Pelosi Vows to Stand With Obama Against Catholic Church; Says Decision Forcing Catholics to Act Against Faith Was 'Very Courageous'

(CNSNews.com) - House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D.-Calif.) vowed today that she will join with the Obama administration in standing up against the Catholic Church in defending a new regulation that will require Catholic individuals to buy, and Catholic institutions to provide, health insurance plans that cover sterilizations and artificial contraceptives, including those that induce abortions.

The Catholic church teaches that sterilization, artificial contraception and abortion are morally wrong and the Catholic bishops of the United States have argued that forcing a Catholic individual to purchase a health insurance plan that covers these things--or forcing a Catholic institution to provide such a plan--forces Catholics to act against their consciences and is a violation of the First Amendment right to free exercise of religion.

In letters being read from the pulpit in Catholic parishes across the nation, Catholic bishops are saying: "We cannot--we will not--comply with this unjust law."

At her Wednesday press briefing, CNSNews.com asked Pelosi: "The administration has issued a regulation that will require all health-care plans to cover sterilization and all FDA-approved contraceptives, including those that induce abortions. This would force Catholic individuals and institutions to act against their consciences. All across the nation, Catholic bishops are saying:--

Pelosi responded: "Is this a speech, or do we have a question in disguise as a speech?"

CNSNews.com continued: "'We cannot--we will not--comply with this law.' Catholic bishops are saying they will not comply with this law. Will you stand with your fellow Catholics in resisting this law or will you stick by the administration?"

Pelosi: "First of all, I am going to stick with my fellow Catholics in supporting the administration on this. I think it was a very courageous decision that they made, and I support it."

Read more at CNS News

February 6, 2012 4:00 A.M.

Again, Why Not Santorum?

Missouri's "beauty contest" primary on Tuesday could be Rick Santorum's big chance. If he defeats Mitt Romney in that event, as at least one poll shows he is poised to do, the punditocracy and public alike might finally recognize the considerable upside he would offer Republicans as their presidential nominee.

Rick Santorum can win the Republican nomination. Rick Santorum can indeed beat Barack Obama in the fall. And Rick Santorum can and would govern at least as conservatively as Ronald Reagan did.

The evidence of his principled, mainstream conservatism is unambiguous, as is his record of winning long-shot races. What hasn't been fully understood yet is why, and how, Santorum could win the Republican nomination and the presidency.

Let's start with a few underappreciated realities about opinion polls held so far in advance of a general election. First, favorable/unfavorable ratings, along with the level of name identification, are far more important than direct "horse race" numbers. Second, poll "internals," along with focus-group data if possible, should be interpreted to assess how much growth potential a candidate has, along with what his downside political risks are.

If a candidate has been widely known, and widely disliked, for a long, long time, that candidate has little room for growth. Very few public officials in American history, for instance, have as longstanding a record of horribly unfavorable poll numbers as Newt Gingrich has had for 17 years now. (His particularly dreadful polling problems among women, for instance, seem flat-out insurmountable.) Santorum, on the other hand, is far less well known, so he has a greater chance to move polls in either direction as voters get to know him better. The interesting thing to note here is that he continues to do better in polls the more he is known to the general public. That's a serious sign of growth potential. Even better, even as the general public was first really looking at him, Santorum already was doing as well or better than Mitt Romney in head-to-head matchups against Obama in the key states of Florida and North Carolina.

Within the GOP, as Bill Kristol argues, Santorum probably has a better chance to defeat Mitt Romney head to head than Gingrich does. Polls bear that out. A number of polls also show that whereas a significant portion of Santorum voters would prefer Romney to Gingrich (this is Gingrich's polarizing nature again coming into play), the vast majority of Gingrich voters would move to Santorum in a two-man race against Romney. That's why, one on one, Santorum can beat Romney but Gingrich can't.

Read more at National Review

But the big political news of the week isn't Mr. Romney's gaffe, or even his victory in Florida. The big story took place in Washington. That's where a bomb went off that not many in the political class heard, or understood.

But President Obama just may have lost the election.

The president signed off on a Health and Human Services ruling that says that under ObamaCare, Catholic institutions--including charities, hospitals and schools--will be required by law, for the first time ever, to provide and pay for insurance coverage that includes contraceptives, abortion-inducing drugs and sterilization procedures. If they do not, they will face ruinous fines in the millions of dollars. Or they can always go out of business.

In other words, the Catholic Church was told this week that its institutions can't be Catholic anymore.

I invite you to imagine the moment we are living in without the church's charities, hospitals and schools. And if you know anything about those organizations, you know it is a fantasy that they can afford millions in fines.

There was no reason to make this ruling--none. Except ideology.

The conscience clause, which keeps the church itself from having to bow to such decisions, has always been assumed to cover the church's institutions.

Now the church is fighting back. Priests in an estimated 70% of parishes last Sunday came forward to read strongly worded protests from the church's bishops. The ruling asks the church to abandon Catholic principles and beliefs; it is an abridgment of the First Amendment; it is not acceptable. They say they will not bow to it. They should never bow to it, not only because they are Catholic and cannot be told to take actions that deny their faith, but because they are citizens of the United States.

If they stay strong and fight, they will win. This is in fact a potentially unifying moment for American Catholics, long split left, right and center. Catholic conservatives will immediately and fully oppose the administration's decision. But Catholic liberals, who feel embarrassed and undercut, have also come out in opposition.

The church is split on many things. But do Catholics in the pews want the government telling their church to contravene its beliefs? A president affronting the leadership of the church, and blithely threatening its great institutions? No, they don't want that. They will unite against that.

The smallest part of this story is political. There are 77.7 million Catholics in the United States. In 2008 they made up 27% of the electorate, about 35 million people. Mr. Obama carried the Catholic vote, 54% to 45%. They helped him win.

They won't this year. And guess where a lot of Catholics live? In the battleground states.

There was no reason to pick this fight. It reflects political incompetence on a scale so great as to make Mitt Romney's gaffes a little bitty thing.

There was nothing for the president to gain, except, perhaps, the pleasure of making a great church bow to him.

Enjoy it while you can. You have awakened a sleeping giant.

February 4, 2012 5:00 A.M.

The Liberal Enforcers
Komen couldn't be permitted to get away with disrespecting Big Abortion.

By Mark Steyn

As Senator Obama said during the 2008 campaign, words matter. Modern "liberalism" is strikingly illiberal; the high priests of "tolerance" are increasingly intolerant of even the mildest dissent; and those who profess to "celebrate diversity" coerce ever more ruthlessly a narrow homogeneity. Thus, the Obama administration's insistence that Catholic institutions must be compelled to provide free contraception, sterilization, and abortifacients. This has less to do with any utilitarian benefit a condomless janitor at a Catholic school might derive from Obamacare, and more to do with the liberal muscle of Big Tolerance enforcing one-size-fits-all diversity.

The bigger the Big Government, the smaller everything else: In Sweden, expressing a moral objection to homosexuality is illegal, even on religious grounds, even in church, and a pastor minded to cite the more robust verses of Leviticus would risk four years in jail. In Canada, the courts rule that Catholic schools must allow gay students to take their same-sex dates to the prom. The secular state's Bureau of Compliance is merciless to apostates to a degree even your fire-breathing imams might marvel at.

Consider the current travails of the Susan G. Komen Foundation. This is the group responsible for introducing the pink "awareness raising" ribbon for breast cancer -- as emblematic a symbol of America's descent into postmodernism as anything. It has spawned a thousand other colored "awareness raising" ribbons: My current favorite is the periwinkle ribbon for acid reflux. We have had phenomenal breakthroughs in hues of awareness-raising ribbons, and for this the Susan G. Komen Foundation deserves due credit.

Until the other day, Komen were also generous patrons of Planned Parenthood, the "women's health" organization. The foundation then decided it preferred to focus on organizations that are "providing the lifesaving mammogram." Planned Parenthood does not provide mammograms, despite its president, Cecile Richards, testifying to the contrary before Congress last year. Rather, Planned Parenthood provides abortions; it's the biggest abortion provider in the United States. For the breast-cancer bigwigs to wish to target their grants more relevantly is surely understandable.

But not if you're a liberal enforcer. Senator Barbara Boxer, with characteristic understatement, compared the Komen Foundation's Nancy Brinker to Joe McCarthy: "I'm reminded of the McCarthy era, where somebody said: 'Oh,' a congressman stands up, a senator, 'I'm investigating this organization and therefore people should stop funding them.'" But Komen is not a congressman or a senator or any other part of the government, only a private organization. And therefore it is free to give its money to whomever it wishes, isn't it?

Dream on. Liberals take the same view as the proprietors of the Dar al-Islam: Once they hold this land, they hold it forever. Notwithstanding that those who give to the foundation are specifically giving to support breast-cancer research, Komen could not be permitted to get away with disrespecting Big Abortion. We don't want to return to the bad old days of the back alley, when a poor vulnerable person who made the mistake of stepping out of line had to be forced into the shadows and have the realities explained to them with a tire iron. Now Big Liberalism's enforcers do it on the front pages with the panjandrums of tolerance and diversity cheering them all the way. In the wake of Komen's decision, the Yale School of Public Health told the Washington Post's Sarah Kliff that its invitation to Nancy Brinker to be its commencement speaker was now "under careful review." Because God forbid anybody doing a master's program at an Ivy League institution should be exposed to anyone not in full 100 percent compliance with liberal orthodoxy. The American Association of University Women announced it would no longer sponsor teams for Komen's "Race for the Cure." Sure, Komen has raised $2 billion for the cure, but better we never cure breast cancer than let a single errant Injun wander off the abortion reservation. Terry O'Neill of the National Organization for Women said Komen "is no longer an organization whose mission is to advance women's health." You preach it, sister. I mean, doesn't the very idea of an organization obsessively focused on breasts sound suspiciously patriarchal?

Read more at National Review

And the cutaway to Leatherneck troops in Afghanistan - very touching.

Well done!

Today is Zach's 24th birthday!

And since I can't blow out the candles or get him on a phone - because he's in his first round of training at the Marines Officers Candidate School (in the photo left which we found at their site) - I guess I'll have to wish him Happy Birthday here.

Also, since on this day 24 years ago I labored to bring him into the world, I'm going to take the liberty of talking about him. I think knowing a little more about Zachary will give other mommies - even if you're still in the throes of trying to get a good night's sleep - something sweet to build your dreams on.

Zachary was the fourth of a string of boys born within five and a half years. Sophia was born two years later (that's his adoring sister in the photobelow). When he was two months old, we moved from the suburbs to the country. A couple weeks later, I broke my arm while flying a kite (that's another story. . . ) and had a cast from my knuckles to above my elbow. Not exactly the cuddliest situation.

Zachary was a quiet baby - so quiet I would have worried about him if I hadn't been so busy unpacking with one arm. He loved the mobile of yellow duckies above his changing table and would flail his arms and legs in appreciation of them. I'd stand by, camcorder in hand, for half an hour at a time waiting for some sound to emerge - you know, talking to the yellow duckies. But Zachary was a man of few words.

He always looked like he was doing some serious thinking.

He was a very late reader. I had taught my other kids to read by four or five, using the very simple but effective Montessori method (in my book Ready, Set, Read!) but for Zachary, reading didn't click until he was seven or so.

Being the youngest, Zach often found himself with the fuzzy end of the lollipop. Then he'd track down Tripp or me to announce with great seriousness: "Mom, Dad, I have to report that my brothers will not let me participate, though I'm perfectly qualified to play the game they're involved in."

By nine - just two years afer he started reading - he was reading heavy tomes about ancient and modern warfare, biographies of famous leaders like Winston Churchill and Attila the Hun. He had a deep voice and spoke in a dreary monotone - kinda like Eeyore.

And he had a stutter - which would disappear for a while only to return.

Not wanting to give it too much energy, I came up with a plan and stuck to it for five years, watching the stutter come and go. And then one day when Zachary was 10 or so, I wondered when the was the last time I'd heard it. Like so many other problems, this was just another one that "came to pass" - not to stay.

Zachary turned out to be so intelligent, that at 12 he scored 1020 on the SATs. At 13 he passed the California High School Proficiency Exam and enrolled in college.

But when we moved to Virginia, he and his brothers went into public high school. Zach ended up graduating only a year early at 17. He was the only National Merit Scholarship finalist out of his class of 363. (SATs now 1520) I was so proud of him! And still am! In 2009, he graduated from Liberty University with a major in computer science, planning to go to OCS the following January. Unfortunately, in the meantime he bought a motorcycle, had an accident, broke his ankle, setting his plans back two years.

Like all the Curtis kids, he's got a good set of pipes - but after playing a Jet in West Side Story in 2002, he hung up his theater shoes for good.

He's a guy with a lot of self-discipline when it comes to the physical - a daily runner, great swimmer, martial arts practitioner, and fierce rugby player.

So, please don't judge me harshly for bragging so long and so loud about this very special son. For one thing, I want mommies out there to know how important it is to relax when your kids are young and not get hung up about problems like stuttering. When I look back, I realize Zach's little brain was probably just going so fast he couldn't get everything out.

And I also offer Zachary as evidence against the charge some people make that kids from big families are dumbed down because of lack of attention from their parents. Zach was 6th of 12 - right in the middle. When he was four, Jonny was born with Down syndrome and a bunch of medical problems that kept us going in and out of the hospital for 15 months. When Zach was 5, Madeleine was born. When Zack was 7 we adopted another baby with Down syndrome. Mama started writing. Then two more adoptions. It's not like we were grooming him to be what he turned out to be.

But, I believe -

That when God plants something special in one of his creations, it will rise to the surface despite the soil. I grew up in a very undesirable, neglectful environment. But like Zach, I skipped grades. And was also a National Merit Finalist. Zach and I have something else in common - we're both ENTJs :)

Then too, the thing is not to get hung up on intelligence as the most important gift. I have other children who are gifted singers or extraordinary parents or just plain wonderful human beings, full of kindness and character.

Mommies, this is what it's all about - receiving each child as though God has given us a very special gift - not planning who or what they will become, but unwrapping carefully to see what God has placed inside, then doing our best to help them realize their potential.

I sure liked what we found as Zach was unwrapped!

I love you, Birthday Boy! Can't wait to see you in March! Thinking of you and praying for you every day!

First of all, everyone needs to take a deep breath.

About an hour ago my twitter feed exploded with headlines of "KOMEN CAVED!!!", etc, etc.

No, they didn't.

They released a very carefully scripted statement today which echoes what their President Nancy G. Brinker said yesterday on MSNBC.

They didn't cave. They apologized for how their previous statements were misconstrued, but that's different. In terms of their actual operating procedure, they are saying the same thing they've always been saying in terms of implementing a new award protocol, just in a more nuanced way that appeases some of their most vitriolic critics, all in an effort to beg for space and a break from the incessant threat by liberal elites and attacks by the mainstream media (GetReligion has good commentary) and left-wing activists.

Make no mistake, Susan G. Komen is in a fight for its life. . .

This is more than a pro-life, pro-abortion debate. It's a culture war between the powerful liberal elite and grassroots pro-life conservatism. It's also a battle of identity for the pro-life movement. Will we listen to our own, trust our instincts and remain focused? Or will we allow the pro-abortion forces to knock us off our game and play by their rules?

As I've been saying since this story broke, we need to be doing two essential things: 1) support Komen in their bid to cut Planned Parenthood out of their funding streams and 2) keep the focus on Planned Parenthood's hypocrisy and lies.

If we do these two things, we win. If we get distracted and cease supporting Komen or stop focusing on Planned Parenthood, we lose. It's as simple as that.

GetReligion.org: Media genuflect before Church of Planned Parenthood

It's like Planned Parenthood is a church and most of the media are communicant members ready to defend its teachings and faith at all costs. . . This ABC News headline gives two options for what's going on with Komen's decision to give money for breast cancer research and treatment to groups that do breast cancer research and treatment: "Witch Hunt or Policy Shift?" The story continues the backlash theme, completely oblivious to that portion of the country that doesn't love Planned Parenthood.

Jill Stanek: Komen and Planned Parenthood: What next?

"Truth be told, even I was taken aback by the shock and awe Planned Parenthood, abortion proponents, and the liberal media displayed this week. And I deal with these people all the time."

IStandWithKomen.com:

What we know has happened this week was nothing short of a Mafia shakedown by Planned Parenthood against the Susan G. Komen Foundation. It was little more than a hostage-taking by an abortion bully.

Planned Parenthood told the Komen Foundation, "Either give us money or we will destroy you." They were aided and abetted in this hostage-taking by the mainstream media.

The Komen Fiasco's Silver Lining: Small comforts (and other sizes) emerge from Planned Parenthood's bullying tactics:

So what began as a victory in the fight against abortion ended in what seemed a particularly cruel defeat, a reminder of how much elite culture is aligned in defense of abortion and its largest provider. But there is a silver lining to the disaster, and not just for textbook writers looking for case studies in catastrophic public relations failures.

Now everyone knows that Komen funnels money to the abortion business. . .

Planned Parenthood's lack of mammogram services has been exposed. . .

Any pretense of media objectivity on the abortion issue has been destroyed. . . .

Wall Street Journal: Komen Get It

Planned Parenthood's bitter campaign against Komen--aided by left-liberal activists and media--is analogous to a protection racket: Nice charity you've got there. It'd be a shame if anything happened to it. The message to other Planned Parenthood donors is that if they don't play nice and keep coughing up the cash, they'll get the Komen treatment.

There's one crucial difference, however. In a real-life protection racket, the victim never pays voluntarily. The threat is present from the get-go. By contrast, Komen presumably was not under any duress when it made its grants--and it could have avoided all this nasty publicity by never dealing with Planned Parenthood in the first place.

Thus smart prospective donors--especially ones that are apolitical, like Komen--are getting the message that supporting Planned Parenthood is a trap. Give once, and you will give again--or else you will pay.

Since Josh Head had asked Tripp for Sophia's hand in marriage in November, we knew he would be proposing to her sometime - we just didn't know when. Since her birthday is three days after Christmas, I decided to find a hope chest for her for her birthday present.

Hope chests are an old-fashioned tradition - a big cedar chest in which the bride-to-be can store thinks as she accumulates them before her wedding. Many so-called hope chests are so small they could barely hold a couple quilts, and I wanted to find something not only big, but special.

I started with prayer, having learned long ago that's a good place to start. Then I went to Craig's List, searching for "vintage hope chest" and "vintage bride's chest" and "vintage cedar chest" - plus all the chests without vintage in the search. Within a week I came up with a listing I was so certain would be The One that I enlisted Tripp and we drove 90 minutes to see it.

What we found was a circa 1920s family heirloom that had belonged to the seller's great grandmother from a noted hope chest maker - Cavalier. It's roomy - nearly five feet wide and mid-thigh height, with a drawer on the bottom and a lid that stays open:

We packed it up and hid it in our basement under a pile of blankets until Sophia's birthday.

She was stunned. She'd never heard of a hope chest. But Josh had proposed to her on Christmas and she'd received many presents from her family for Christmas to begin stocking her chest: aprons, kitchenware and so on.

This will be a fine piece of furniture too as she and Josh begin their home. And full of memories. And something to pass on to her own daughter.

I have had such wonderful experiences with Craig's List - both selling and buying - I wanted to pass that along. Plus the idea of restoring a tradition of hope chests for prospective brides.

Who knows? Maybe one of your relatives has something like this in an attic that needs to be passed on. . .

When I did come home to the news - and a hundred emails - about the Komen Foundation succumbing to the bullying and shakedown tactics of Planned Parenthood and the pro-PP propaganda press, I will admit, I cried. Felt defeated and unable to write. This was an outcome that hardly seemed possible.

Sometimes the forces of evil and death in this country seem unstoppable. I remember four or five years ago when Focus on the Family sent me to Kansas to cover the Katherine Sebelius/Phill Kline/Planned Parenthood scandal there. Sebelius was already deep in Planned Parenthood's pocket, throwing parties to thank them for their generous donations to her campaign. Phil Kline was State Attorney fighting to open up PP's records, which would reveal that they were performing unlawful late-tern abortions and covering up statutory rape. Though I was paid for the article, it got bumped for some reason. But when a couple years later Obama appointed Sebelius head of Health and Human Services, I immediately understood and blogged about how it would increase Planned Parenthood's stranglehold on our government.

The forces of death and destruction within Kansas were like a machine bearing down on one brave man, who was attacked, ridiculed and vilified by the media elites and those who take their destructive cue from them. Interviewing Kline and those around him, I too felt the oppressive weight of those forces.

I had always known - philosophically - that the battles we face here on earth are just a reflection of a larger spiritual conflict, but to be there in the midst of these terrible forces of power and corruption and the war they were raging against one individual brave enough to stand up against them was breathtaking:

For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. Ephesians 6:12

It is in that framework that I see the noble but naive attempt of the Komen Foundation to cast off the shackles of death that have chained it to Planned Parenthood. When Komen announced that they would no longer fund Planned Parenthood for their phony mammograms, they came under an assault similar to the deadly whipping a runaway slave would receive from a vicious, angry monster/master.

In the one day that the Komen decision stood, they were rewarded with $1,000,000 from pro-life people like you and me, who wanted to show their support. One million dollars in 24 hours!

But Planned Parenthood's death-machine swiftly ground into action, agitating supporters to raise $400,000 themselves - but more insidiously, putting companies that supported both organizations on notice that PP would organize boycotts against them unless they withdrew support from Komen. Yes, really!!!! PP, the Biggest Corporate Bully of All Time - was determined that if the Komen Foundation withdrew its support, they would crush them forever!

This truly shows the lies on which the rhetoric of the Left is built. PP claims to be a friend of women, while in reality it is a corporate monster intent on increasing profits every year through promoting promiscuity and raking in millions from abortions to "solve" the problem it does its best to exacerbate. PP has no conscience, only the same greed that motivates most corporations - multiplies exponentially by a religious zealotry regarding abortion as some kind of sacrament rather than the murder that it truly is.

And let's not forget that in every abortion, the baby is not the only victim. There is the heartbreak and guilt of the mother, the loss to the family and the community of a person who could have turned out to be a president or a culture-changing genius (Obama and Steve Jobs were both born of single mothers who could have chosen abortion).

Planned Parenthood isn't about serving the health of women. And abortion isn't about choice. If Planned Parenthood believed in choice and respected women, they would certainly have graciously received the news of the Komen Foundation's choice and moved on. They would have written their supporters something cuing them to also accept this news with respect and dignity, rather than whipping them into a frenzy of hatred and revenge. They would not have used racketeering techniques (once used to strip pro-life leaders of their homes and assets) to crush a well-meaning organization who dared step off the plantation.

Just as In Lila Rose's exposes of daily life in Planned Parenthood clinics - where counselors figure out how to cover up rape, prostitution and human trafficking while hooking innocent women up with government-paid abortions - this recent political tragedy has revealed Planned Parenthood for the deadly machine it's become.

Please write the Komen Foundation to express your disappointment. If you can take back your contributions somehow through VISA/Paypal, you might want to consider doing that and sending your money instead to an organization that continues the political/spiritual battle - e.g., Students for Life or Live Action.

[Update: Thomas Peters at CatholicVote.org is of the opinion that the Komen Foundation has not completely backtracked, but is trying to stay alive while extricating itself from the grasp of Planned Parenthood. After reading his post, I want very much to agree with him. So my advice is to listen to the still small voice to find what you should do. Whatever you decide, we should not be using strong-arm tactics like Planned Parenthood to get our way, but expressing our support and pledging to help them break their ties with PP in whatever ways we can. This is a drama that will continue to unfold in the weeks ahead.]

And let's commit ourselves to spreading the message of life and hope to our families, friends and communities. Have many children and bring them up to know and serve God. We already know that we are well on the way to winning this war as the Pro-Life movement is full of youth and vitality and joy, while the pro-abortion forces have eliminated many of their own children and limited their stake in the future.

There is always hope. And no matter what the situation, you can find a piece of it here at MommyLife from your faithful Cockeyed Optimist. Promise not to laugh? This song just popped into my head:

Cockeyed Optimist

My writing motto since I began:

Say something simple and real, something with hope in it. Frank Capra's Meet John Doe, 1941

"About Me" on facebook:

Hope Is the Thing with Feathers

Hope is the thing with feathers
That perches in the soul,
And sings the tune--without the words,
And never stops at all.

And sweetest in the gale is heard;
And sore must be the storm
That could abash the little bird
That kept so many warm.

I've heard it in the chillest land,
And on the strangest sea;
Yet, never, in extremity,
It asked a crumb of me.

Emily Dickinson

And most importantly:

When times are tough, let's keep informed, but let's remind ourselves that with God, there's always hope!

~~~~~~~
Art Note: "Hope" by George Frederick Watts, 1885

"At the first glance it is rather strange that such a picture should bear such a title, but the imagery is perfectly true. The heavens are illuminated by a solitary star, and Hope bends her ear to catch the music from the last remaining string of her almost shattered lyre. Read more at The Victorian Web.

Army Silenced Chaplains Last Sunday

In Catholic churches across the country, parishioners were read letters from the pulpit this weekend from bishops in their diocese about the mandate from the Department of Health and Human Services giving Catholics a year before they'll be required to start violating their consciences on insurance coverage for contraception, sterilization, and abortifacient drugs. But not in the Army. 

A statement released this afternoon -- which happens to be the 67th anniversary of the sinking of the USS Dorchester, on which four chaplains lost their lives - from the Archdiocese for Military Services explains:

On Thursday, January 26, Archbishop Broglio emailed a pastoral letter to Catholic military chaplains with instructions that it be read from the pulpit at Sunday Masses the following weekend in all military chapels. The letter calls on Catholics to resist the policy initiative, recently affirmed by the United States Department of Health and Human Services, for federally mandated health insurance covering sterilization, abortifacients and contraception, because it represents a violation of the freedom of religion recognized by the U.S. Constitution.

The Army's Office of the Chief of Chaplains subsequently sent an email to senior chaplains advising them that the Archbishop's letter was not coordinated with that office and asked that it not be read from the pulpit.  The Chief's office directed that the letter was to be mentioned in the Mass announcements and distributed in printed form in the back of the chapel.

Archbishop Broglio and the Archdiocese stand firm in the belief, based on legal precedent, that such a directive from the Army constituted a violation of his Constitutionally-protected right of free speech and the free exercise of religion, as well as those same rights of all military chaplains and their congregants.

Following a discussion between Archbishop Broglio and the Secretary of the Army, The Honorable John McHugh, it was agreed that it was a mistake to stop the reading of the Archbishop's letter.  Additionally, the line: "We cannot -- we will not -- comply with this unjust law" was removed by Archbishop Broglio at the suggestion of Secretary McHugh over the concern that it could potentially be misunderstood as a call to civil disobedience.

The AMS did not receive any objections to the reading of Archbishop Broglio's statement from the other branches of service. 

So not only were chaplains told not to read the letter, but an Obama administration official edited a pastoral letter . . . with church buy-in?

Didn't people flee across an ocean-sized pond to be free of this kind of thing?