Cardinal Dolan Reaffirms Commitment to Oppose HHS Mandate, Protect Conscience ~ reblog

Cardinal Dolan Reaffirms Commitment to Oppose HHS Mandate, Protect Conscience
catholic.orgUsccbSeptember 19th, 2013 view original

We are united in our resolve to continue to defend our right to live by our faith, and our duty to serve the poor, heal the sick, keep our apostolates strong and faithful, and insure our people. I remain grateful for your continued unity in response to this matter of deep concern to us all. (Timothy Cardinal Dolan)
We are united in our resolve to continue to defend our right to live by our faith, and our duty to serve the poor, heal the sick, keep our apostolates strong and faithful, and insure our people. I remain grateful for your continued unity in response to this matter of deep concern to us all. (Timothy Cardinal Dolan)

WASHINGTON, DC (USCCB) – The U.S. bishops continue to study the legal and moral implications of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) mandate in the Affordable Care Act, and to “develop avenues of response that would both preserve our strong unity and protect our consciences,” Cardinal Timothy M. Dolan said in a September 17 letter to bishops. His letter followed the September 10-11 meeting of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ (USCCB) Administrative Committee, the top ranking USCCB body outside a plenary session.

The bishops’ “efforts are proceeding apace, and, as you know, include a careful legal and moral analysis of the final rule,” Cardinal Dolan said. Further discussion will take place at the bishops’ fall plenary, Nov. 11-14 in Baltimore. “We are united in our resolve to continue to defend our right to live by our faith, and our duty to serve the poor, heal the sick, keep our apostolates strong and faithful, and insure our people,” he said.

The full text of Cardinal Dolan’s letter follows.

The HHS mandate requires virtually all employers to facilitate access to sterilization and contraception, as well as drugs and devices that may cause abortion, even if doing so violates deeply-held religious beliefs. Despite serious religious liberty concerns expressed by believers of many faiths, the Administration finalized its mandate with only minor changes. The final rule, Cardinal Dolan said, “still suffers from the same three basic problems”:

1) “Its narrow definition of ‘religious employer’ reduces religious freedom to the freedom of worship by dividing our community between houses of worship and ministries of service,”

2) “Its second-class treatment of those great ministries – the so-called ‘accommodation’ – leaves them without adequate relief,” and

3) “Its failure to offer any relief to for-profit businesses run by so many of our faithful in the pews.”

Cardinal Dolan stressed the bishops’ longstanding advocacy of policies that advance the goal of affordable health care. “Now we are being burdened because of the same Catholic values that compel us into these ministries,” he said.

Cardinal Dolan emphasized that the members of the Administrative Committee “were unanimous in their resolve to continue our struggle against the HHS Mandate.” He likewise voiced concern regarding the Catholic Health Association’s “hurried acceptance of the accommodation” which he called “untimely and unhelpful.”

“We highly value CHA’s great expertise in their ministry of healing,” Cardinal Dolan said, “but as they have been the first to say, they do not represent the Magisterium of the Church.”

—–

The full text of Cardinal Dolan’s letter

September 17, 2013
Year of Faith

My brother bishops,

I write at the request of our brother bishops on the USCCB Administrative Committee, who asked me to update you, as I have now grown accustomed to doing, on the tough and delicate matter of the HHS Mandate, and our ongoing response to it. You won’t be surprised to hear that, at our meeting last week, we spent a great deal of time focused on this matter of major concern to us all.

I have to tell you first that we took the occasion to vent. The Catholic Church in America has long been a leader in providing affordable health care, and in advocating for policies that advance that goal. The bishops on a national level have been at it for almost one hundred years, and our heroic women and men religious have done so even longer. Yet, instead of spending our time, energy, and treasure on increasing access to health care, as we have done for many decades, we’re now forced to spend those resources on determining how to respond to recently enacted government regulations that restrict and burden our religious freedom. Catholics – our parents and grandparents, religious sisters, brothers and priests – were among the first at the table to advance and provide health care, and now we are being burdened because of the same Catholic values that compel us into these ministries! All this in a country that puts religious liberty first on the list of its most cherished freedoms. As I’ve said before, this is a fight that we didn\’t ask for, and would rather not be in, but it’s certainly one that we won’t run from.

It might be helpful if we keep in mind our recent history on the HHS mandate and our efforts regarding it. Last February 1, the Administration announced its updated “accommodation.” We immediately said that we needed time to analyze it, but that our initial read indicated that, regrettably, not much had changed, and our objections remained. Nonetheless, we took the administration at its word when it said it would consider our concerns, and after a detailed analysis, our Conference again submitted extensive comments, as invited to do by HHS.

On June 28, we got our answer: despite our grave concerns – concerns we share with believers of many other faiths, and with so many of the 400,000 others who commented on the rule – the “accommodation” was finalized with only minor changes. While the administration gave us a much-needed extra five months to determine how to respond, the final version of the mandate still suffers from the same three basic problems we have highlighted from the start: its narrow definition of “religious employer” reduces religious freedom to the freedom of worship by dividing our community between houses of worship and ministries of service; its second-class treatment of those great ministries-the so-called “accommodation”-leaves them without adequate relief; and its failure to offer any relief at all to for-profit businesses run by so many of our faithful in the pews.

As you know, we are continuing our efforts in Congress and in the courts, and we are confident that our rights under the Constitution and other laws protecting religious freedom will eventually be vindicated. While much remains uncertain, it is plain that the HHS Mandate lessens the ability of our ministries to give full-throated witness to our faith, a central mission of all Catholic apostolates.

At the Administrative Committee meeting, the members were unanimous in their resolve to continue our struggle against the HHS Mandate, and they asked me to convey that firm resolve to you. If there\’s any perception that our dedication to this fight is flagging, that’s dead wrong.

That perception may come in part from the Catholic Health Association’s hurried acceptance of the accommodation, which was, I’m afraid, untimely and unhelpful. We highly value CHA’s great expertise in their ministry of healing, but as they have been the first to say, they do not represent the Magisterium of the Church. Even in their document stating that they could live with the “accommodation” they remarked that we bishops, along with others, have wider concerns than they do.

We continue to follow the excellent process established at the meeting of the body of bishops in June, to develop avenues of response that would both preserve our strong unity and protect our consciences. Those efforts are proceeding apace, and as you know, include a careful legal and moral analysis of the final rule. We will then have another opportunity to discuss the rule at our November plenary assembly.

We are united in our resolve to continue to defend our right to live by our faith, and our duty to serve the poor, heal the sick, keep our apostolates strong and faithful, and insure our people. I remain grateful for your continued unity in response to this matter of deep concern to us all. I’ll try my best to keep you posted.

With prayerful best wishes, I am,

Fraternally in Christ,

Timothy Cardinal Dolan
Archbishop of New York
President
U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops

Clare Daly’s “drone strike” on Obamas in Irish Parliment (YouTube)

We were showcased as a ‘nation of pimps’ during Obama visit – Daly
We were showcased as a ‘nation of pimps’ during Obama visit – Daly

Peanut Gallery: Clare Daly scores a direct hit on the Obamas on their G-8 Summit visit to Ireland. And the Irish Head of State (Taoiseach) is required to sit there and take it. Then he has his say.

But Daly is not finished… addressing Syria, American Foreign Policy and the US / Irish relationship. Then the Taoiseach has his say.

Now that’s free speech in action… if only it were so in the USA.

Watch and be amazed!

Syria: Sep 7th ~ Day of Fasting, Prayer and Action

fast4syria-facebook-graphic-250PRAYER: Almighty eternal God, source of all compassion, the promise of your mercy and saving help fills our hearts with hope. Hear the cries of the people of Syria; bring healing to those suffering from the violence, and comfort to those mourning the dead. Empower and encourage Syria’s neighbors in their care and welcome for refugees. Convert the hearts of those who have taken up arms, and strengthen the resolve of those committed to peace.

O God of hope and Father of mercy, your Holy Spirit inspires us to look beyond ourselves and our own needs. Inspire leaders to choose peace over violence and to seek reconciliation with enemies. Inspire the Church around the world with compassion for the people of Syria, and fill us with hope for a future of peace built on justice for all. We ask this through Jesus Christ, Prince of Peace and Light of the World, who lives and reigns for ever and ever. Amen.

PETITION: For the people of Syria, that God may strengthen the resolve of leaders to end the fighting and choose a future of peace. We pray to the Lord…

FOR PRAYER VIGIL SCHEDULEclick here.

ACTION ALERT: Urge Congress to Pursue Political Solution in Syria, Not Military Option! Click here to compose / send your own letter / email to your Two Senators and Congressional Representative.

BACKGROUND RESOURCES:

Pope Francis Call to Prayer & Fasting ~ click on link.

I repeat forcefully: it is neither a culture of confrontation nor a culture of conflict which builds harmony within and between peoples, but rather a culture of encounter and a culture of dialogue; this is the only way to peace.

May the plea for peace rise up and touch the heart of everyone so that they may lay down their weapons and be let themselves be led by the desire for peace.

To this end, brothers and sisters, I have decided to proclaim for the whole Church on 7 September next, the vigil of the birth of Mary, Queen of Peace, a day of fasting and prayer for peace in Syria, the Middle East, and throughout the world, and I also invite each person, including our fellow Christians, followers of other religions and all men of good will, to participate, in whatever way they can, in this initiative.

On 7 September, in Saint Peter’s Square, here, from 19:00 until 24:00, we will gather in prayer and in a spirit of penance, invoking God’s great gift of peace upon the beloved nation of Syria and upon each situation of conflict and violence around the world. Humanity needs to see these gestures of peace and to hear words of hope and peace! I ask all the local churches, in addition to fasting, that they gather to pray for this intention.

USCCB: Letter To The President ~ click here to link.

We have heard the urgent calls of the Successor of Saint Peter, Pope Francis, and our suffering brother bishops of the venerable and ancient Christian communities of the Middle East. As one, they beg the international community not to resort to military intervention in Syria. They have made it clear that a military attack will be counterproductive, will exacerbate an already deadly situation, and will have unintended negative consequences. Their concerns find a strong resonance in American public opinion that questions the wisdom of intervention and in the lack of international consensus.

USCCB: Letter To Congress On Syria ~ click here to link.

We absolutely condemn the use of chemical weapons in Syria. These indiscriminate weapons have no place in the arsenals of the family of nations. With you we mourn for the lives lost and grieve with the families of the deceased. At the same time, we remain profoundly concerned for the more than 100,000 Syrians who have lost their lives, the more than 2 million who have fled the country as refugees, and the more than 4 million within Syria who have been driven from their homes by the violence. Our focus is on the humanitarian catastrophe unfolding in Syria and on saving lives by ending the conflict, not fueling it.

Conservatives Should Oppose Syrian Intervention ~ RedState reblog

syria_war_ships

In short, this would be a military strike with no objective other than killing some luckless Syrian conscripts… and innocent bystanders.

By: streiff (Diary) | September 2nd, 2013

In geopolitics as in medicine the first rule is do no harm. I am at a loss to see where any conceivable military action stands to either deter Assad from using chemical weapons in the future or reduces the risk to innocent civilians in Syria. Doing something for the sake of doing something only occasionally yields success. And, as far as I’ve read, the limit of our strategy in Syria is to do something.

Philosophically, I believe in the use of military power and I believe military force can be transformational, ask Japan and Germany. I also believe that the ill considered use of military force makes us look weak and stupid (any number of missile strikes by Bill Clinton, our involvement in Somalia, etc.). Right now I’m much more in sympathy with my colleague Daniel Horowitz than I am with my colleagues advocating a military response. In fact, I strongly oppose military intervention in Syria.

There is no genocide in Syria. The only ethnic cleansing is being done by the people we would be aiding. The chemical non proliferation regime is not in jeopardy because Syria already has chemical weapons and doesn’t seem to be providing them to anyone else. We are not trying for regime change. And, of course the Syrian rebels are mostly al Qaeda.

In short, this would be a military strike with no objective other than killing some luckless Syrian conscripts… and innocent bystanders.

I’m also a realist. Our Congressional caucus is running like scalded dogs from the idea of standing up to Obama. Really, why should they show more courage on Syria than they have on any other confrontation with Obama? When a vote finally takes place I fully expect them to give Obama carte blanche to do what he wishes.

Some will vote because the are afraid of being called out the next time Assad decides to kill people. More will follow the blandishments of the GOP “smart set” and vote out of some misguided sense of protecting the credibility of Barack Obama.

One such example appears is that of James Ceaser of the University of Virginia whom Bill Kristol tells us is a leading conservative thinker. (I don’t move in those circles so I just have to take his word for that.)

They shouldn’t.

Republicans should support some version of the authorization of force resolution. They should do so even if they think that the President’s policy will prove ineffective, do no good, waste money, or entail unforeseen risks; they should do so even if they think he has gotten the nation into this situation by blunders, fecklessness, arrogance, or naiveté; and they should so even if, and especially, if they have no confidence in his judgment. The simple fact is that the nation and our allies will be at further risk if the world sees a presidency that is weakened and that has no credibility to act. Partisans may be tempted to see such a result as condign punishment for the President’s misjudgments; they may feel that he deserves to pay the price for his hypocrisy and cheap and demagogic attacks on his predecessor. But at the end of the day, Republicans need to rise above such temptations; the stakes are too high.. The weaker the president’s credibility on the world scene, the more the need to swallow and do what will not weaken it further. President Obama is the only president we have. That remains the overriding fact.

And there is the important matter of the future–a future that may one day have a Republican in the presidency. The precedent of setting too low a threshold for blocking presidential initiative in foreign affairs is unwise. Of course Congress has the right, even the obligation, to stop action that member of the legislature believe would be disastrous. But short of that, it is wiser to maintain a good deal of discretion in the presidency. In the case at hand, all of the hyperbole about war aside, the real objection is that the President’s policy will prove to be ineffective or humiliating, not disastrous. That is not sufficient reason to weaken the discretion of the president or open the door next time to more gratuitous partisanship by the Democrats.

Were the basis of Dr. Ceaser’s essay factual one would be inclined to agree with him. Unfortunately, that is not the case.

In our system of government the authority of a president may pass by virtue of succession but his influence and credibility do not. One needs only look at the utterly benighted reign of Jimmy Carter to see how presidential credibility can be frittered away and regained. Any new president is going to be challenged by domestic and foreign political opposition and he can’t borrow his predecessor’s accomplishments. He must stand alone. While Obama is, unfortunately, the only president we have now he is not the only president we will ever have.

Dr. Ceaser’s concern about Democrats acting in a similar manner is rather bizarre as it was the late unlamented Democrat John Murtha who advocated depriving the US military of resources in Iraq, thereby deliberately creating more casualties – he called it “a slow bleed” – and increasing pressure on President Bush to end our war there. This was not in response to any Republican challenge to Clinton, it is simply their nature.

The reason we are in this mess is because Barack Obama is temperamentally ill suited for the presidency. Assad used chemical weapons… and Russia and Iran are backing Assad… because they have taken the measure of Obama and they have, correctly, determined that he is a weak and petty little man who is only capable of weak and petty responses. His military strike at Syria is precisely such an action.

Instead of taking Creaser’s advice and acting like a doting parent who caves into a tantrum-throwing toddler in the supermarket (we mustn’t hurt the precious little thing’s self esteem), Congress owes it to the nation and to the office of the president to put Obama in a time out.

Rather than taking a page out of Obama’s playbook and voting “present”, Congress should keep Obama from doing still more damage to US prestige and security abroad, even if they won’t act to do so on the domestic front. They should vote no and let him own the results, good or bad.