HSS Mandate: Write a Letter to the Editor

Inspired by Dr. Stacy Trasanco’s post, “I Shouldn’t Have Waited for the Bishops”, I have taken her advice – sort of – and determined to speak out about the evil of contraception right alongside the evil of the trampling of religious freedom by the HSS contraception mandate.

Stacy’s emphasis was on talking to doctors about Catholic views, and insisting that they not prescribe contraception because it is wrong. She wrote (my emphasis):

It’s great that some bishops have started speaking out though others always have been. But just as soon as I thought about what the bishops are doing, I checked myself because I realize that I have been part of the problem all along. I shouldn’t have waited for the bishops to speak out against the citizenry being forced to fund these immoral things in our society.

Contraception has pervaded our culture for a long time and I’ve done little about it. Sure I’ve argued against it, and written about it. I’ve rejected it in my own life. I’ve taught my children why it’s harmful. But – I’ve also accepted that as long as a doctor doesn’t push it on me, it’s none of my business whether he or she dispenses it to other women. That has been my mentality. I realize now with a shudder, that’s not acceptable because that is fundamentally what moral relativism is.

…

Unless I have looked at every doctor along the way for the last three decades in the face and told them why contraception, sterilization and abortion are immoral, and demanded they stop offering it lest I seek new medical professionals to care for my body and my family, then I really have no foundation for any outrage today at all. Yes, I confess, I’ve walked out of doctor’s offices and ignored the contraception ads hanging on the wall, just glad I did “the right thing.” But I failed. I should have spoken up, right then, right there, directly to the medical professionals.

Mea culpa

I vow to be a more involved patient. Imagine what would happen if every Catholic woman demanded that every doctor in every Catholic hospital cease and desist immediately from dispensing contraception? They’d listen to us. This is the time to help the bishops, ladies.

Will you join me?

I read that (and you should read the whole thing) and thought, “Yeah! I’ll join you!”

However…I seldom see a doctor. I also happen to know that the one Catholic ob/gyn doctor in our little community seems to have no objection to prescribing artificial contraception, and has no moral compunction concerning sterilization of men or women.

So I decided to write a letter to the editor of the local newspaper instead. I would have liked to address more fully the immorality of contraception, but you can only do so much in a 350-word letter! Here’s my letter. Feel free to use it as your own if you wish. This information needs to be disseminated.

To the Editor:

The Department of Human and Health Services has issued a mandate which will force the Catholic Church to act against its own teachings by providing insurance coverage for contraception, sterilization, and some abortifacient drugs to its employees.

This “contraception mandate” strikes not only against the “conscience rights” of the Catholic Church, but also against religious freedom in this country – a freedom guaranteed by the First Amendment. Every American – regardless of religious affiliation – should stand against it.

I encourage you to write to your senators and representatives and demand that this mandate be repealed; failure to act now will only result in more attacks on our liberties later.

I also encourage you to consider this: the Catholic Church has taught for the past 2000+ years that artificial contraception and abortion are intrinsically evil. This teaching is rooted in the natural law as well as in the religious codes of the Church. In addition, the use of artificial contraception was condemned by virtually all Christian churches until the 1930’s.  Then, while it had been the exception, contraception became the rule in a matter of a few decades. Yet, a great deal of research indicates that artificial contraception often has abortifacient side effects and can be very dangerous to women’s physical well-being. Do the research. Contraception is not good for women (or society).

Unfortunately, it is true that Catholics are woefully misinformed as to what – and why – their Church teaches about the immorality of contraception; consequently, Catholics use artificial contraception in the same proportion as the general population. But this does not condone the HSS mandate, nor does it mean the religious beliefs of Protestant denominations are safe from government interference.

Thus, two points are important to remember here. First, artificial contraception is morally wrong, as well as physically unhealthy. Second, we must not stand for the trampling of religious liberty and conscience rights. Assert your constitutional rights. Take action now.

Sincerely,

Jay Boyd, Ph.D.

[Note: the newspaper never puts the "Ph.D." after my name, but I always add it. I paid a lot of money for those letters, and figure it does make me a certified smart person!]

See also: "Freedom? Conscience? Truth!" and "Freedom. Period."


And..."Priests Preaching the Truth"

Freedom. Period.

The news about the Susan G. Komen Foundation re-funding (maybe) instead of de-funding Planned Parenthood causes me more distress than the HSS contraception mandate.

Komen’s ostensible reversal - whether it's truly a reversal or not seems to be a matter under discussion -  has quite a story behind it, I suspect, and that story is not pretty. Call me paranoid, but I’ll bet there is extortion involved.  Not to mention threats, lies, and deceit. No wonder Jill Stanek is using the phrase “abortion mafia”. God only knows what has been said behind closed doors. Well…the devil knows, too, because he was there.

Dr. Ed Peters has a cogent post on the subject, and I will quote him briefly here:

But this year, Komen said that it would not make a donation to Planned Parenthood, and an unbelievable outcry erupted. Why? Because one non-profit, Komen, said it did not choose to donate to another non-profit, Planned Parenthood. What condemnations Komen suffered! What contemptuous scoldings! What hatred! And all because it, as an independent non-profit, decided that it did not want to make what was supposed to be a free gift to another independent non-profit. Now we read that Komen’s leadership has yielded to the fury and basically decided to make other “free” gifts to Planned Parenthood.

May I ask, where is it written that, once someone donates to a cause, one must forever donate to that cause?

When I was a kid, we were always saying, “Well, it’s a free country, ya know!” whenever we were challenged on a particular “choice” we did or did not make. Back in my old playground days, Susie would have said, “I don’t have to play with Maggie if I don’t want to.” And if pressed, she’d’ve added, “It’s a free country, ya know.”

Can we still say that?

Even in elementary school there was always the school bully taking another kid’s lunch or lunch money. Today, in the governmental sphere, the “bullies” are really taking over. The Constitution is being trampled in more ways than one. Our taxes are paying for things we don’t want them to pay for (and have been for some time; it’s not just Obama who has done this). And now a non-profit organization has been castigated for considering not giving money to another non-profit (uh…yeah) organization. It’s not even the government bullies doing the coercing on this one! (well…not officially, anyway).

I think we’d better watch out for any and all of our freedoms.

 

See also: "I Guess Komen Made the Wrong Choice"

I Guess Komen Made the Wrong Choice

For choice some are “pro” –

Unless you say “no”

To the choices they want you to make.

Then choice is a fraud,

It’s a simple façade

To keep Komen from making the break.

Yep. Planned Parenthood is all for “choice”…unless it’s the Komen group’s choice to de-fund Planned Parenthood.


I guess Komen didn't want to wait for Obama to mandate their participation in mass murder.


See also: "Freedom. Period."

Bishops and "Catholic" Politicians...Again

Some of our US bishops have made some great, strong-sounding statements of late, taking the Obama administration to task for the trampling of our religious freedom and conscience rights via the HHS contraception mandate. Many bishops had a form letter (a very good form letter, to be sure) read aloud in parishes all over the US last, urging Catholics to contact their senators and representatives to protest the HSS mandate.

The lay faithful (“faithful” being the operative word here) seem to be thrilled that their bishops are finally showing a little backbone. Okay, it’s all words at this point, but what the heck – there are a whole bunch of bishops willing to speak out in the public square. This is good. People are talking about standing behind our bishops, supporting them with prayer and fasting.

Meanwhile, Nancy Pelosi just stated for the cameras that “I’m going to stick with my fellow Catholics in supporting the administration” on the HHS contraception mandate. (H/T to tantamergo; see it also here with transcript for difficult-to-hear reporter's question.)

What?! Umm…bishops?! She just dissed you, big time.

[Well, I can't get the video to appear here; see it at the links provided!]

Pelosi just said that her “fellow Catholics” support the administration. Okay, she probably just meant her fellow “catholics”, like VP Joe Biden and HSS secretary Kathleen Sebelius. But still. She just made it sound like ALL Catholics support the Obama administration in this.  And she sure isn’t talking about bishops when she says “fellow Catholics”, because they sure don't support the mandate!

So, bishops…what are you going to do about it? It is time, dear bishops, to do something about these so-called “Catholic” politicians who trash the faith, trash you bishops, and lead real Catholics astray.

I’ve said it before:

Now is the time for the bishops to say - in one, loud, unified voice - that "Catholic" politicians whose political statements and affiliations fly in the face of Catholic teaching should NOT...NOT...NOT even seek to receive Holy Communion. And if they do, they should be denied. The bishops need to make this point clear to their priests. The priests need to make it clear to their "extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion."

…This all dovetails very nicely into re-educating the faithful in the pews. They would see the politicians being refused. They could be encouraged to ask whether they themselves are receiving Communion worthily. They would be forced to see what the Church teaches and whether or not they are in communion with that teaching.

In that same post, I linked to a Vortex episode called “Obama and Catholic Traitors”, in which Michael Voris hits the nail on the head – as usual. This Vortex aired on October 4, 2011. Every word makes even more sense today. Watch it for yourself (below), but here are some key excerpts (my emphases and comments):

The horrendous moral path that America has marched down has been disproportionately led by Catholics – bad Catholics who have betrayed the faith.

…When the Obama’s immoral and unjust health care plan was heading down to defeat in the US Congress is was a handful of Catholic lawmakers that snatched passage from the jaws of defeat and got it over the line with just enough votes. They were encouraged by a nun who lied about the reality of Obamacare regarding abortion [and directly contradicted the bishops]. Now contraception, sterilization, and the lack of conscience clause for Catholic hospitals and health care workers...all these chickens are coming home to roost.

…The so-called health care law is being shoved down the throats of Catholic hospitals and educational institutions by yet another back-stabbing Catholic: Kathleen Sebelius…

These are just some of the more recent members of the Catholic traitors rogue gallery. The old war horses like Catholic in name only Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden are of course still stirring their cauldrons of anti-Catholic modernist evil every chance they get.

... These Judas Catholics worm thier way into these positions quite frequently by …present[ing] themselves as “your typical Catholic”. They show up at Catholic events, like fish fries; enroll in Catholic associations like the Knights of Columbus; speak at Catholic schools and universities; and belong to various Catholic organizations. All of this gives the impression to Catholic voters … that these snakes in the grass are actually Catholic and at least passively accepted by the Church and her leaders and therefore OK to vote for…

…Once they get into elected office, like all politicians, they use their power platforms to network and move up and get entrenched into the political stratosphere through being appointed to this office or that department. Sebelius and Panetta are prime examples. They APPEAR to have the Catholic seal of approval and from those heights have caused evil to rain down on the culture.

…It is a very good thing that Archbishop Dolan and other bishops have dropped some of the niceties with Obama. He is supporting an agenda of evil and needs to be called on it. But calling him out is only one step.

The people [Obama] is using as some of his strongest generals are traitors to the bishops in their own camp. They too need to be called out. Organizations that support or coddle them mist be called out. Institutions that give them platforms must be called out.

And more than just called out; they all must suffer consequences for their dereliction and support of the cultural rot.

…The political traitors as well as ecclesial traitors must be dealt with and dealt with fast and in no uncertain terms. Their evil must be exposed and they must suffer the consequences for it – both for the sake of their own souls as well as the sake of others.

That is THE definition of charity.

Related: "Liberal Catholics: The Enemy of My Enemy?"


"Religious Liberty: Some Limericks and Commentary"

“Freedom? Conscience? Truth!”

"Courageous" Catholic Fatherhood: The Rite Stuff

I recently watched the movie “Courageous”, produced by Sherwood Pictures, the same company that brought us Flywheel, Facing the Giants, and Fireproof. It’s a good movie with a good message, applauded by Catholics as well as Protestants.  Prior to the initial release of the film, a National Catholic Register article noted that “[a]t least 10 Catholic men’s, marriage and family ministries have partnered with the filmmakers to help support and promote the film.”

I’ve enjoyed all of the Sherwood films, but I’m always watching for how a Catholic message on the same topic might be presented a little differently…and reflect our Catholic identity.

The story line in “Courageous” revolves around several men who decide to make a commitment to their families, the substance of which is concerned with providing a Christian witness to their children, and bringing up their children in the ways of God. One man starts digging into Scripture to see what the Bible has to tell him about fatherhood.

Wait…insert Catholic perspective: in the Catholic Church, we have those ideals readily before us in living examples. We have priests who are called “Father”; we have the Pope - “Papa” – our Holy Father. We have Holy Mother Church. It’s all woven together so we can see a model of the family. We have St. Joseph, the earthly father of Jesus, who was guided by angels as he agreed to take Mary as his wife, and later as he escaped to Egypt with her to protect the Baby from Herod.

It just seems so...wrong...

(And yet, these days poor St. Joseph is relegated to the status of a plastic statue buried upside down in the front yard of a house to guarantee its sale. Oh dear – even Snopes is in on the act.)

When one “Courageous” man shows the men’s written commitment to his wife, she points out that “this is computer paper”, suggesting that the men need to use something more appropriate to the gravity of the promise. She also suggests that when they sign the commitment, they should be dressed appropriately, and there should be a “ceremony”.

Ah...that's better!

Wait…insert Catholic perspective: all I could think of as I watched this part was the need for human beings to honor God with worthy rites, in worthy ways, with proper reverence and care. That’s what the man’s wife was saying.

I think Catholics have a built-in way of achieving just exactly what the men in the movie wanted to achieve: to make a promise before God to fulfill the duties God has prescribed for them, in the presence of family and friends who will hold one accountable for the promises made. We have RITES!

We have rites galore!  They are approved by the Church, and they are a part of our Catholic life and our Catholic identity.

Let’s start with the rite of marriage. (I’m going to use examples from the ordinary form of these rites, not the extraordinary form, since most people will be more familiar with the ordinary form. But just so you know, the extraordinary form of these rites is generally richer and more powerfully reverent than the ordinary form. Just sayin’.)

In the rite of marriage, the priest says (my emphases):

My dear friends, you have come together in this church so that the Lord may seal and strengthen your love in the presence of the Church’s minister and this community. Christ abundantly blesses this love. He has already consecrated you in baptism and now he enriches and strengthens you by a special sacrament so that you may assume the duties of marriage in mutual and lasting fidelity. And so, in the presence of the Church, I ask you to state your intentions.

The priest also asks the couple:

Will you love and honor each other as man and wife for the rest of your lives?

 Will you accept children lovingly from God and bring them up according to the law of Christ and his Church?

These two short questions tell us what marriage is about: loving and honoring each other, and welcoming children and bringing them up in the ways of God. In other words, the rite itself lays out some of the concerns addressed by the men in “Courageous”. In the Catholic marriage rite, the couple is put on notice from the very beginning that they must be prepared to raise their children according to the law of Christ and the Church.

The men in the movie held their ceremony in the presence of a pastor, they signed the paper, and they received their framed document. We see them each hang the document in his home, in a prominent place, to remind him of his commitment. But don’t we also know that after a time, such things become invisible? We forget that they are there, unless we make some effort to remind ourselves about the promise made.

For Catholics, that reminder is built into our sacramental life. When their first baby is born, the couple immediately prepares for the child’s baptism (ideally!). And in the baptismal rite, we find that parents are again reminded about their duties before God. They are reminded not just by looking at a framed document on the wall, but by participating in a rite that confers the sacrament of baptism on their baby, and exacts from them a re-statement of their commitment to God and to their family life.

In the baptismal rite, parents promise to raise the child according to the laws of the Church. They make baptismal vows in the child’s name. The priest says to the parents:

You have asked to have your child baptized. In doing so you are accepting the responsibility of training him (her) in the practice of the faith. It will be your duty to bring him (her) up to keep God's commandments as Christ taught us, by loving God and our neighbor. Do you clearly understand what you are undertaking?

And not only the parents, but the godparents as well, make a commitment to the child. In the movie, the men agreed to hold each other accountable. In the Catholic world, godparents can serve that purpose for the parents. The godparents too are making the commitment, as the priest asks:

Are you ready to help the parents of this child in their duty as Christian parents?

The priest also tells the parents and godparents the following:

On your part, you must make it your constant care to bring him (her) up in the practice of the faith. See that the divine life which God gives him (her) is kept safe from the poison of sin, to grow always stronger in his (her) heart.

If your faith makes you ready to accept this responsibility, renew now the vows of your own baptism. Reject sin; profess your faith in Christ Jesus. This is the faith of the Church. This is the faith in which this child is about to be baptized.

And finally, the priest says:

God is the giver of all life, human and divine. May he bless the father of this child. He and his wife will be the first teachers of their child in the ways of faith. May they be also the best of teachers, bearing witness to the faith by what they say and do, in Christ Jesus our Lord.

If you compare this to the vows the men made in the movie, I think you will find some strong similarities! But, as Catholics, we’ve got something even more powerful here: a sacrament instituted by Christ which is administered by an ordained priest standing before us as an alter christus! It really doesn’t get much better than that.

Each time a child is born to the couple, the baptismal vows are repeated. Not only that, but as the child grows, the parents continue to be reminded of their duties by the sacraments of first Holy Communion and Confirmation.

Catholics, in other words, have exactly what the men in “Courageous” were looking for. The problem is, we take it for granted, or we don’t fully participate in it, or we don’t understand what it’s all about.  But the information is there, if we want to dig for it. As Blessed Pope John Paul II wrote in Familiaris Consortio:

In revealing and in reliving on earth the very fatherhood of God, a man is called upon to ensure the harmonious and united development of all the members of the family: he will perform this task by exercising generous responsibility for the life conceived under the heart of the mother, by a more solicitous commitment to education, a task he shares with his wife, by work which is never a cause of division in the family but promotes its unity and stability, and by means of the witness he gives of an adult Christian life which effectively introduces the children into the living experience of Christ and the Church.

I encourage all you “Courageous” Catholic fathers (and mothers, and godparents, and family, and friends) to look in your own backyard for the riches sought after by those men in the movie.

Somehow, the phrase “Save the Liturgy, Save the World” comes to mind…

Obama-Logic 101 and the Contraception Mandate

I was alerted to this tidbit from Fox News today:

Pharmaceutical giant Pfizer ordered the recall Tuesday of at least a million oral contractive packets because the pills might not be potent enough to prevent pregnancy.

Pfizer said the recall affected 14 lots of Lo/Ovral-28 tablets and 14 lots of Norgestrel and Ethinyl Estradiol tablets.  

The action could leave the pharmaceutical giant vulnerable to a multi-million dollar lawsuit, according to one attorney. 

Let’s hope that, nine months from now, those women with defective pills won’t be lining up at their local abortion mill. Of course, if they’re not, they’ll be encouraged to sue Pfizer for “wrongful birth”…or maybe just “wrongful conception”?! Oh dear.

I’m almost afraid to consider the implications of this for Obama-logic. But let’s follow it out, because it’s good to try to think the way your enemy would.

 Sebelius and Obama say that all women have a right to free birth control. Obama says that being forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term (in other words, to have a baby!) is a “punishment”.

Therefore, if the woman is given defective birth control pills, and she gets pregnant, she should not have to have that baby…right? (Um…baby? What baby? It’s NOT a baby!)

No! Say NO to Obama!

So, following Obama-logic: gosh darn it, we need some way for that woman to get rid of that ba….er…pregnancy. Therefore, we’d better re-fund Planned Parenthood in the states where they’ve been de-funded because they are just the best at getting rid of … you know…unwanted clumps of cells.

And you know (following Obama-logic), the Supreme Court did decide in 1992 (Planned Parenthood vs. Casey) that abortion should continue to be legal, because Americans have come to count on it in the event that their birth control fails.

Thus…ta-da! Abortion must be a constitutional right! Further proof, ya know. And if abortion is a constitutional right, then all employers ought to provide insurance coverage for it, even if it’s against their “conscience”. (“Conscience? What’s a conscience?”)

Oh wait…here’s some further Obama-logic: according to a LifeSiteNews report, the White House press secretary says there are no “constitutional rights” issues with the HSS contraception mandate, and that

…this approach does not signal any change at all in the administration’s policy on conscience protections. The President and this administration have previously expressed strong support for existing conscience protections, including those relating to health care providers.  That support continues.

Uh…right.

In other words, the administration never intended to recognize “conscience rights” at all? And there is no “freedom of religion” under the First Amendment?

And so… “and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, under Obama, with contraception and abortion for all.”

Folks, get ready.

See also: "Freedom? Conscience? Truth!"

El Paso: Curiouser and Curiouser

What in the world is going on in El Paso?

Bishop Ochoa is suing Fr. Michael Rodriguez…

A group of lay faithful are suing Bishop Ochoa…

Fr. Michael Rodriguez once again spoke against homosexual “marriage” at a City Council meeting…

According to the Diocese of Fresno website, Bishop Ochoa will be installed as the new bishop there on February 2…

According to the El Paso Times, Bishop Ochoa has also been appointed the Apostolic Administrator of the Diocese of El Paso, beginning the day after his February 2 installation as Bishop of the Diocese of Fresno.

Taking this confusing list of issues one at a time, consider the lawsuit problems. I have written about Ochoa’s lawsuit against Fr. Rodriguez here and here…just a few thoughts on what this civil suit might mean for the Church.

The El Paso lay faithful’s contention is that they donated money for a particular purpose in their parish, and that Bishop Ochoa must either use the moneys for the designated purpose, or return the funds to the donors. Dr. Ed Peters at In the Light of the Law has now commented on this aspect of the issue. He notes:

Now, because parishes are “juridic persons” distinct from dioceses (see cc. 373 and 515 § 3), and because a pastor is the administrator of the goods of a parish (c. 532), any specially-designated donations made to a pastor/parish can be used by that parish only for the purpose expressed.** If the donations truly cannot be used for the purpose collected, the prudent course would seem to be to consult the donors about a redesignation of their gift (GB&I Comm 716) or, that failing, even to return the gifts.

But if the canon law in such matters is fairly straightforward, the facts of such cases tend to get very blurry, very quickly. Some of the questions that occurred to me as I read the above news story included: Were the funds solicited, and if so, by whom and how? What stipulations, if any, were actually attached to these gifts? To whom or what were the donations actually made? Where are the funds now, how did they get there, and why?

Read the full text of his comments here.

Personally, I still think the whole civil lawsuit idea is ill-advised, but since Bishop Ochoa took it into that arena, it seems to me that the lay faithful – who appear to have a valid claim – have little choice but to follow Ochoa’s lead, or forfeit their money to purposes which they may not support.

The issue of Bishop Ochoa’s dual citizenship intrigues me. He will be the Bishop of the Diocese of Fresno and the Apostolic Administrator of the Diocese of El Paso…at the same time.  

As Steve Kellmyer notes in a Jan. 13 post (his emphases):

…Ochoa may well lose standing as a claimant in the lawsuit within the next two weeks, since he will no longer be part of the diocese.

Once Ochoa has formally left, the only power in the diocese will be that of the diocesan administrator, as El Paso waits for a new bishop. What power does a diocesan administrator have?

Can. 428 §1. When a see is vacant, nothing is to be altered.
§2. Those who temporarily care for the governance of the diocese are forbidden to do anything which can be prejudicial in some way to the diocese or episcopal rights. They, and consequently all others, are specifically prohibited, whether personally or through another, from removing or destroying any documents of the diocesan curia or from changing anything in them.

Clearly, Ochoa wanted to pursue Father Rodriguez in the few days left to him. But is beginning a civil legal action prejudicial to the episcopal rights of the as-yet-unnamed incoming bishop? Does Ochoa have the canonical power to lay this lawsuit?

The news that Bishop Ochoa has been named Apostolic Administrator of El Paso casts a different light on things now. I certainly have no idea what makes Rome tick, but is it possible that the desire is to leave Ochoa in charge in El Paso in order for him to clean up the mess he’s made there?

And so, just like the old TV shows I used to watch as a kid, we’ll end this post with…

…to be continued…