Tuesday, March 6, 2012

The HHS Compromise - A Shroud of Deceit

(My contemplation has allowed me to refocus and renew my defense and writing on the Church, and spreading of joy. I've pondered on the purposes for my blog, and I shall be writing shorter, more concise posts in order to be able to focus on being published elsewhere. Thanks for all your prayers, and may Lent continue to help us come closer to Risen Christ. Here's a post I had begun a few weeks ago)

Timothy Cardinal Dolan, President of USCCB and leader of the charge against the HHS Mandate
Obama's compromise: As I did with my posts before the compromise, I tended to have one or two devoted as encouraging a response, and one that explains why a response is needed, and in this post I plan to go farther into detail of the fraction of responses and important events that have occurred within the past few weeks

1. Well, you may ask, what Catholics support the Compromise??The petition that was formerly on the White House website (with the replacement here) was taken down after Obama's compromise announcement, and an e-mail was sent to all the signers that explained how the compromise had supposedly reconciled both sides:
Here are a few statements from groups involved in the issue: 
Catholics United:President Obama has shown us that he is willing to rise above the partisan fray to deliver an actual policy solution that both meets the health care needs of all employees and respects the religious liberty of Catholic institutions.
Catholic Health Association:We are pleased and grateful that the religious liberty and conscience protection needs of so many ministries that serve our country were appreciated enough that an early resolution of this issue was accomplished. 
These are the only two Catholic groups mentioned, the pro-contraception groups are NARAL and Planned Parenthood. Who's Catholics United? An group with a openly liberal agenda which seeks to divide the Church against the Magesterium whom I first heard about from the bishop-supported Catholic League over two years ago : here, here, here, and also here. This wouldn't be surprising, though, because their major donations come from a George Soros, a liberal who supports the liberal Obama and the key Democrats in the Healthcare passing. The other organization, the Catholic Health Association, also supported Obama through the Healthcare Law the bishops were against, for the very problems we have now . It's circular - Obama's supporters support Obama.. A compromise is when an opposing party supports the decision, Mr. Obama, not when you feint a solution. Frankly, I'm insulted. We aren't dumb. 

2. So if those are the few Catholics that are supporting the compromise, who isn't buying it? The bishops definitely aren't.  And by the Bishops, I mean all of themBut in case you weren't bought by the Magesterium, take a look at this fierce letter undersigned by sixteen pages of names of higher Catholic Academia.  There's President Garvey's name at the top of the list. This is the same letter I highlighted in my last post, to show that not only do they disagree with the administration, they declare they are insulted. I don't take that word lightly. It's one thing to intellectually disagree with the administration's approach. It's another thing to be shouting "trickery, scandal and intrigue (my words)." Even the head of the most prominent Catholic college in America, Notre Dame, Fr. Jenkins, declared that the compromise merely was a "step" and that:
“There remain a number of unclear and unresolved issues, and we look forward to joining the U.S. bishops and leaders from other religious institutions to work with the administration to resolve them.”
Henry Clay is turning in his grave. "Unresolved issues", coming from the smarter of the Catholic liberals. What type of language is this? Only for something worthy of suspect. The Anchoress has a fantastic collection of additional responses from both sides, and she continues to fantastically comment. Additionally, John Garvey and nine others, including two women, we were part of a congressional hearing investigating the issue. From the bits that I listened to, the issue was always getting off track of religious liberty to talk about why all women everywhere need contraception immediately now without reservation. The hearing ended after a reading of a woman's experience from ovarian cists.Which brings me...

3. Why do we have to be against this compromise? Well, I'm no expert on economics and government, but Harvard Economics Professor Dr. Greg Mankiw is:

     Consider these two policies:
A. An employer is required to provide its employees health insurance that covers birth control.
B. An employer is required to provide its employees health insurance.  The health insurance company is required to cover birth control.
      I can understand someone endorsing both A and B, and I can understand someone rejecting both A and B.  But I cannot understand someone rejecting A and embracing B, because they are effectively the same policy.  Ultimately, all insurance costs are passed on to the purchaser, so I cannot see how policy B is different in any way from policy A, other than using slightly different words to describe it.
       Yet it seems that the White House yesterday switched from A to B, and that change is being viewed by some as a significant accommodation to those who objected to policy A.  The whole thing leaves me scratching my head.
It changes nothing. I'm not going to go on about this because many  others have already, and additionally the motives and circumstances are more important. So...

4. What is the result of the compromise, and why did they do it? Because your typical Catholic that doesn't read the USCCB website nor devours the Catholic blog sphere saw the word "compromise" and assumed everything was okay. That's what the media did. It's not on the news. I have to give Obama credit for one thing: He has successfully hindered the religious liberty movement that erupted on Janurary 20th. Catholics everywhere at that time were furious, however, even among the community here as well with some of the bishops, that momentum has seemed to disappear and people seem to be ready to resume dialogue with the administration. However, the organizations aren't giving up. 

5. Where do we go from here? 

Francis Cardinal George
In my article in the Tower several weeks ago, I declared that there was an immediate and imperative need to  organize a protest, in not so few words. These efforts are scattered, but are underway. On February 16th, a small group was arrested,  as they had planned, for protesting outside the White House. However, a larger effort is forming that will take place on the 23rd of March. This nationwide protest will give people the opportunity to publicly show how they stand with the true joy of the Church, and the right to practice freedom. (I am going to discuss the Stand Up For Religious Liberty protests in a future post on its own)

Deception and a lack of truth is the disease which harms true joy and causes selfishness to ferment in its place. One-liners are everywhere as people seek not truth but convenience. Even when debated on the side of contraception, it as if that it is a crisis that this new mandate isn't upheld. Two years ago, no one would dare to propose such a radical mandate opposing religious liberty. Yet now, because the door has been opened up to injustice, as the Church is trying to slam it shut to protect true joy, it is being pried open as if it contraception has always been necessary. I could continue, but I will let the words of Francis Cardinal George speak for themselves:

The bishops didn't begin this dismaying conflict nor choose its timing. We would love to have it ended as quickly as possible.
It's up to the government to stop the attack.

Copyright © 2012 Joseph Jablonski

No comments:

Post a Comment