Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Obama tells Bishops off

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Obama tells Bishops off



    Cardinal Dolan Pens Letter Alleging Obama Admin Lectured on Church Teaching

    Over the past week, the media firestorm surrounding Georgetown law student Sandra Fluke and Rush Limbaugh has eclipsed the larger issue of religious liberty that stands at the forefront of the contraception mandate.

    With the distracting debate raging, Fluke has received the majority of the media attention surrounding the subject. New developments in the faith world, unfortunately, have gone unnoticed. Of particular note is a public letter that was penned on March 2 by Cardinal Timothy Dolan (also president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops).

    The letter recaps a bizarre conversation U.S. Conference staff recently had with White House officials regarding the mandate. In fact, Dolan seems to allege that government officials lectured Catholic leaders about church teaching, writing:

    At a recent meeting between staff of the bishops’ conference and the White House staff, our staff members asked directly whether the broader concerns of religious freedom—that is, revisiting the straight-jacketing mandates, or broadening the maligned exemption—are all off the table. They were informed that they are. So much for “working out the wrinkles.” Instead, they advised the bishops’ conference that we should listen to the “enlightened” voices of accommodation, such as the recent, hardly surprising yet terribly unfortunate editorial in America. The White House seems to think we bishops simply do not know or understand Catholic teaching and so, taking a cue from its own definition of religious freedom, now has nominated its own handpicked official Catholic teachers.

    Cardinal Dolan Pens Letter Alleging Obama Admin Lectured on Church Teaching

    Cardinal Timothy Dolan, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops

    Dolan went on to explain that this situation is “hardly partisan” and that church officials will continue to meet with Republicans and Democrats, alike, to address the issue of religious freedom.

    “But as we do so, we cannot rely on off the record promises of fixes without deadlines and without assurances of proposals that will concretely address the concerns in a manner that does not conflict with our principles and teaching,” he continued.

    In the letter, the archbishop of New York went on to say that opponents have changed the debate to focus on women’s rights rather than religious freedom. “We will not let this deception stand,” he proclaimed. Dolan mentions both Congress and the courts as possible avenues to both protect and restore religious freedom. Despite this “light” that could be at the end of the proverbial tunnel, he warns that Catholics should “prepare for tough times.” He continues:

    Brothers, we know so very well that religious freedom is our heritage, our legacy and our firm belief, both as loyal Catholics and Americans. There have been many threats to religious freedom over the decades and years, but these often came from without. This one sadly comes from within. As our ancestors did with previous threats, we will tirelessly defend the timeless and enduring truth of religious freedom.

    Dolan concluded the letter by saying that he looks forward to opportunities in the near future to discuss the issue of religious freedom in more detail. You can read his letter in its entirety here.

    (H/T: Life Site News)

    This story has been updated.
    I wear a Fez. Fez-es are cool

  • #2
    I maybe missing it, but I don't read that they way you have it titled.
    Originally posted by MR EDD
    U defend him who use's racial slurs like hes drinking water.

    Comment


    • #3
      Instead, they advised the bishops’ conference that we should listen to the “enlightened” voices of accommodation

      Or "You dont' know what you're talking about since you're disagreeing with me. Sit here like Nietnyahu did until you agree."
      I wear a Fez. Fez-es are cool

      Comment


      • #4
        Irrelevant church is irrelevant.
        ZOMBIE REAGAN FOR PRESIDENT 2016!!! heh

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Yale View Post
          Irrelevant church is irrelevant.
          To you. To many, it provides hope for an afterlife, a prism to see the world through and a sense of community
          I wear a Fez. Fez-es are cool

          Comment


          • #6
            Who DOESN'T Obama lecture? That's all he does when he stands at his podium. His head is as big as a blimp. Arrogant SOB.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Forever_frost View Post
              To you. To many, it provides hope for an afterlife, a prism to see the world through and a sense of community
              Fair enough. They're still on the wrong end of this BC thing, and that's what all this is about.
              ZOMBIE REAGAN FOR PRESIDENT 2016!!! heh

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Yale View Post
                Fair enough. They're still on the wrong end of this BC thing, and that's what all this is about.
                No, they're on the side of the 1st amendment and their religious beliefs. They cannot be on the wrong side with those two things. Religion has been protected since this country's founding and it has always been illegal to force someone to violate their strongly held religious beliefs.
                I wear a Fez. Fez-es are cool

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Forever_frost View Post
                  No, they're on the side of the 1st amendment and their religious beliefs. They cannot be on the wrong side with those two things. Religion has been protected since this country's founding and it has always been illegal to force someone to violate their strongly held religious beliefs.
                  And anyone can lecture them for anything they want to, under the same first amendment protections. My point is more that they're making a decision that is correct on their own moral grounds, but is basically fruitless from an ethical standpoint. They're not considering that birth control is used by a lot of women for hormonal therapy, so they should cover it. Also, if we're bringing up first amendment protections, it bears mentioning that their refusal to cover birth control under any insurance plan for any (admittedly few) secular employees amounts to an imposition of religious belief onto those employees. By that, I don't mean that they are making those employees believe, but they're making those employees adhere to their relative morality. I personally have a problem with that.

                  EDIT: We may not see eye to eye on this one though, bud. My opinion is way more irrelevant than theirs is to them, I just want to get to the heart of the matter.
                  Last edited by YALE; 03-07-2012, 11:45 PM.
                  ZOMBIE REAGAN FOR PRESIDENT 2016!!! heh

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Moral of the story is, women just need to get a job and buy their own birth control. It isn't even that expensive.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Machx2 View Post
                      Moral of the story is, women just need to get a job and buy their own birth control. It isn't even that expensive.
                      Do you not see the benefits of having birth control covered by insurance?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by racrguy View Post
                        Do you not see the benefits of having birth control covered by insurance?
                        Sure. But it should NOT be MANDATORY. Our government has no business telling insurance companies what they MUST cover. Take religion out of it and look at the bigger picture.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          "we should listen to the “enlightened” voices of accommodation."



                          That sounds like a line from Atlas Shrugged.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Vertnut View Post
                            Sure. But it should NOT be MANDATORY. Our government has no business telling insurance companies what they MUST cover. Take religion out of it and look at the bigger picture.
                            What about state mandated auto insurance?
                            ZOMBIE REAGAN FOR PRESIDENT 2016!!! heh

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Yale View Post
                              What about state mandated auto insurance?
                              Poor example. Driving isn't a "right", it's a privilege. If you don't want, or can't afford insurance, don't drive.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X