First They Came for the Catholics: Obama’s Contraceptive Mandate
Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ:
As you probably know by now, Obama Administration has refused to grant religious organizations an exemption from purchasing health insurance that covers abortion-inducing drugs, surgical sterilization, and contraception.
The Catholic bishops in America have responded quickly, decrying the Administration’s decision for what it is—an egregious, dangerous violation of religious liberty—and mobilizing a vast grassroots movement to persuade the Administration to reverse its decision.We evangelicals must stand unequivocally with our Roman Catholic brothers and sisters. Because when the government violates the religious liberty of one group, it threatens the religious liberty of all.
Many bishops have already declared that they will not obey this unjust law. The penalty for such a move would be severe. Catholic hospitals, universities, and other organizations would be forced to pay punitive fines ($2,000 per employee) for refusing to purchase insurance that violates the teaching of their church.
For some institutions, it would spell the end of their existence—and their far-reaching service to the public and the needy.
But Catholic institutions aren’t the only ones affected by this mandate. Prison Fellowship, for example, which employs 180 people, could not purchase insurance for its employees that covers abortifacients. Nor could the world’s largest Christian outreach to prisoners and their families afford the fines we would incur.
Three years ago, when we co-authored the Manhattan Declaration, we predicted that the time would come when Christians would have to face the very real prospect of civil disobedience—that we would have to choose sides: God or Caesar.
Certainly for the Catholics and for many of us evangelicals, that time is already upon us.We would urge you, therefore, to raise your voice against this unjust mandate that violates our first freedom as Americans. First, please sign the petition to President Obama prepared by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which we have posted at the Manhattan Declaration site, demanding that the President extend exemptions from this onerous mandate to all religious employers.
Second, write to your representative and your senators in Congress.
Third, sign the Manhattan Declaration. Join with 500,000 people who have committed to “fully and ungrudgingly render to Caesar what is Caesar’s. But under no circumstances will we render to Caesar what is God’s.”
Fourth, pray. Pray that God would soften the hearts and minds of the president and the leaders within his administration so that they would reverse course.We do not exaggerate when we say that this is the greatest threat to religious freedom in our lifetime. We cannot help but think of the words attributed to German pastor Martin Niemoeller, reflecting on the Nazi terror:
First they came for the Socialists, and I
did not speak out —
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists,
and I did not speak out —
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did
not speak out — Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me — and there was
no one left to speak for me.In Christ,
Chuck Colson
Timothy George
Comments
Facebook comments are closed.
29 comments
The Manhattan Declaration website is here. Evangelicals are getting squishy, perhaps due to the influence of heretics like Brian McLaren. We need to stand with our Catholic brothers and sisters.
[1] Posted by robroy on 2-9-2012 at 08:34 PM · [top]
Well, it’s started already - a friend of mine from the last TEC church that I attended sent me an email full of indignation because the pope supposedly made an announcement “yesterday” declaring that “Protestants can’t have churches.” (Yes he made that declaration in July 2007,
but why is it being emailed now?) The answer, I think, is that this is meant to drive a wedge between the RC’s and the Protestants (maybe the Evangelicals?) I expect that this was only the first of many similar emails that we’ll all be getting explaining how evil & bad the RC church is.
So, I agree that we have to support the Catholic Church on this issue. Otherwise, we’re next.
[2] Posted by The Little Myrmidon on 2-9-2012 at 09:46 PM · [top]
More fuel for the fire, to be sure, but I remember when the then Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger sent a letter to the bishops who eventually gathered together as the Anglican Church in North America, in which he lauded their efforts and their leadership. In fact, he encouraged the formation of what eventually beccame a new “province in formation.”
But then the Bishops of Rome (the Popes) have always claimed that the Catholic Church is the “One True Church,” so this is really nothing new. Nothing to get excited about, and it deserves to be ignored.
[3] Posted by cennydd13 on 2-9-2012 at 11:18 PM · [top]
And I suggest that we leave it to Christ to decide which is the so-called “One True Church,” because we are, after all, HIS Church, and the question is one for HIM to decide, isn’t it?
[4] Posted by cennydd13 on 2-9-2012 at 11:22 PM · [top]
Well, whether we, or anyone else, likes it or not, the Pope has always declared himself to be the earthly head of the Church Catholic for the past ump-teen hundred years. Certainly the head bishop of all western churches. Everyone else is just an inadequate spin-off to a lesser or greater extent. That’s just a “Pope found to be Catholic” moment.
It hurts our feeling and sounds off-tone to our ears, but it’s nothing new to anyone who’s ever read the applicable parts of the CCC. Archbishop Fulton Sheen said that there are about 50 million people in America that hate the Catholic Church for what they THINK they believe and about 1 million who actually hate them based on actual things. This is just plain flat-out anti-Catholic bigotry by the left.
[5] Posted by Bill2 on 2-10-2012 at 07:41 AM · [top]
Well, it worked. This thread is suppossed to be about ALL Christians standing together and against this UNLAWFUL, UNCONSTITUTIONAL assault on our 1st amendment rights. Instead, you’re arguing about the pope.
Time to get to it…
Live free or die…
[6] Posted by Amazed&Graced; on 2-10-2012 at 08:08 AM · [top]
yes, just a warning…this thread is not about the goodness or wickedness of the Roman Catholic Church v. the Protestant churches. The next person who makes any comment that in my own personal subjective opinion turns the thread in that direction will be immediately banned. That’s just the way I roll.
[7] Posted by Matt Kennedy on 2-10-2012 at 08:23 AM · [top]
The Administration will kick its’ PR machine into high gear now. My fear is that there are so many in our country who don’t consider religous freedom important enough to register on their radar.
Political debate in this country is, shall we say, unsophisticated. But, maybe if enough get in engaged, this Administrations’ push can be rebuffed.
I’m not sure if Obama’s and his advisors, as relentless as they are for their overall socialist agenda, can ignore the number of people they are getting riled up. The people upset with this, in the main, are not their people, but they are creating enemies they did not have a month ago.
[8] Posted by Looking for Leaders on 2-10-2012 at 08:36 AM · [top]
Our Roman Catholic brothers and sisters messed in supporting Omabacare in the first place. They helped breach the first of defense to government overreach by abandoning the Constitution’s system of limited government which prohibits Obamacare’s mandate in the first place. They were ok with other people being forced to violate their consciences so long as they didn’t have to. They thought they would get an exemption which they didn’t. Now they fall back to the second line of defense in the First Amendment.
At this point it is to be hoped that they have learned a valuable lesson and we must allow them to learn it without recrimination from our side.
As Christians we either fight shoulder to shoulder with them against this unjust and immoral federal power grab or we forget about religious liberty in this country. In this fight we are all Roman Catholics. We can always resume our regularly scheduled squabbles later after we win. If we lose it won’t make any difference.
[9] Posted by Br. Michael on 2-10-2012 at 09:31 AM · [top]
Take a look at the following article at the New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/10/us/bishops-planned-battle-on-birth-control-coverage-rule.html?_r=1&hp;
Then read the comments. Almost everyone takes an anti-freedom of religion stance and, I assume, gives us an insight as to the liberal/progressive mind set. Once they arrive at an entitlement think they should have they just can’t conceive why anyone should oppose it or be forced to accept it. Yet they are the first to howl when the shoe (all to infrequently) is on the other foot.
Again we need to fully support RC in this fight because they are right and it’s in our own interest to do so.
[10] Posted by Br. Michael on 2-10-2012 at 09:55 AM · [top]
Obama will compromise but that is only because its a reelection year for him. Otherwise he wouldn’t care. He is looking at the Catholic vote. He is suppose to speak this afternoon once they get his teleprompters set up.
[11] Posted by martin5 on 2-10-2012 at 10:16 AM · [top]
This compromise is no compromise:
“The Obama administration will take a half step back from its drive to transform the U.S. from a constitutional republic into an entitlement state by amending the free-birth-control regulation to follow with the so-called Hawaii Rule, in other words, the objecting employer will not have to pay for the birth-control coverage but will be required to tell employees where and how they can obtain it.”
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner
Christians must disobey this mandate as unbendingly as we would have disobeyed the other one.
[12] Posted by Matt Kennedy on 2-10-2012 at 10:31 AM · [top]
In a similar vein, Chuck Colson joined with Cardinal Wuerl and Rabbi Soloveichik in a very strong op-ed in today’s Wall Street Journal.
We all need to understand that this is not about contraception (as Obama, Pelosi, Boxer, et al) want us to believe, nor is it just about the RC Church. This is a frontal assault on the First Amendment and freedom of conscience. We must stand with our RC brothers and sisters.
[13] Posted by hanks on 2-10-2012 at 11:04 AM · [top]
Hi hanks
well…it is about contraception/aborticificients…AND it is also about an assault on the 1st amendment.
[14] Posted by Matt Kennedy on 2-10-2012 at 11:13 AM · [top]
Matt, I understand what you’re saying. My point was that Obama/Sebelius are wanting this to be about “women’s health, women’s rights” and divert everyone from talking about the really big issue of freedom of conscience—denial of the free exercise of religion.
[15] Posted by hanks on 2-10-2012 at 11:18 AM · [top]
Obama will compromise but that is only because its a reelection year for him. Otherwise he wouldn’t care.
I’d have to agree. Many, many presidents have done stupid things. Bush (43) says Laura got on him for the “Wanted Dead or Alive” comment, Regan had that “the bombing starts in five minutes,” when he mistakenly thought mics were off. In each case there was immediate “damage control” and retractions. In fact Obama has had his fair share of ‘dumb things,’ and he acted as Bush or Reagan or every other president has done with immediate retractions. The fact that it has taken so long and that this has escalated to this extent, I think shows his true intent to use power to enforce his beliefs on the subject, but it gotten “hot enough” that he has backed down, for now.
[16] Posted by Hosea6:6 on 2-10-2012 at 11:27 AM · [top]
this is not about contraception ... nor is it just about the RC Church.
As I’ve read in a couple of places: if the federal government can do it to the Catholics over contraception, they can do it to anyone over anything.
Liberals and conservatives, Christians and all people of good will should be united against this affront to the Constitution.
[17] Posted by Words Matter on 2-10-2012 at 11:28 AM · [top]
You know I really don’t like the reductionistic tendency to reduce everything to one “big” issue…we see the same thing in the sexuality debate: “this is not about sex, it’s about biblical authority”. Wrong. It’s about both. And both are hugely important This is not an either or. It’s not “contraception/abortificients” v. “liberty”. It’s both. To make it an either/or lessens the fact that the mandate would make the church an accomplice to mass murder. That’s not a small thing by contrast with any good…even religious liberty
[18] Posted by Matt Kennedy on 2-10-2012 at 11:34 AM · [top]
he hasn’t “backed down”
[19] Posted by Matt Kennedy on 2-10-2012 at 11:35 AM · [top]
Matt, it’s not even a half step back. He says that the Insurance companies will pay for it, but who pays the premiums? The employer. So nothing has changed at all.
and
http://www.lifesitenews.com/white-house-religious-employers-wont-have-to-cover-birth-control-but-insura.html
Lies and deception are the hallmark of this regime.
[20] Posted by Br. Michael on 2-10-2012 at 12:03 PM · [top]
Obama hasn’t backed down at all; he’s merely changed his tactics, but his goal is still the same….and that’s why we have to stop him at the polls this November.
[21] Posted by cennydd13 on 2-10-2012 at 12:39 PM · [top]
First they formed a healthcare panel denying life sustaining treatments for the aged, and I
did not speak out —
Because I was young.
Then they came for the those who might be terrorists,
and I did not speak out —
Because I was not a terrorist.
Then they forced the Catholics to pay for insurance to cover contraception and abortion, and I did
not speak out — Because I was not a Catholic.
Then they came for me — and there was
no one left to speak for me.
[22] Posted by Festivus on 2-10-2012 at 01:24 PM · [top]
#19 Becoming my own unintended example of an “oops,” you are correct, I think the way the wire-service put it was he going to make “religious accommodations,” for now.
[23] Posted by Hosea6:6 on 2-10-2012 at 03:35 PM · [top]
Apart from all considerations of theology, liturgy, authority—any of that stuff: it really is time for people from all the faith communities to lock arms and align on this one.
[24] Posted by BravoZulu on 2-10-2012 at 04:47 PM · [top]
Tonight on O’Reilly (hosted by Laura Ingraham) we heard the heresy from TEC in the happy presence of Katherine Ragsdale. If you missed it, be thankful, because it was sickening. She applauded the position taken by Obama/Sebelius before the “accomodation” and said she was just delighted that abortion is so available.
So much for it being time for the “faith communities to lock arms and align” on this issue. Of course, TEC can hardly claim to be a faith community—at least of the Christian variety.
I sometimes fail to understand why FOX picks up people like Ragsdale to interview. At least Laura followed with Texas Atty General Abbott who spoke clearly on the issue of violation of conscience.
[25] Posted by hanks on 2-10-2012 at 07:25 PM · [top]
It is becoming increasingly humiliating to be in any way, shape, or form connected with TEC - not to mention increasingly disturbing to my conscience.
[26] Posted by Nellie on 2-10-2012 at 07:47 PM · [top]
I watched the later showing of O’Reilly (11pm in the East). Yes, it sure was sickening. What an evil woman! Laura gave her a run for her money and called her on a number of things she said. Loved Laura’s challenging her on her comparison of abortion to a heart transplant. That disgusting female is dean of a seminary in TEC. Isn’t that lovely?
[27] Posted by Nellie on 2-10-2012 at 11:14 PM · [top]
Mark Steyn has an acid column today likening Obamacare to Henry VIII’s “Act of Supremacy.” It’s not quite clear in Steyn’s analogy whether Obama is the correlative of Henry or of God and he slips in the anachronistic figure of “Commissar Sebelius.” But it does strike me that if one were looking for Henry’s Archbishop of Canterbury, one need go farther than the learned Cambridge don, the Very Rev. Dr. Katherine Ragsdale.
[28] Posted by Stephen Noll on 2-11-2012 at 06:00 AM · [top]
Following up from my previous post, I did happen to catch the interchange between Laura Ingraham and Katherine Ragsdale on TV. I thought Ingraham did a pretty good job of bringing up Ragsdale’s view that abortion is a “blessing” and asking whether that blessing should not be covered by Obamacare. However, Ragsdale did not take the bait, and simply reiterated her praise of Obama’s generous compromise.
Translating this exchange back 600 years, it would go something like this:
Ingraham: So are you saying that according to the Act of Uniformity, the Mass will now be illegal in our realm?
Abp. Ragsdale: We should be so thankful that our Gracious Sovereign Barry has made it possible for every Englishman to pray for King and Country in his own parish church.
Ingraham: But what if papist priests continue to offer the Mass and pledge allegiance to the Pope. Will they be hunted down and burned alive?
Abp. Ragsdale: There you go again, Laura. We can surely trust that our Gracious Sovereign Barry is the very soul of clemency.
[29] Posted by Stephen Noll on 2-11-2012 at 08:15 AM · [top]
Registered members are welcome to leave comments. Log in here, or register here.
Comment Policy: We pride ourselves on having some of the most open, honest debate anywhere. However, we do have a few rules that we enforce strictly. They are: No over-the-top profanity, no racial or ethnic slurs, and no threats real or implied of physical violence. Please see this post for more. Although we rarely do so, we reserve the right to remove or edit comments, as well as suspend users' accounts, solely at the discretion of site administrators. Since we try to err on the side of open debate, you may sometimes see comments which you believe strain the boundaries of our rules. Comments are the opinions of visitors, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Stand Firm site administrators or Gri5th Media, LLC.