank her for speaking out on an issue of public policy.

"The fact that our political discourse has become debased in many ways is bad enough," Carney said. "It is worse when it's directed at a private citizen who was simply expressing her views."

Obama reached Fluke by phone as she was waiting to go on MSNBC's "Andrea Mitchell Reports."

"What was really personal for me was that he said to tell my parents that they should be proud," a choked-up Fluke told Mitchell. "And that meant a lot because Rush Limbaugh questioned whether or not my family would be proud of me. So I just appreciated that very much."

By calling Fluke and injecting himself into the Limbaugh controversy, Obama sent a message to more than one law student. He was reaching out to young voters and women - two groups whose support he needs in this re-election year. And he was underscoring that the White House, despite bungling its rollout of the birth control policy, sees it as a winning issue and welcomes Obama's name next to it.

Fluke was given a chance to talk to Congress on Feb. 23, even though lawmakers were on a break and just a few Democratic allies were on hand to cheer her on. The previous week, a Republican-controlled House committee had rejected Democrats' request that she testify on the Obama administration's policy requiring that employees of religion-affiliated institutions have access to health insurance that covers birth control.

Republicans have faulted parts of Obama's health care reform as unconstitutional, including an initial requirement, since withdrawn by the president, that contraceptives be covered under the insurance policies of businesses, including those with religious affiliations.

Fluke said that Georgetown, a Jesuit institution, does not provide contraception coverage in its student health plan and that contraception can cost a woman more than $3,000 during law school. She spoke of a friend who had an ovary removed because the insurance company wouldn't cover the prescription birth control she needed to stop the growth of cysts.

On Wednesday, Limbaugh unleashed a lengthy and often savage verbal assault on Fluke.

"What does it say about the college coed ... who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex?" Limbaugh said. "It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex."

He went on to suggest that Fluke distribute sex tapes of herself.

"If we are going to pay for your contraceptives, and thus pay for you to have sex, we want something for it," he said. "We want you post the videos online so we can all watch."

The backlash began quickly and showed no signs of abating as scores of Democratic members of Congress denounced Limbaugh and urged their GOP colleagues to do likewise.

The Republican speaker of the House, John Boehner, responded through a spokesman.

"The Speaker obviously believes the use of those words was inappropriate, as is trying to raise money off the situation," said Boehner aide Michael Steel.

Later, Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., chairman of the committee that blocked Fluke's original testimony, issued a letter repudiating Limbaugh's comments but also excoriating the Democrats and their supporters.

"I ask that you join me in a broader condemnation of the attacks on people of faith ... and the regrettable personal attacks that have come from individuals on both sides of the issue," Issa wrote to Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md.

Boehner and Issa are among the GOP leaders accused of waging the purported "war on women." The topic has been cited often in recent fundraising pitches by many liberal advocacy groups, and they recently have shown more aggressiveness.

In early February, after a three-day furor, the Susan G. Komen breast cancer charity dropped plans to withdraw funding from Planned Parenthood, a leading abortion provider. And more recently, after incurring protests and ridicule, Republican politicians in Virginia backed away from a bill that would have required invasive vaginal ultrasounds as a pre-condition for many abortions.

Amid this controversy, polls show that Obama's support among women has been increasing.

At Georgetown, more than 130 faculty members signed a letter praising Fluke for her "grace and strength" and condemning Limbaugh's remarks. The university president, John J. DeGioia, did likewise.

He said Limbaugh and others responded to Fluke "with behavior that can only be described as misogynistic, vitriolic, and a misrepresentation of the position of our student."

On Thursday, aware of the firestorm he had ignited, Limbaugh was unapologetic.

"I think this is hilarious. Absolutely hilarious" he said on his show. "The left has been thrown into an outright conniption fit!"

On Friday, still defiant, Limbaugh scoffed at the concept of a conservative "war on women."

"Amazingly, when there is the slightest bit of opposition to this new welfare entitlement being created, then all of a sudden we hate women! We want `em barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen," he said. "And now, at the end of this week, I am the person that the women of America are to fear the most."

Longtime Republican strategist Terry Holt suggested voters might see Obama's response to an over-the-top radio host as "pure pandering" to woo women's votes.

"This conversation seems to serve Rush Limbaugh and president Obama equally well," Holt said.

Fluke, in Washington, issued a statement expressing gratitude for the support she's received and resolve to continue speaking out.

"No woman deserves to be disrespected in this manner. This language is an attack on all women, and has been used throughout history to silence our voices," she said.

"The millions of American women who have and will continue to speak out in support of women's health care and access to contraception prove that we will not be silenced."

Rick Santorum, one of the Republican presidential contenders seeking to oppose Obama, commented to CNN about Limbaugh's remarks.

"He's being absurd," Santorum said. "But that's, you know, an entertainer can be absurd."

Source
.