Pope Benedict to canonize seven saints next October

Cardinal Edward Egan, the Emeritus Archbishop of New York, could not keep a smile off his face as he stood in the sun outside of St. Peter’s after the consistory. He eagerly pointed out that “out of the seven saints, two are New Yorkers.
…
Someone asked me last night whether New York was a secular city? I said it was the most religious city in the world, and if you have any doubt, two out of seven isn’t bad for any state!” he told CNA.

Pretty cool. Although, isn’t it funny how people from NYC mix and match the word “New York” to apply either to the city or the state as they please? Meanwhile those of us who don’t live in the city must be sure to always emphasize State when we say “New York State” so as not to confuse others into thinking that we’re referring to the city. In the case of these Saints, I hereby officially claim them as Upstaters! That makes the grand total:

Upstate: 2
NYC: 0

While we’re at it, I thought these posters going around facebook were funny:

and one more:

photo credit:77krc (flickr)
photo credit: billsoPHOTO (flickr)

Of course young women are not attracted to the Church.  Why would anyone be drawn to an institution that seems to have such little respect for them? Here’s the evidence:
-before you even begin to discuss the priesthood, the Church has not made the steps it would if women were truly valued, such as opening the diaconate to them.(see later in this post, when we cite Margot’s semi-official bio.)
-Women are not being listened to adequately.  Women’s experience too often appears to be ignored or disdained.  Like most women, I am not interested in a form of “feminism” which has been developed by men and imposed on me as “authentic”. (Clear rejection of Theology of the Body, and essentially of a great multitude of Catholic teachings.  I would suggest she, or any other woman blinded by this misconception, read this book.  The Church has repeatedly failed to seek out, value or listen to the experience of women. Rather, leaders still continue to write of us as the “Other”.
-Most of the activities which in an earlier day required women to be members of a religious order if they wished to undertake them can now be engaged with in the secular world.  You don’t have to be a sister to teach, to be a nurse, to be a missionary-or even to get and advanced education. Moreover, the opportunities women have in the secular world are far more determined by their skills rather than their gender. Why should it be surprising that women focus there? (The same can be said of men…so this is not gender-specific in the least…)

If the Church truly values women, it will address their experience of these issues rather than ignore, stifle or spin them. (Read: Let me be a priest)
I say this as a minister who is loyal and loves the faith despite these grave deficiencies, and I continue to encourage young women to see the Church as a spiritual home. Unfortunately, all too often the voice that discourages them comes from the Church’s leaders-(might I note that perhaps the voice that discourages true femininity are the wannabewomymnpreestz who are all too often the “Church’s leaders” in Rochester.  Why would a young woman wish to join a religious order filled to the brim with bitter, embattled old women who despise the very Church they claim to serve? What intelligent, self-respecting young woman would choose to surround herself with post-menopausal women who wish nothing more than to diminish their femininity, in favor of masculinity and call it “feminism” and consider themselves young, hip, social change agents? Note that vocations to orthodox women’s religious orders where femininity is embraced are booming!) not from the secular world.

By Margot VanEtten on February 14, 2012 at 11:36 AM

Now, let us examine Mrs. VanEtten’s bio:

Margot is the Full-time Campus Minister for the Newman Community.  She has been involved in teaching, campus life, and ministry for more than thirty years.

Margot has a Masters’ Degree in Theology and is an ABD (“all but dissertation”) in English. Along with her husband Larry, she completed the Diocese of Rochester’s Permanent Deacon Training Program. (I wanna be a priest! I wanna be a deacon! I have the same training, so why can’t I do it?  You must hate women, Pope Benedict!) She taught English at Finger Lakes Community College and (many years ago) at Penn State.  At St. Bernard’s Institute she taught “Introduction to Spirituality” and developed a course in Sacred Ecology. (Sacred what now?  I will note that Mrs. VanEtten is somewhat obsessed with “animal rights,” so I should not be surprised.  Something tells me that her courses at St. Barnyard’s are…much like most of the courses at the French Road Heresy Factory.) She also developed a course in Self Defense for Women which she has taught at FLCC, Nazareth College and at Harp Karate in Rochester, where she is an instructor. (Margot holds Black Belts in four Martial Arts, which she has been practicing and teaching for more than fifteen years).  

In addition, Margot is a Certified Sign Language Interpreter.  She has been an Interpreter for the Deaf at Rochester Institute of Technology, as well as Coordinator of Interpreters for the RIT Campus Ministry, and was Pastoral Assistant for St. Mary’s Church of the Deaf (now Emmanuel Church of the Deaf).  She has published two articles about religious interpreting and has designed programs for Sexual Harassment Awareness for a local consulting company as well as the Self-defense program offered at Harp Karate and various area colleges.  She has wide experience in interfaith ministries and worship,(Oh joy!) and brings a lot of enthusiasm to her work and ministry on campus.

Well, that doesn’t exactly sound like a Catholic bio, but rather that of an earth-obsessed, liberal feminist.  Well, let’s see what sort of mission statement Mrs. VanEtten’s SUNY Brockport Newman Community espouses:

In recognition of the importance of spiritual growth in the development of the whole person, the mission of the Newman Catholic Community at SUNY Brockport is to:

• Promote and encourage the spiritual growth of all members of the College through opportunities for prayer, growth and study. (not necessarily, it appears, Catholic growth…)
  
• Reach out to all members of the student community and support their growth in body, mind and spirit. (Apparently it’s the YMCA now)
  
• Nurture a sense of community that respects and honors diversity. (Read: all religions are equal.)
• Support the development of a strong interfaith ministry and community on campus. (Why?)
  
• Encourage generous service to those in need.
• Be present and available to listen, console, and challenge with love.
  

Now, far be it from me to judge an organizational leader by his or her supposed mission, but…well…actually…that’s exactly what I’m going to do.  Does anything in that mission statement even suggest Catholicism specifically? Any mention of the Sacraments, of Holy Mass, of growing in knowledge of the faith?  Note the phrase “spiritual growth through…prayer, growth, and study.” First of all, how can one encourage spiritual growth through opportunities for growth?  That, my friends, is meaningless drivel!  Respect diversity and develop a strong interfaith community?  That sure doesn’t sound like someone who believes that “unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.”  Perhaps the lack of an authentically Catholic presence on college campuses plays some part in the lack of twenty-somethings who attend Mass regularly, hm?

It’s amazing what rotten fruit has arisen in the thirty years since Bishop Clark published “Fire in the Thornbush,” his infamous pastoral letter on “Women in the Church.” You can find Cleansing Fire’s review of his 2010 book on essentially the same subject, Forward in Hope: Saying Amen to Lay Ecclesial Ministry” here.  Finally, I will note (again) Ecclesiae de mysterio 4, which essentially explains that what happens here in Rochester is quite illicit:

Article 4

The Parish Priest and the Parish
The non-ordained faithful, as happens in many worthy cases, may collaborate effectively in the pastoral ministry of clerics in parishes, health care centers, charitable and educational institutions, prisons, Military Ordinariates etc. Provisions regulating such extraordinary form of collaboration are provided by Canon 517, 2.

1. The right understanding and application of this canon, according to which “If the diocesan bishop should decide that due to a dearth of priests a participation in the exercise of the pastoral care of a parish is to be entrusted to a deacon or to some other person who is not a priest or to a community of persons, he is to appoint some priest endowed with the powers and faculties of a pastor to supervise the pastoral care”, requires that this exceptional provision be used only with strict adherence to conditions contained in it. These are:

a) ob sacerdotum penuriam and not for reasons of convenience or ambiguous “advancement of the laity“, etc.;

b) this is participatio in exercitio curae pastoralis and not directing, coordinating, moderating or governing the Parish; these competencies, according to the canon, are the competencies of a priest alone.

Because these are exceptional cases, before employing them, other possibilities should be availed of, such as using of the services of retired priests still capable of such service, or entrusting several parishes to one priest or to a coetus sacerdotum [group of priests].(75)

In any event, the preference which this canon gives to deacons cannot be overlooked.

The same canon, however, reaffirms that these forms of participation in the pastoral care of parishes cannot, in any way, replace the office of Parish Priest. The same canon decrees that “The diocesan bishop … is to appoint some priest endowed with the powers and faculties of a pastor to supervise the pastoral care”. Indeed, the office of Parish Priest can be assigned validly only to a priest (cf. Canon 521, 1) even in cases where there is a shortage of clergy.(76)

2. In the same regard, it must be noted that the Parish Priest is the Pastor proper to the parish entrusted to him(77) and remains such until his pastoral office shall have ceased.(78)

The presentation of resignation at the age of 75 (Clark mandates retirement at 70.) by a Parish Priest does not of itself (ipso iure) terminate his pastoral office. Such takes effect only when the diocesan Bishop, following prudent consideration of all the circumstances, shall have definitively accepted his resignation in accordance with Canon 538, 3 and communicated such to him in writing.(79) In the light of those situations where scarcity of priests exists, the use of special prudence in this matter would be judicious.

In view of the right of every cleric to exercise the ministry proper to him, and in the absence of any grave health or disciplinary reasons, it should be noted that having reached the age of 75 does not constitute a binding reason or the diocesan Bishop to accept a Parish Priest’s resignation. This also serves to avoid a functional concept of the Sacred Ministry.(80)

It would be interesting to find out, if it were able ever to do so, how many Letters of laity to the “Catholic Courier” attempting to defend the doctrines and discipline of the Church were never printed!

Note: I see that in the year 2012 Fr. Richard P. McBrien remains a favorite columnist in the “Catholic Courier” of the Diocese of Rochester. It is really incredible that a priest who continually writes to contradict Magisterial teaching remains without protest or contradiction by the Bishop of the diocese. Other bishops have acted to remove his column from their newspapers and rightfully so. This 2003 Letter sent to the “Catholic Courier” of the Diocese of Rochester was not printed but remains relevant since Fr. McBrien has never retracted his false teaching that since Vatican II Catholics no longer believe the Catholic Church was the true Church of Jesus Christ.
-James Likoudis

June 12, 2003

Letter to the Editor
Catholic Courier
P.O.Box 24379
Rochester, NY 14624

Dear Editor,

In his Catholic Courier column (6/12/03) Fr. Richard P. McBrien once again urges dismissal of the Catholic Church’s discipline of mandated celibacy for priests of the Latin rite. It is clear that he is an apologist for rejecting its maintenance as “a possible solution” for the shortage of priestly vocations. “The rule of celibacy”, he sneers, “is regarded, at least implicitly, as more important than making the Eucharist available to every Catholic”. While ostensibly praising Pope John Paul II’s new Encyclical “Ecclesia de Eucharistia”, he ignores everything the same Pope has written in praise of and defense of the Church’s present discipline on priestly celibacy which is of apostolic origin. “The lack of priests”, the Pontiff noted, “is certainly a sadness for any local Church”, but to be utterly rejected is “the framework of systematic propaganda which is hostile to celibacy. Such propaganda finds support and complicity in some of the mass media.” The shortage of priests that has afflicted the Church in the post-conciliar period, he pointed out, “was based on an erroneous understanding of- and sometimes even conscious bias against- the doctrine of the Conciliar Magisterium. Herein lies undoubtedly one of the reasons for the great number of defections experienced then by the Church, losses which did serious harm to pastoral ministry and priestly vocations, especially missionary vocations.” (Address 11/5/90) It is ironic that writers like Fr. McBrien who presume to speak for “the spirit of Vatican II” are at complete odds with the actual teaching of the Popes and the most recent Ecumenical Council supporting mandated priestly celibacy for priests of the Western Church (See Vatican II’s “Life of Priests”, 16)

Fr. McBrien is indeed a “professor of theology at the University of Notre Dame”, but, interestingly, has not received or even requested a “mandatum” from his bishop to be regarded as an authentic theologian. Moreover, the very concept of the Church presented in this same column is not faithful to Catholic doctrine. Non-Catholic Churches and ecclesial communities may indeed possess a “certain, though imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church”, as Vatican II declared. But, contrary to Fr. McBrien’s erroneous view, such dissident Churches and ecclesial communities cannot be said to be “within the Body of Christ” in such manner that the visible unity of Christ’s one and only Church (which is His Mystical Body) is lost sight of. One of McBrien’s favorite (and false) ideas is that the whole Body of Christ and not the Catholic Church alone is the one true Church of Jesus Christ. But then McBrien’s theology in many respects is not faithful to Catholic doctrine and the Magisterium. The U.S. Bishops’ Committee on Doctrine noted exactly that when in April 1996 it censured McBrien’s major work “Catholicism” which he never bothered to revise as requested.

Sincerely yours,
James Likoudis

He offered the following statement on behalf of the conference yesterday, before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

The full text of Bishop Lori’s testimony is available here.

No, the problem these people with the EWTN television shows, the radio microphones and the book publishing contracts all treat like a third rail is the scandal of American bishops who have betrayed the Church and have effectively left their flocks to wander in the wilderness. And it is not just those bishops who have done so in the past, but those who continue to do so today.

I was reminded of this situation this morning while listening to Teresa Tomeo’s Catholic Connection show on Ave Maria Radio.  The subject was the Obama administration’s recent health care mandate and what our reaction as faithful, lay Catholics ought to be.  Early on in the show Teresa offered the following, obviously unscripted comments on that topic (my transcription from the podcast beginning at the 10:55 mark) …

This is our time to stand up and back up the bishops and be their foot soldiers and engage the culture in a loving way. I can’t stress this enough. And, again, as I said yesterday on my show when I had a long talk with Al Kresta and Nick Thomm about this, I’m hearing, still, a lot of angst with people saying, you know, it’s the bishops’ fault we’re in this mess in the first place, yadda, yadda, yadda, because of the lack of teaching over the years.

If you have that frustration, again I’m going to caution you greatly, that that is very damaging and that is also what the devil wants.  We are under such grave attack right now from the culture, from our own administration, and now we’re going to attack each other and eat our young?

You know, Al and I have certainly not been shy in mentioning when we think there’s  issues, when there’s lack of teaching.  EWTN is not shy about that.  Mother Angelica began this network because she saw what was happening in this country, that she needed to re-catechize a country and prevent it from falling over into the deep end completely.

We are here to evangelize but we are also here to catechize and to re-catechize and it does no one any good to spew any anger or frustration we have toward what has happened in the past.

Now, do we learn from our mistakes? Absolutely. Do we do things differently and better? Absolutely. But now is not the time to sit there and say, “He should have done that, he should have done this, he needs to do this.” What are you doing to help the bishops who are doing a great job right now?  And the sad thing is the bishops who are running this right now are not even the ones who caused the problems in the first place: the Bakers, the Chaputs, the Vignerons, the Cordileones, the Carltons.  I mean, we have amazing leadership right now. And if you allow yourself to get caught up in anger and frustration about something that’s hap…  I’m not saying that we deny that we, all of us, have done a poor job in the past.  But I just really want to encourage you to stand up for the truth and back the Church right now. And if you’re upset then go and kick a garbage can, scream into a pillow, but tell your bishop you will support these efforts to stop what is happening.  Because I’ll tell you right now, if this mandate continues and if this is allowed to stand, we’re not going to be able to teach about anything.  Who knows what they’re going to try to do to EWTN. Who knows what they’re going to try to do in the churches.

So we need to stop the infighting and we need to love our bishops and to love our Church.  We are all imperfect. The only two people who ever existed, Jesus, being fully God and fully man, and Our Lady.  We all have planks in our eye that we can pull out.  And this is not minimizing anything that has happened in Church history.  But the infighting is not going to help us, it’s only going to hurt us and it’s what the devil wants: Divide and conquer.

Halfway through this commentary I emailed the following to Ave Maria Radio…

We have amazing leadership right now?

While that may be the case in some dioceses, it is far from a universal truth.

You don’t live in upstate New York, do you?  Have you ever heard  of Matthew Clark or Howard Hubbard?

I wish you and the majority of the “professional Catholics” out there would get your collective heads out of the sand and take a good look at what is going on in some dioceses in this country, not in the past, but RIGHT NOW!

We are living in a wilderness here and most of you people with the microphones and the publishing contracts couldn’t care less, as is evident from your collective lack of attention to our plight.

Sorry, Teresa, but some of our bishops are currently doing Satan’s work and I and my friends refuse to be silent about it, no matter how much you would like us to have a united front.  We have consciences, too.

Needlessto say, I was a bit surprised when Teresa mentioned my note on the air (my transcription, same podcast, beginning at the 44:24 mark) …

I just received an email from a Mike. I don’t want to say where he’s from because I don’t know if what he’s saying about his bishops are true and I would want to give, with all due respect to the hierarchy, them a chance to explain, but he’s saying that we have our heads in the sand and that we think everything is wonderful – I’m paraphrasing here – wonderful and hunky-dory because there are a lot of bishops who aren’t doing anything and my response, and I’m writing him back right now, is, what’s the point of this, how is your whining going to help anyone. If your bishops aren’t doing anything, do something yourself.  Sitting there complaining is only going to make matters worse. What have you done and what are you willing to do?

That was some paraphrase. How she got that out of my email escapes me. I said nothing about the response of area bishops to the Obama mandate, but that’s what she chose to read into it. Very telling, however, is that my assertion that some “bishops are currently doing Satan’s work” seemed totally invisible to her. And this is not the first time that Teresa has ignored negative comments about sitting bishops.  Within the past year I have heard her effectively cut off two callers who had critical things to say, and I only catch her show once or twice a week.

So now I am faced with this question: Should I listen to someone who has, over the years, willfully or otherwise, turned a professional blind eye to much of the episcopal misfeasance and malfeasance that is largely responsible for the mess we face today?  Should I stop my “whining” about ongoing heterodoxy and heteropraxis for what she believes to be the greater good? Does her record in this area give her the credibility, the moral authority, to even make that request?

If it were someone like Michael Voris asking, I’d have to give it serious thought.

Teresa Tomeo?  I think not.

1.) The Holy Bible, Douay-Rheims Version (Challoner revision), 1914, 1400pp. I have a great multitude of Bibles, but this one is my favorite, by far.  I picked it up at an estate sale a few years back for the low, low, price of one dollar, and it has served me quite well.  It may take a wee bit to get used to, as certain books have different names than in modern translations, and the Psalms retain the “Catholic” numbering.

2.) Breviarium Romanum, 1928, 1200pp.  This is such a neat little piece of history, though it is not exactly the easiest breviary to use.  Why, you ask?  The instructions, as well as the text, are in Latin!  Once one figures it out, however, the beauty of the prayer is unsurpassed. I got this for fifty cents in a lot of books online.

3) Liber Usualis, 1934, 1900pp.  The liber contains most versions of the ordinary chants of the Mass (Kyrie/Gloria/Credo/Sanctus/Benedictus/Agnus Dei, and Proper Chants for every commonly-celebrated liturgical feast.  Furthermore, it contains ritual-specific and Divine Office chants.  If you are a liturgical music aficionado, this is a spectacular resource.  I splurged for my liber to the tune of $68.  That’s still 50 dollars cheaper than currently available online, so I’ll consider it a steal!

4) Raccolta, 1929, 550pp.  This is a really neat book that you almost never see anymore.  From 1807 until it was replaced in 1967, it served as a collection of indulgenced prayers and good works, along with their specified indulgence.  Again, this came in the same lot of books as my Breviarium. 50 cents!  

5) The Faith of Our Fathers, 1876, 440pp.  When a friend asked for my favorite book, I cited this one.  This book was essentially directed at the conversion of Protestants, by explaining the basic tenets of the Faith, and why we hold them.  I actually have a few copies of it, but this one is certainly my favorite. Why? The book sold millions of copies (as of 30 years ago, it was in its 111th printing), and printed on the title page of this one, is “the fortieth thousand.”  I found this buried among decades of dust in my grandmother’s attic.  free!

I mention these books specifically because just this evening, I came across the best “app” I have ever seen, entitled iPieta.  For  a mere $2.99, it includes:

1) The Douay-Rheims and Latin Vulgate Bibles: Available side-by-side

2) Liturgical Calendars (and daily readings), both Ordinary and Extraordinary Forms; both Latin and English.

3) Hundreds of Prayers, both in Latin and English, including the Divine Mercy Chaplet, the Extraordinary Form of Mass, the prayers for Benediction, the rosary (with mysteries), litanies, creeds, novenas, the way of the cross, a whole slew of confession resources and prayers, the Little Office of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and hundreds of other prayers.

4) A veritable library of fantastic theological resources, including the following:

• Baltimore Catechisms and Catechism of Christian Doctrine
• Introduction to the Devout Life, by St. Francis De Sales
• The Imitation of Christ, by Thomas Kempis
• The works of St. Louis Marie de Montfort, St. Therese of the Child Jesus, and St Teresa of Jesus
• The works of St. John of the Cross, St John Vianney, and St Josemaria Escriva.
• The Catechetical Instructions of St. Thomas Aquinas
• The Roman Catechism (also knows as The Catechism of The Council of Trent or The Catechism of Pope St. Pius V)
• The Summa Theologica, by St. Thomas Aquinas
• Haydock’s Bibilical Commentary
• Catena Aurea (St. Thomas Aquinas’ collection of Church Fathers on the Gospels)
• Spiritual Exercises (St. Ignatius of Loyola)
• Every Papal Encyclical and Council Document
• The Lives of the Saints
• The Raccolta
• The Rule of St Benedict
• The works of St. Augustine, St John Chrysostom, and the Nicene and ante-Nicene Fathers
• The Faith of our Fathers, by Cardinal Gibbons, and much, much more!

Furthermore, for a mere 99 cents, one can acquire the app Breviarium Meum, which has side-by-side Latin-English for all 8 hours, as well as a treasury of prayers.  Very easy to use!

Finally, for those who would love a Liber, but don’t have $100 lying around, the app Liber Pro is $14.99, and very easy to use.

President Obama versus religious liberty

On January 20, 2012, the Obama administration affirmed a rule that would force Roman Catholic hospitals, charities, and universities to purchase health insurance for their employees that includes coverage for contraception, abortifacients, and sterilization, in violation of their religious principles. This is wrong.

As you can see Romney was quite critical of the recent Obama/HHS decision and appeared to be a strong supporter of religious liberty. However, if you look at his record and not just his expedient commentary, you’ll find a slightly different picture.

Romney: Flip-Flopping on Contraception?

This story is a little more complex than the current issue with Obamacare, so you’ll want to read the whole story to truly understand all the nuances, but here’s the gist.

…
Romney said, “My own view is that every hospital should provide to rape victims information about emergency contraception, or emergency contraception itself.”
…
“Romney reversed course on the state’s new emergency contraception law yesterday, saying that all hospitals in the state will be obligated to provide the morning-after pill to rape victims,” reported the Boston Globe on December 9.
…
“They’ve taken the position now that the preexisting statute somehow does not shield Catholic and other private hospitals from this new mandate,” Avila told the Pilot, a Boston Catholic newspaper.
…
C. J. Doyle, executive director of the Catholic Action League of Massachusetts… was displeased by his decision to heed his lawyers’ advice and nullify the older conscience statute. “It was Governor Romney who effectively pulled the rug out from under Catholic hospitals by coming up with this rather novel, unheard-of interpretation of this pre-existing statute,” he says.

As I mentioned, this story is nuanced. So it’s only fair to provide these words as well.

Anne Fox, president of Massachusetts Citizens for Life, reflects on the incident with more sympathy for Romney. “His lawyers came in and said, ‘This is the way it has to be,’” she says of the December 2005 incident. “I’m not sure how many people would have said, ‘Well, I don’t care.’ I don’t know what else he might have done.”

Just something to be aware of. If you’re looking for someone to staunchly defend religious liberty, Romney might not be your guy.

I’ve stopped going to Starbucks because of their gay rights fervor.  And I’ve been boycotting Susan Komen for several years because of the Planned Parenthood connection.  Now I’ll have to boycott them as well for their sheer stupidity and lack of conscience, deciding matters of conscience by counting tweets.

I don’t buy Girl Scout cookies either because of the PP connection. 

So who are you boycotting, and why?  Hope some readers will share their thoughts.  I may add onto this post as others come to mind.

Now, as we move to implement this rule, however, we’ve been mindful that there’s another principle at stake here –- and that’s the principle of religious liberty, an inalienable right that is enshrined in our Constitution. As a citizen and as a Christian, I cherish this right.
…
The right to religious liberty will be fully protected,

Sounds pretty decent, right? Except that it is a lie. What exactly is the “accommodation” that President Obama has made? Get this – contraception will be provided for “free” by the insurers. Of course, the free contraception (and other abortifacients) are not free to all – only those people who are in the plan. So, if you, as an employer, buy the plan for your employees then they receive the “free” contraception. If you don’t buy the plan they don’t receive the free contraception. But don’t worry, you aren’t actually paying for that part of the plan. Got that? I didn’t think so.

The White House’s email finishes with 4 endorsements – two from the “Catholic” side (Catholics United and the Catholic Health Association) and two from the culture of death side (NARAL and Planned Parenthood) which is supposed to demonstrate the goodness of the great compromiser. Well, Mr President, I’ve got some better names to share with you from the Catholic side. Former Vatican Ambassador Mary Ann Glendon, Princeton Prof. Robert George, Notre Dame Law Prof. Carter Snead, Catholic University of America President John Garvey, and EPPC Fellow Yuval Levin issued the following response:

It is no answer to respond that the religious employers are not “paying” for this aspect of the insurance coverage. For one thing, it is unrealistic to suggest that insurance companies will not pass the costs of these additional services on to the purchasers. More importantly, abortion-drugs, sterilizations, and contraceptives are a necessary feature of the policy purchased by the religious institution or believing individual. They will only be made available to those who are insured under such policy, by virtue of the terms of the policy.

Other responses (shamelessly stolen from Fr Z’s site):

Bishop Tobin of Rhode Island:

“At first reading, the so-called “accommodation” offered by the Obama Administration seems to fall short of the requirements of the moral law,” said Bishop Tobin. “Although the discussions about this matter will continue, the bottom line is this: the government cannot require religious institutions or individuals to operate in a way that violates their convictions. Our nation cherishes religious freedom. By what authority does the President of the United States seek to impose this immoral policy? This is the United States, not North Korea.”

Bishop Zubiek of Pittsburgh (video) calls Obama’s accommodations “smoke and mirrors”.

Note: People cannot seem to get this story right. John Delano, the reporter in the above video, posed the dilemma this way:
1) Is a woman entitled to birth control no matter where she works
or
2) can religious institutions … deny their employees access.

You, John, and most of America are completely fumbling this story! Apparently professional newspeople are using this opportunity to prove that bloggers who work for free are actually more qualified at reporting news than they are.  No employer is attempting to deny women access to birth control here. Let me rephrase this dilemma for you:

1) gov’t can force employers to buy any products or services for their employees the gov’t says they must
or
2) employers are free to choose to offer whatever benefits they wish to their employees

Which one is freedom and which one is tyranny? It’s amazing how many people have this story completely backward. The MSM is doing their best to add to the confusion.

And here’s Jimmy Akin’s response: Don’t Be Deceived! Evil Obama Policy Now Even MORE Evil!