November 11, 2009

Anyone Else Want to Sell Us Out?

Filed under: Activism,General,Health Care,Taxes & Government — Rose @ 8:38 am

First Right to Life, now the Catholic Church. But as Justice Brandeis said, sunlight is the best disinfectant.

For the record, I’m about as shocked by this as I am about the “unwritten rule” that priests can have girlfriends.

Pay close attention to the mention of Catholics and the SEIU…How “rich” for the “poor,” quadrillion dollar Catholic Church.

Do NOT pay close attention, to all the talk about pro-abort dems wanting to “investigate” the church’s tax exempt status. The Catholic Church helped seal this deal and gave Dems exactly what they wanted. Everything else is smoke and mirrors.

From Accuracy in Media:

Catholic Bishops Help Pass Pelosicare
By Cliff Kincaid
November 8, 2009

The AARP and American Medical Association supported H.R. 3692, the Affordable Health Care for America Act of 2009, but a careful analysis of the media coverage demonstrates that it was the U.S. Catholic Church that provided the winning margin. Yet, the liberal media are failing to raise the issue of the alleged separation of church and state.

Contrary to some media reports, the U.S. Catholics Bishops never opposed a national health care scheme. In fact, their main objection was to a provision for federal funding of abortion. Once that provision was eliminated, the Catholic Bishops embraced the bill.

On Saturday, after Catholic lobbyists had finalized a deal with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the most prominent Catholic in the U.S. Government, the Politico reported that the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops had “delivered a critical endorsement” to Pelosi “by signing off on late-night agreement to grant a vote on an amendment barring insurance companies that participate in the exchange from covering abortions.” The anti-abortion amendment by Rep. Bart Stupak, a Catholic Democrat, passed. Hence, the Bishops are now officially in favor of a bureaucratic plan that could spell the end to freedom of choice in health care and financially bankrupt the U.S.

“A half dozen lobbyists for the US Conference of Catholic Bishops joined negotiators in Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s office to come to terms,” reported the Christian Science Monitor.

The Hill newspaper reported that Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) had been trying to broker a deal and appealed to the Catholic Bishops. “I would like the [U.S. Conference of Catholic] Bishops, who as I understand it want a bill, to help us work out a plan where we don’t have winners and losers,” Waxman was quoted as saying. “Because the losers will make us lose the bill and the winners won’t have won anything.”

NBC’s Doug Adams reported that the Catholic Bishops were “lobbying hard.”

The shocking turn of events once again demonstrates the extreme left-wing drift of the Catholic Church, which is the nation’s largest religious denomination with 67 million members and run by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. But their role in passing Pelosicare is not the only evidence of such a turn. The Bishops poured more than $7.3 million of parishioners’ money into the corrupt left-wing organization ACORN over the last decade before publicity over the organization’s scandals forced suspension of the funding.

…Another factor could be the influence of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), which recently announced a major agreement with the Catholic Bishops to make it easier for workers in Catholic hospitals to join unions. These hospitals have 525,193 full-time employees and 233,934 part-time workers who would normally be entitled to employer-paid health insurance. But under Pelosicare they could be transferred to a government plan offered under a so-called “health insurance exchange.” Once again, taxpayers would be stuck with the bill.

“Health reform will bring the U.S. closer to a true, coordinated health care system. We need and deserve a solid health care infrastructure that serves everyone and promotes the common good,” says the Catholic Health Association.

Oh yeah, the Vatican was involved as well…

Vatican Engineered Victory for Pelosicare
By Cliff Kincaid
November 9, 2009

In a story about why the U.S. Catholic Bishops have embraced Democratic-style universal health care, the Los Angeles Times noted that the Roman Catholic Church considers healthcare a basic human right, “a position the church has articulated since 1963, when it was included in a papal encyclical by Pope John XXIII.” Indeed, healthcare is declared a right in the “Peace on Earth” encyclical. That is also the basis of Obamacare.

The group Catholic Democrats has hailed passage of H.R. 3962, the Affordable Health Care for America Act of 2009, and notes that the only House Republican voting for it, Representative Joseph Cao of Louisiana, is a Catholic and former Jesuit seminarian. “The Catholic Church has been at the forefront of advocating for health care as a right for decades, including pastoral letters issued by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) in 1981 and 1993,” the group notes.

The evidence indicates that the Bishops-and the Vatican itself-are calling the shots behind the scene. In fact, as many media organizations are now reporting, they engineered the “compromise” that deleted abortion funding so the bill could pass the House. The Los Angeles Times reported that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a Catholic, not only “conferred with the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops to be sure the new restrictions were acceptable” but “consulted by telephone with a cardinal in Rome.”

CNN reported that, as a deal was being made between Pelosi and Catholic lobbyists, “Several Democrats, including Rep. Jason Altmire, D-Pennsylvania, said they are in touch with their Catholic Bishops back home. Altmire said he must have the approval of his bishop in Pittsburgh before he can vote yes.”

Where is the media outrage over “the separation of church and state?” In this case, there is direct evidence of a foreign entity, the Vatican, actually passing judgment on legislation and, in effect, delivering votes for it.

Few in the media, on the left or right, want to raise the issue, apparently fearful of being labeled “anti-Catholic.”

But the outcome of the legislation in the House demonstrates that while the Republicans don’t have the votes to stop it, the Vatican has the votes to pass it. Could the same thing happen in the U.S. Senate?

It is time for the major media to investigate how the officials of a major religious denomination, with its headquarters in Rome, are affecting the outcome of major pieces of legislation in the Congress of the United States.

The Catholic Church is starting to make televangelists like Paula White and Creflo Dollar look legitimate.

Share

18 Comments

  1. The logic of the Church on this could be extended to embrace Communism because it is a system that promises to provide “to each, according to his needs.” Obviously it doesn’t really work that way.

    Statist health care is the same. In the ideal world, everyone has a need met. But in the real world, if you’re waiting six months for that need to be met, the fact that you (eventually) have a right to have it met is scant comfort. Moreover, it causes needless suffering, and sometimes disability and death.

    In an ideal world, statist health care would meet a person’s health care needs from conception to natural death. But once you take control over care decisions out of patients’/doctors’ hands, either overtly or through perverse incentives, you compromise that. In an insurance company’s or employer’s hands, they at least have the incentive of having to compete for future business and employees, which puts a damper on potential heartlessness. With the government, their interests are too often diametrically at odds with patients and doctors. Elections are no deterrent to civil service-protected bureaucrats.

    In too-short order (see RomneyCare in Massachusetts), the state is micro-managing costs, payments, and quality of care, and deciding who suffers and who doesn’t, and, ultimately, who lives and who dies. Bureaucrats make decisions on what to pay for with NO recourse (to the point where, as in Canada, you can’t even pay for your own or your family’s needed care if you by some miracle have the money).

    The myopic bishops and the Vatican haven’t thought this through, and their word in this matter is NOT Church doctrine, and is definitely NOT infallible.

    Comment by TBlumer — November 11, 2009 @ 8:48 am

  2. #1, agreed. I know priests, most from the 60′s who went straight into the priesthood, who embrace socialism b/c that is the only way they know how to live(off of the members of the church). So by their flawed logic, why can’t everyone else do the same and live off the government?

    The intent gets more insidious and nefarious the higher one goes in the Catholic Church (why else would Newt Gingrich “convert?”).

    As usual, however, liberal Catholics don’t complete the thought and understand that the problem with socialism is that eventually, you run out of other people’s money (thank you, Iron Lady).

    The only “conservative” priests I know – and by that I mean they DON’T think it’s ok to have girlfriends and promote socialism – are those who lived and functioned in the real world.

    I sincerely hope that the Catholic Church doesn’t wait until it is cowering before the REAL “Mediator” (whose seat they try to steal) in 1 Tim 2:5, to realize that they are not Him, b/c then it will be too late.

    Like I said, they are no better than some fake Protestants who lie, cheat & steal for self-gain.

    Comment by Rose — November 11, 2009 @ 10:16 am

  3. Since my fathers side of my family is Catholic, I found this really sickening. And I had a feeling removing abortion from the bill (or appearing to in this case) would be a double-edged sword. It seemed to be the only reason some groups were against Obama/Pelosi/Reid/whoeverCare and once it was removed I just knew that would make it more likely to get passed.

    You two make great points, but also don’t forget that just because you have a need does not mean you have the right to force others to satisfy it. For instance, people have need for companionship, but you can’t kidnap people and force them to be your friends. Whatever happened to meeting your needs yourself instead of expecting others to drop everything and do it for you?

    I think too many Catholics take Jesus’s strong words about money and the rich as somehow promoting socialism. What Jesus was promoting was individual charity to others, not powerful bureaucrats taking money from others and then dispensing money to whoever and for whatever reason. That’s an indirect, cold and morally flawed method of “charity.” Socialism breeds the immoral dismissive attitude of, “I don’t have to care about or help people, that’s the governments job.” Like Bertrand Russel once made clear, don’t confuse socialists for Christians. Socialists as a whole contribute less to charity than any group. There is a reason Marx was a militant atheist (and not to mention grossly anti-Semitic.) Also, liberal Catholics ignore that money and the concept of wealth have evolved considerably since Biblical days…but thats a digression. And then there is Adam Smith and others who make the point that every individual has different needs and wants and only the individual can truly make the decisions that lead to their own happiness. So even if the government was stocked with saints (impossible) national health care still wouldn’t truly meet everyones needs. I could go on and on.

    Also, Catholic Health Associations statement at the end smacks of fascism. So, you can’t have a “true” health care “system” unless it’s centralized and under one group who has complete or near complete control? And I’d put the solidarity of our “uncoordinated” health care infrastructure against the rest of the worlds any day. Take a look at Britain, Canada, France, Cuba and the rest, does this CHA really think those messes are serving the “common good?” And the CHA imply that only government “systems” can work. Apparently their faith in powerful and elite secular institutions helmed by mortal sinful men is as strong as their faith in God.

    Comment by zf — November 11, 2009 @ 1:16 pm

  4. #3, outstanding points, thank you.

    Comment by Rose — November 11, 2009 @ 7:13 pm

  5. Another “logical”, or should I say business, reason for the support – cheaper health care for their employees. In the Archdiocese of Cincinnati only there are 3,336 teachers of whom 97% are non-religious. The quality and depth of its health care program has always been the justification for the lower pay structure than teachers in the public school systems. Now, Obamacare provides an opportunity to reduce a significant portion of the costs for Dioceses all across the country.

    Comment by Bill — November 11, 2009 @ 10:27 pm

  6. The bill was passed on a purely partisan vote, except for the one, yes one Republican vote. The Democrats can pass anything they want with their votes.

    Instead of blaming the democrats for what they always do (spend peoples money), we want to start blaming the Catholic Bishops.

    Am I to understand that the Bishops have this mystical effect on Democrats only? And if we are to believe the Bishops are behind the House vote, I suspect we have to believe it will have the same mystical effect on the Senate?

    Give me break.

    Comment by Michael Q — November 12, 2009 @ 7:08 am

  7. #5,excellent point. The Catholic Church, if nothing else, is indeed a business. Funny how they operate in congruence with the “evil capitalists” they so readily admonish. The Catholic church is dead to me. I’m just ticked that it took this long for me to see their true colors.

    Romans 2:1-4

    Comment by Rose — November 12, 2009 @ 8:19 am

  8. #6, give ME a break…if you knew how much money & power the Catholic Church has to push it’s true agenda, it would rock your world.

    But hey, don’t take my word for it…check out the balance sheets. Do some research before tightening that veil of wool around your eyes.

    Comment by Rose — November 12, 2009 @ 10:16 am

  9. #6, the bishops gave Dems what they think is political cover. Those poor folks (the bishops and the pols) will probably find out just how wrong they are in about 355 days.

    Comment by TBlumer — November 12, 2009 @ 10:50 am

  10. #8, I’ll take your word for it, share the numbers on the balance sheets, I would appreciate it and so should everyone else, you must be an insider?

    Comment by Michael Q — November 12, 2009 @ 1:52 pm

  11. #10, So I am to assume if the Bishops have that much control over the House members, they will have the same control over the Senate? Or, was this “cover” only mystically held on catholic Democrats, and the one lonely loser Republican who by the way, we will find out wasn’t brainwashed by Bishops but was promised the usual huge amounts of federal money to try to solidify his seat in congress for years to come.

    Lastly, I can assume you feel the Senate will pass the bill by the 355 day comment? Did you ever think ta lot of Democrats might have finally succumbed to the pressure of Pelosi and her mob knowing the bill will never make it out of the Senate?

    Comment by Michael Q — November 12, 2009 @ 2:06 pm

  12. Last comment should have been directed to #9 and not myself, thanks.

    Comment by Michael Q — November 12, 2009 @ 2:08 pm

  13. #11-12, I never said it was a matter of control. The bishops gave the pols a chance to say, “see see, I’m prolife” while they then voted for death panels and deadly rationing. GOP reps who are prolife have apparently seen through this, or gotten lucky.

    If Senators can take advantage of a similar amendment to look pro-life when they aren’t, they’ll jump on it.

    It doesn’t matter to me in terms of electoral viability whether ObamaCare ultimately passes. What matters now is that the House members have cast their lot, and will have to defend the indefensible regardless. Same for those who supported cap and trade.

    Comment by TBlumer — November 12, 2009 @ 2:22 pm

  14. #2 By the way Rose you puff yourself up, telling us you have the slightest idea what the balance sheets of the Catholic Church are. Look for myself you say, when you only pass on gossip.

    You go on to mention the priests you know, the 60′s type and “conservative”, and you know what is in their hearts?

    Then you set yourself on the thrown where God sits, because you, all knowing, knows what is in the heart of Newt Gingrich why he converted.

    You know nothing of the Catholic Church other than the bigoted stereotype of it you have planted in your head. You have no intention of learning about it either, because you will continue to spread your idea of something you know nothing about.

    Just a note: the Catholic Church is the largest charity not in the country, not on the planet, but in the universe.
    And, don’t let the hate and ignorance get in the way of of comment.

    Comment by Michael Q — November 12, 2009 @ 3:40 pm

  15. From the Bishops statement:

    “We remain deeply concerned about other aspects of health care reform as the debate now moves to the Senate, especially as it affects the poor and vulnerable, and those at the beginning and end of life. We will continue to insist that health care reform legislation must protect conscience rights. We support measures to make health care more affordable for low-income people and the uninsured. We remain deeply concerned that immigrants be treated fairly and not lose the health care coverage that they now have,” he said also.”

    “Conscience rights, beginning and end of life (Death Panels?), we remain deeply concerned. More affordable?”

    Were has the Church capitulated? Affordable? anything wrong with that?

    By the way, if you have any type of company insurance, you are receiving a government benefit. You probably pay with pretax dollars ( a benefit not offered to everyone)and your company gets to allow you a lower premium than you would normally pay, due to the tax deduction the company gets on offering the insurance. In other words, welfare and health insurance have a lot in common, to receive either, you have to take from someone else to give it to you.

    Cliff Kincade laid his cards on the table when he try’s to paint the Church in the eyes of Nancy Pelosi, when in one of his articles he points out, “Nancy Pelosi, A CATHOLIC” My emphasis on A Catholic, she may be a Catholic, but there is a world of difference in being a catholic and a good Catholic.

    Kincaid is so far off base I am surprised, he is even given attention too.

    Comment by Michael Q — November 12, 2009 @ 4:53 pm

  16. “LA Times attributes pro Obama Catholics’ statement to the USCCB” is the Headline on CNA, the article about how the Times wrongfully attributed a statement from a Catholic Pro Obama group to the USCCB. That statment is what Cliff Kincaid bases his article on.

    The Catholics for Obama have their own problems

    It appears Cliff Kincaid’s article, an attempt to bash the Church relied solely on the Times article with absolutely no other research. You would think someone would go to the same place I did, to get their side of the story,he could have simplied googled USCCB?.

    So who really wants to sell us out, the Catholic Bishops or the lemmings that believe anything they want to hear.

    Article here, if anyone cares to read: http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=17696

    Comment by Michael Q — November 12, 2009 @ 10:29 pm

  17. #15 and #16, I apologize for the delayed response.

    I think it’s safe to say, absent a profound opposing statement from the bishops, that Stupak-Pitts was positioned to make it look like statist health care would be pro-life and generally not problematic for Catholics after its adoption.

    LA Times’s stupidity notwithstanding, your excerpt from the Bishops’ actual statement highlights either their ignorance or naivete.

    HR3962 is objectively anti-life even if prohibits every future abortion that might come to pass. It is unacceptable as written, and given who is behind it and what they would do with it after it passes, dangerous to any and all people of faith. During the House debate, it cried out for strident opposition and a diligent attempt to stop it, not an after-the-fact “Oh, you’d better fix it.”

    This monstrosity is either 51 or 60 votes and a guaranteed presidential signature from becoming law. The bishops’s voices were relatively muted when it counted. They are not acceptably carrying out their roles as shepherds of their flocks.

    Your riff about how company-provided health care is a government subsidized benefit presupposes an inherent government right to tax any and very kind of perk an employee might receive. Hogwash.

    Comment by TBlumer — November 12, 2009 @ 11:51 pm

  18. #14, well congrats. You built your straw man, knocked him down and celebrated the victory…

    Clearly you don’t believe that the church ever has or ever will do anything wrong (I grew up thinking that as well). Still, here goes…

    I don’t hate anyone, I’m angry and betrayed as are the many faithful Catholics I know – most of whom are in my immediate family – as should anyone be at this news.

    Additionally, I’m not “puffing myself up.” I am a sinner saved by grace and grace alone, just like you.

    A good start might be to call the Cincy Diocese. The Stewardship folks should be able to direct you “up the chain.” If not, here is an older report that skims the surface, but I don’t believe it includes artifacts/treasures & real property that are arguably worth more than the billions in cash. http://www.zenit.org/article-1900?l=english

    Unfortunate that Rome rarely helps the many struggling Parishes.

    #15, and yet here we are, with this death-panel clad monstrosity of a bill for which the USCCB lobbied.

    And the Bishop’s statement is tantamount to me robbing a bank and then telling everyone how “concerned” I am about crime. C’mon…

    As for Newt, he showed all of us his heart – regardless of how he outwardly worships – when he eagerly endorsed a pro-abortion, pro-gay “marriage,” socialist all under the pretense of “winning” vs. the solid conservative.

    While I respect your unconditional defense of the church, past that, we’re simply not going to agree.

    Comment by Rose — November 13, 2009 @ 12:04 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.