US Senate Denies Free Exercise of Religion, Tables the Blunt Amendment

3/5/2012

(Page 2 of 2)

mandated health care program. It is not about Republicans or Democrats, conservatives or liberals. It is about people of faith. This is first and foremost a matter of religious liberty for all."

"If the government can, for example, tell Catholics that they cannot be in the insurance business today without violating their religious convictions, where does it end? This violates the constitutional limits on our government, and the basic rights upon which our country was founded."

It is apparent that President Obama and his administration do not respect fundamental human rights including the Right to life and the Right to Religious Freedom. The Nation we love is slowly devolving into a secularist State.

A legislative response, The Respect for Rights of Conscience Act, was introduced in Congress (H.R. 1179, S. 1467) to ensure that all who participate in the health care system "retain the right to provide, purchase, or enroll in health coverage that is consistent with their religious beliefs and moral convictions."

Language from this legislation became the "Blunt Amendment" voted on in the Senate on Thursday, March 1, 2011. Unfortunately, the opponents of the Free Exercise of Religion managed to table it by a 51 to 48 vote. Though the vote followed mostly Party line, Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Ben Nelson of Nebraska, all Democrats, voted with Republicans to defend the Free Exercise of Religion.

Several Federal court challenges have been filed against the unconstitutional mandate, including a recent one filed by the Attorneys General of seven States. I am sure this is only the beginning of similar lawsuits. The strategy behind the lawsuits is intended to ensure a fast track to the United States Supreme Court.

Rallies are already scheduled - with many more to follow. There is talk of a massive March on Washington. This unjust edict - and its defense by the shrill opponents of religious freedom - have unleashed a massive civil resistance movement only in its infancy.What is now eminently clear is that Catholics, other Christians, other people of faith and all people of good will who recognize the real threat to religious freedom, will not back down.

In addition to the Right to Religious Freedom, what is also at risk is access to Catholic Health Care in the United States for those who need it the most. Make no mistake; the Church will continue to minister healing to the sick because she must. It is at the heart of her mission.However, the current Administration seems "hell bent" on squeezing the Church out of providing health care to millions of Americans who currently receive it at Catholic Institutions.

In a section entitled "Christ the physician", the Catechism of the Catholic Church reminds the faithful that "Christ's compassion toward the sick and his many healings of every kind of infirmity are a resplendent sign that "God has visited his people" and that the Kingdom of God is close at hand. Jesus has the power not only to heal, but also to forgive sins; he has come to heal the whole man, soul and body; he is the physician the sick have need of. (Mk. 2:17)

"His compassion toward all who suffer goes so far that he identifies himself with them: "I was sick and you visited me." (Mt. 25:36) His preferential love for the sick has not ceased through the centuries to draw the very special attention of Christians toward all those who suffer in body and soul. It is the source of tireless efforts to comfort them." (Catechism of the Catholic Church #1503)

The Gospel imperative catholics follow is found in these words of Jesus "Heal the Sick". (Matthew 10:8) The early Christians understood that this call to heal involved the ministry of the Sacraments as well as ministry to the physical needs of those who were ill. That is because the Church proclaims the unity of the human person, body, soul and spirit.

The Catholic Church proclaims the dignity of every human person from conception, through every age and stage up to and including natural death. In those who are sick, Catholics see the very face of Christ. The Church views those who are sick as "the poor" and in caring for them one cares for the Lord Himself who identifies with the poor.

This is the heart of the Catholic understanding of the call to give a love of preference to the poor. Caring for the sick is a part of Church teaching on our obligation in solidarity to one another. In the middle Ages in Europe, religious communities of both men and women were formed with the mission of carrying on Christ's mandate to "Heal the Sick!"

In the history of the United States of America, from the beginning, Catholic Hospitals existed to care for the sick. The Catholic Church is currently one of the very largest health care providers in the United States of America. If this Administration persists in its iron handed effort to compel the Church to bend the knee to a new Caesar, that service to the Nation is placed in jeopardy.

The excellence of the care provided by Catholic Medical Professionals and health care institutions flows not only from their excellence in training and preparation but from the very reason why the Catholic Church is involved in health care to begin with, fidelity to the Gospel. Catholic Health care is not simply about business, it is about ministry. It is about love. Now, because of an unjust edict by a new Caesar, those who need this care the most may not be able to receive it, because of the Obama Administration.

Make no mistake; the Catholic Church will not back down on this. It appears that the Obama Administration wants to remove the vital role of mediating institutions such as the Church in serving the Common Good of society. One must now ask, Why?

- - -

Pope Benedict XVI's Prayer Intentions for January 2013
General Intention: The Faith of Christians. That in this Year of Faith Christians may deepen their knowledge of the mystery of Christ and witness joyfully to the gift of faith in him.
Missionary Intention: Middle Eastern Christians. That the Christian communities of the Middle East, often discriminated against, may receive from the Holy Spirit the strength of fidelity and perseverance.

Keywords: HHS Mandate, Obama Mandate, Kathleen Sebelius, Blunt Amendment, Free Exercise of Religion, Religious Freedom, Cardinal Dolan, Catholic Health Care, Deacon Keith Fournier

NEWSLETTERS »

Previous Page 1 | 2

Rate This Article

Was this helpful to you? Very Helpful Somewhat Helpful Not Helpful at All

Would you be interested in more articles like this? Yes, I am Interested No, I am not Interested

Rate Article

1 - 10 of 63 Comments

JoAnn
1 year ago
Rob: I don't believe anyone on this board was called a Communist, Marxist or a Socialist personally, or anything else for that matter. I believe the administration was called that. But what do you expect. If it talks like a duck and walks like a duck, it's a duck. How is that calling names? If you call someone a conservative, and they ARE a conservative, then it's true.. If you call someone a liberal and they ARE a liberal, then it's true. How come when you call a Marxist a Marxist, or a Communist, a Communist, that's calling them names. The truth is the truth. Name calling to me is calling someone stupid or nuts or rediculous, or more vicious words, etc. simply because they don't agree with you. Am I wrong about this? Enlighten me. What would you call someone that purposely attacks your Faith and has declared war on your Churh? What would you call someone that has nothing but disdain dripping from their mouth regarding Christianity? What would you call someone that has set the State Department on the Vatican insinuating that the Vatican is laudering money? I'm sorry my friend, but I see Europe in the 30's happening all over again. God bless.
vance
1 year ago
Rob, you, Jeff Caperton, Bulbajer, mgm, Everrett and others have well articulated who you guys are and what you represent. I've said all along that this is fine, OK. You guys keep we the faithful on our toes and that's a good thing. Yes, your Dear Leader, Barry Soetoro, is a Saul Alinskyite Communist. We all know that Alinsky dedicated his book, "Rules For Radicals" to Lucifer because he is the ultimate Radical. And yes, your Dear Leader, Barry Soetoro, is dismantling this country before our very eyes. His attack on the Catholic Church is in line with his Marxist predecessors in Cuba, Venezuela, China, Vietnam, and Mexico 1920-1940. The "Ball" is now on the Laps of the Bishops. They were ordered by Barry Soetoro to comply with HHS rules or suffer the consequences. Will the Bishops comply to the dictates of Commissar Sebelius?? We will see what happens. We the faithful do not want your Marxism.
Rob
1 year ago
Not calling names? Maybe not directly, but you can't mistake the passive aggressive natureof all these posts. If you tow the line on the conservative ideology = good. If you disagree in any manner you are a communist, marxist trying to overthrow the government. Not sure how you are narrowly defining talking down to someone, but it's pretty apparent on this board.
JoAnn
1 year ago
Vance: Thanks. Jeffrey must have gotten this board confused with one of the liberal sites.. I have not, at any time, seen anyone on this board call anyone any names. Have you? That's a liberal trait. I have seen "war monger" a couple of times, but I believe, that came from the Ron Paul suppoorters. Even the liberals that are here regularly haven't even called anyone any names.. We've had some "intense fellowship" but it's been respectful. Thanks for having my back. I've got yours also, but you seem to hold your own very well. God bless.
Vance
1 year ago
Jeffrey Caperton, I haven't been ignoring you. I'm just enjoying JoAnn's responses to your posts.
vance
1 year ago
I hope Santorum sticks to a simple message - Freedom and Overturn Obamacare. The Marxist Media Complex is pulling out all the stops to keep him on the phoney issue of Birth Control. Santorum should keep the focus on Obama and the Marxist Democrat Party's trampling on the 1st Amendment. Romney is out their with millions of dollars smearing Santorum and Gingrich but yet he is only getting 37% of the vote. Obama and the Communist Democrat Party are salivating over a Romney nomination because they have another loser McCain and a Bob Dole. Do you ever notice that Ron Paul beats his con artist drum that he is mister Constitution, yet he never has anything to say about Obamacare?? His mantra is get out of Afghanistan and legalize vise but that's it. What a fraud.
JoAnn
1 year ago
Jeffrey Caperton: You are way off base, my friend. What christian did I call an atheist or communist. I did not and never have called anyone on this board either one. Are you sure you are reading MY posts? What's the matter, did I hit a nerve? I believe, what I said that started this whole conversation is that we have a choice. Are we going to live in communisim or are we going to fight to save the Republic. And, if you have been reading the articles, especially the one about the persecution of the Church, it seems to me that I have been right on all along. God bless.
Jeffrey Caperton
1 year ago
Pete Brady, you are right. The Bill of Rights were amended to the U.S. Constitution as a means to "PREVENT the 50% plus 1 from 'ruling' over the 50% minus one". However, the constitution also set up elections of representatives who enact laws and the president, also elected, who approves and enforces laws, so, as long as the law passes constitutional muster, "50% plus 1" can pretty much run roughshod over the "50% minus one" when it comes to legislative and economic priorities. And, since McCulloch v. Maryland ("Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consist with the letter and spirit of the constitution, are constitutional."), it has been, I should not say simple, but reasonably efficacious, to cite the "necessary and proper" clause to defend enacted federal law (It is not so efficacious for the states). You and I can disagree with government, pray or call each other expletives and Congress cannot tell us we cannot. Other than that,the "majority rules". I agree with you that we need to evaluate at a very fundamental level the purpose of law and the purpose of government, and perhaps, even more useful, come up with a definition of liberty that is more than simply doing what we bloody well please, but, in the end, who do you think will decide what is the purpose of law or government? 50% plus 1.
Jeffrey Caperton
1 year ago
Forgive me JoAnn, but that has very little to do with communism. The closest word I can find that fits your definition is totalitarianism and that can originate from the left or the right. There are a number of long and short definitions of communism, but Wikipedia has a reasonably concise definition as "a hypothetical stage of historical development posited as classless, moneyless, stateless social order structured upon common ownership of the means of production, as well as a social, political and economic ideology that aims at the establishment of this social order", making communism, at best, an extremely flawed working economic hypothesis. Regardless of the definition, the problem I have with the word is that communism is often associated with atheism (Marx's ideas of religion was that it is nothing more than a means to make the masses more docile in order to facilitate economic exploitation). While I think name-calling is childish at best, if we insist upon engaging in name-calling (Which it seems that Americans, Christian or otherwise, are determined to continue), we should first know what we are calling people and, second, consider whether or not it is fair (I do not mention "kind" because name-calling is, by definition, unkind), and suggesting to a Christian that he or she is an atheist merely because he or she does not share your partisan political views is, in my estimation, a very serious charge. Perhaps we should choose our words more carefully.
Pete Brady
1 year ago
@ Jeffrey Caperton: Our Constitution was constructed to PREVENT the 50% plus 1 from "ruling" over the 50% minus one. We must ask ourselves "what is the purpose of law; what is the purpose of government?" It is not what we have become all to accustomed to thinking it should do. It is not about preventing, improving, or protecting us from ourselves. An honest evaluation of much that is given as "law" can be recognized as simply someone else's desire to RULE over others. Frederic Bastiat described it well. "This must be said: There are too many "great" men in the world - legislators, leaders of the people, fathers of nations, and so on, and so on. Too many persons place themselves above mankind; they make a career of organizing it, patronizing it, and ruling it. ...//... My attitude toward all other persons is well illustrated by this story from a celebrated traveler: He arrived one day in the midst of a tribe of savages, where a child had just been born. A crowd of soothsayers, magicians, and quacks - armed with rings, hooks, and cords - surrounded it. One said: 'This child will never smell the perfume of the peace-pipe unless I stretch his nostrils.' Another said: 'He will never be able to hear unless I draw his earlobes down to his shoulders.' A third said: 'He will never see the sunshine unless I slant his eyes.' Another said: 'He will never stand upright unless I bend his legs.' A fifth said: 'He will never learn to think unless I flatten his skull.' 'Stop,' cried the traveler. 'What God does is well done. Do not claim to know more than He. God has given organs to this frail creature; let them develop and grow strong by exercise, use, experience, and liberty." The question, then, is this: Are we to be "ruled" or did we not, instead, establish a Constitution dedicated to securing "the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity?"

Prev12 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next

Comments submitted must be civil, remain on-topic and not violate any laws including copyright. We reserve the right to delete any comments which are abusive, inappropriate or not constructive to the discussion.

Though we invite robust discussion, we reserve the right to not publish any comment which denigrates the human person, undermines marriage and the family, or advocates for positions which openly oppose the teaching of the Catholic Church.

This is a supervised forum and the Editors of Catholic Online retain the right to direct it.

We also reserve the right to block any commenter for repeated violations. Your email address is required to post, but it will not be published on the site.

We ask that you NOT post your comment more than once. Catholic Online is growing and our ability to review all comments sometimes results in a delay in their publication.

Name *

Email *

Comment *

Send me important information from Catholic Online and it's partners. See Sample

Post Comment