Obama's LGBT Executive Order And The Bishops' Disingenuous Protests

Yesterday the Messiah Most Miserable issued a dictatorial fiat executive order stating that no federal contractor can "discriminate" in its personnel practices based on employees' gender identity and/or sexual orientation.  Churches and related organizations are NOT exempted.  The USCCB pitched a fit.  My question is, "would this order of Obama's had been a blip on their radar screens if they had been exempted?"  Given prior behaviors, I must opine that had Obama exempted churches, they wouldn't have given a rat's rump regarding the matter.

But since the USCCB and so many of the dioceses are officially on the federal dole for so much of their budgets (e.g., those huge grants to facilitate the Central American child-trafficking scheme), they are in a panic now that it appears that their gravy trains may be pulling into the station.

John Zmirak posted quite a cogent piece on Aleteia, to which I now link.  I'll post one key paragraph below.  I'll elaborate on emboldened phrases below.

The short term impact of this on faithful Christians will certainly be unpleasant. Let’s assume that the leaders of the major Christian communions (Catholic, Orthodox and Evangelical) stand on principle.  Churches and charities that won’t collaborate will lose billions of dollars in federal funds that they had previously dispensed, channeling taxpayer money to serve the poor, recent immigrants, and others eligible for federal poverty aid. Groups such as Catholic Charities, some bishops’ migration offices, and others will see their budgets slashed. They will have to scale back their services, as the needy whom they had served get their needs met somewhere else -- by church groups which decide to play Judas, or outright secular agencies. The Christian groups that had relied on federal money to carry out their missions will have to look to their own church members for more donations, or their impact and clout will diminish.

• "Channeling taxpayer money".  This means, ladies and gentlemen, that through these "federal contracts" or "grants" or whatever you want to call them, the Church had been joining the state in dipping their grubby mits into the wallets of each and every one of us.  That is not charity; that is theft.  There is concern that the Church may be denied this "opportunity for money"; in reality, they will have removed from them an occasion of sin against the Seventh Commandment.
• "Catholic Charities..will see their budgets slashed."  I guess that means no more "needle exchange programs" as offered by Albany Catholic Charities or "Centennial Awards" being bestowed on the likes of Sister Carol Keehan or Fr. Theodore Hesburgh.  Read this link for more reasons why we should rejoice that Catholic Charities' budget might be slashed.
• "Christian groups..will have to look to their own church members for more donations."  Imagine that!  Christians being challenged to dig into their own pockets and fulfill their own Christian responsibilities.  In short, they'd be abiding (finally!) by the principle of subsidiarity.  That's how it should be done - not by clamoring for tax increases for everyone else.

If the Church is serious about being the Church of Jesus Christ and not some glorified social concerns agency, the bishops will immediately commence the process of weaning themselves from federal teats.  I suppose that means that Archbishop Lori would have to recant his recent request for a federal grant to bring illegal immigrants to the St Vincent Villa in Timonium.  What are the chances of that happening?  It may happen sooner than our bishops think - thanks be to God!

When The Church Disregards Subsidiarity...

Then we can expect church "leaders" to wax apoplectic and hysterical when the federal money spigot runs dry.  Apparently that is what they did, according to an article that appeared on page 3 of the print edition of the Catholic Standard -dated Oct 24, 2013.

The article is entitled, "Faith Leaders Welcome Government Reopening, Point To Unfinished Work".  I could not locate this on the Standard's web page, nor did I see it on that of the Catholic News Service.  I finally found it on the site of the Not-At-All Catholic Reporter.  Of course it is the sort of pig-slop that one might find on the pages of the socialist-injustice aficionado rag.  By the way, when I call it "pig slop" I don't impugn the integrity of the Reporter's reporting - on this occasion.  Rather, I use the term to accurately describe the whining and sniveling that I'm sure did spew forth from the mouths of these, uh, leaders.

They bemoaned the "lack of services" and lack of "safety net".  Well, if one examines the Principle of Subsidiarity as put forth by various popes, we see that centralized government is to be the last-resort type of safety-net, not the "first responder" as it were.  However, as I noted a week or two ago, the USCCB and the puppet-bishops seem to have some serious difficulties with reading the Catechism.  Here's paragraphs 1883-1885 regarding subsidiarity (scroll till you see those paragraphs).

Then the article goes on to quote Network, citing it as "THE Catholic social justice lobby" (emphasis mine).  Notice that it touts the Obama regime's yarn, claiming that the debt and deficits will decrease (??!??!).  Network clearly is in the number of the Minions Most Mindless of the Messiah Most Miserable.  Even the USCCB seemed to have an eye-opener regarding them, be that insight ever so brief.  This came about as Network embraced the abortion provisions in Obamacare; read this from the National Catholic Register (The Register, as opposed to the Reporter, does deserve the "Catholic" designation).

In a side bar in the Standard's print edition (found only there, as far as I know), it was lamented that the shutdown "cost Catholic Charities $25,000 each day".  What is lamentable is that Catholic Charities is just another piglet attached to a teat of the federal entitlement sow.  Ultimately, from where does that $25k/day originate?  Boys and girls, can we all say "OUR TAX DOLLARS!"?  This is not charity; it is legalized extortion.  The government has no authority under the US Constitution to exact such taxes.  Moreover, under the principle of subsidiarity and the Seventh Commandment, the Church has no moral right to accept, let alone request, such funds that are the result of aforementioned legalized extortion.

If the Church leaders were truly observing the Principle of Subsidiarity, no government shutdown would be able to get their undies bunched as they obviously were two weeks ago.  The Church is, first and foremost, about the business of saving souls.  Charitable works, while important in and of itself, plays second-fiddle to eternal salvation.  When will our modernism-boondoggled bishops acknowledge that?

ADDENDUM/CLARIFICATION
I noted in the fourth paragraph that Network was cited as being "THE Catholic social justice agency".  It should be pointed out that this ridiculous statement is the product of the Catholic News Service, an arm of the USCCB.  Both the Reporter and the Standard are merely repeating the absurd opinion.

USCCB Misquotes Catechism To Buttress Their Socialist Propaganda

Today Sister Mary Ann Walsh penned an article on the USCCB blog entitled "Time to Listen to the Bishops on the Shutdown".  A study of this piece makes clear that the title should be "Time for the Bishops to Abolish the USCCB".

The theme of this less-than-masterpiece is a simple regurgitation of the USCCB swan song heard throughout the fight over the passing and implementation of Obamacare.  In a nutshell, the progressives controlling the various puppet strings at the USCCB support the idea of socialized medicine.  Notice that they aren't even advocating that abortion and contraception be expunged from Obamacare.  They simply don't want to be put in the position of paying for it.  In other words, as long as they (believe that they) won't sully their hands with abortion, they've no problem whatsoever with these moral evils becoming even more ensconced within our medical system because of Obamacare.

Now notice in the fifth paragraph, the one that starts with "The bishops noted that the Catechism..".  They claim to cite the Catechism as the source of their belief that the state must supply health care.  I'll post the full paragraph below:
The bishops noted that the Catechism of the Catholic Church says it is the proper role of government to "make accessible to each what is needed to lead a truly human life," including food, clothing, heath care, education and culture.

Ladies and gentlemen, that is a misquote of paragraph 2288; here is the link to the Catechism, and you'll need to scroll to the paragraph.  I'll post it below.
Concern for the health of its citizens requires that society help in the attainment of living-conditions that allow them to grow and reach maturity: food and clothing, housing, health care, basic education, employment, and social assistance.

Are you noticing any differences??  There are two big differences.  Notice that the USCCB claims that government is the agent of provision.  The Catechism uses the word society.  They are not synonyms.  Let's look at the Catechism again, this time paragraph 1880, where "society" is plainly defined as "a group of persons bound together organically by a principle of unity that goes beyond each one of them".   Thus, the Catholic Church is a "society" as much as any civil body.  At this point, I'd also suggest a close study of paragraphs 1883-1885; they go into detail about the Principle of Subsidiarity and the danger of collectivism.

Bearing those last two points in mind, let's look at the second difference.  The USCCB uses the phrase "make accessible" while the Catechism uses the phrase "help in the attainment".   How can the government "make accessible" that which it doesn't possess?  Why, it has to seize it, doesn't it?  From whom?  Remember the phrase "from each according to his ability to each according to his need"?  That's straight from Karl Marx.  On the other hand, help in the attainment is innocuous: it could mean job skills training or truly charitable outreaches - means that don't entail confiscation from those who honestly attain goods vis-a-vis onerous taxes/fines such as the ones that Obamacare is already starting to impose.

I would propose that the USCCB is not worthy of the audience of anyone.

Limbaugh Criticizes Catholics For Alliances With Democratic Party

During his broadcast today, Rush Limbaugh commented on a dialog between Sally Quinn and Carl Bernstein regarding the Papal Conclave.  Both Quinn and Bernstein opined that the Catholic Church will be "irrelevant" if they don't "include" various groups whom they feel are "minorities".  Limbaugh picked them apart, of course.  You'll hear that below.

Towards the end, you will hear Limbaugh utter his own criticism of the Church: that it "is on its way to irrelevancy if it doesn't start distancing itself from the Democratic Party and the ideal that liberalism equals charity".  And keep on listening as he excoriates all major religions for equating governmental largess with charity.

Limbaugh is not Catholic so he may not realize that the bureaucracies that bear the name "Catholic" are not one and the same with the Mystical Body of Christ.  If we think of the former as opposed to the latter while listening to Limbaugh, we can appreciate what he said.

How often on this blog have I called for the abolition of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (and the state conferences)?  Why?  Precisely because they do engage in the chicanery that Limbaugh just denounced.  They will wax hysterical over one murderer being executed yet remain relatively silent over the thousands of babies murdered each day via abortion.  Just a few days ago I posted that the Catholic Campaign for Human Development is throwing millions of dollars to help illegal immigrants skirt our laws; could not that money (Catholic donation dollars, by the way) have been put to better use with the purchase of baby-saving sonogram machines for the pregnancy centers or to have bought food for an over-stretched soup kitchen?

He probably doesn't realize it, but Limbaugh is articulating the principle of subsidiarty.  It's time we stopped looking to the government for "charity" and started getting on with the true mission of the Church, to save souls and to put social outreach in proper perspective.

Charity, Responsibility And Subsidiarity

I've posted a bit on the Catholic principle of subsidiarity.  From CatholicVote is this video depiction of it.  Click here if you can't see embedded video.

How Bishops Insert Their Feet In Their Mouths

Phil Lawler at Catholic Culture said it quite well.  On May 4th he congratulated the bishops for taking a strong stand regarding the HHS mandate.  However he rightly points out that the bishops since then have diluted their message by issuing similar statements on matters about which good Catholics can disagree, e.g., the federal budget, immigration, etc.

We know that when the bishops treat issues of intrinsic morality as just a few among a whole laundry list of "issues" that are, morally speaking, of less import, that dissident politicians can glom onto those latter issues to make themselves appear to be faithful.  Such is the case with the rabidly pro-abortion Vice President Joe Biden.  Because Rep Paul Ryan's budget proposal calls for social program cuts (along the lines of the principle of subsidiarity), many of the progressive-leaning bishops frown upon it.  Biden has decided to jump on that bandwagon, scolding Ryan for "violating Catholic social teaching".  Stop laughing!  Bishop Biden is very, very serious - don't you understand?  He says to Ryan that the budget is "contrary to the social doctrine my church teaches".   Quick!  Where's the ACLU when you need them to screech about "separation of church and state"?  Nah - I don't hear them, either!

"The social doctrine which his church teaches" states that the murder of babies is always intrinsically wrong.  No one can call himself a faithful Catholic who lends support to that evil, as Biden continues to do, to this day.  On the other hand, good Catholics can disagree as to how best to aid the poor.  The so-called "safety net" that the government offers is one of fatal entanglement.

Paul Ryan, whose voting record is pro-life, is stating his case quite plainly that his budget proposal is sound and moral.  Town Hall has a piece detailing that Ryan is not taking these insults sitting down;  he is challenging his opponents to stop measuring compassion by how much we spend. Read it and watch the video of Ryan.  If you cannot see the embedded video, click here.

Maryland Catholic Establishment And Religious Liberty

There are some signs that the hierarchy in Maryland may be waking up to the malevolent intentions of progressives towards those who profess Christianity.  The most recent issue of the Catholic Standard seemed to be devoted to this very real threat..  See here for a statement issued by the Maryland bishops.  See here for an interview with Mary Ellen Russell, the Executive Director of the Maryland Catholic Conference regarding this matter.

While I certainly welcome these signs of early awakening here, I still am concerned that the Maryland Catholic establishment is not acknowledging how it exposed its own throat - and ours - to those who seek to marginalize us.  In fact, it still continues to make itself vulnerable to the secular elements.

It's no secret to anyone who reads this blog that I have often decried the regretable tendencies of the various state conferences for seeking government grants for this charity or that cause.  I believe that is one key reason why the Maryland bishops are reluctant to deny Holy Communion (as Canon 915 enjoins them) to prominent pro-abortion politicians because the bishops fear the loss of "text-book money" or some other state grant.  So they allowed themselves to be muzzled - a little here and a little bit there.  Then they're shocked (just shocked!) when the pols tighten the noose just a little bit more.

If the Maryland hierarchy is serious about securing relgious liberty, it simply will have to go "cold turkey" and divest itself immediately of all governmental funding, no matter the level of government from which such funds originate.  Its protestations of the loss of religious liberty will ring hollow as long as the bishops and conferences have their snouts buried in those governmental pig troughs known as "grants".  Let's hope the withdrawal process starts immediately.

Circle Of Protection?? NOT!!!

Perhaps it would be more accurate to call that "Circus of Pandering". 

Here are some quotes, from the USCCB site.  "We are also committed to resist budget cuts that undermine the lives, dignity, and rights of poor and vulnerable people. Therefore, we join with others to form a Circle of Protection around programs that meet the essential needs of hungry and poor people at home and abroad."

Let's unpack that - shall we?  Let's look at "resisting budget cuts".  Ladies and gentlemen, thanks to the policies of the Messiah Most Miserable (and yes, the profligate spending that did precede him), there isn't the money to keep doling out willy-nilly.  If these "religious leaders" are going to ascribe to the federal government the moral responsibility to meet the needs of the poor, how do they think the government will finance all these programs?  Who will pay for them?  Hint!  Go look in the mirrror!  That's right!  You and I will be taxed - in fact, are being taxed - to the wazzoo.  Who else is being bled to death by taxes?  The poor!  Maybe they aren't paying much income tax (at least not yet), but they are taxed via sales tax, gas tax, etc.  Moreover, businesses are paying onorous taxes too, with dollars that they may have used to hire some of these impovershed people.  I suspect many of these "leaders" are of good heart, but their logic and thinking is downright lousy, if not actually non-existent. 
Notice the talk of "programs that meet the essential needs of hungry and poor people at home and abroad".  Now whose task is it really to meet the real needs of the poor?  Is it that of the federal government?  As I recall various Church documents on that topic, "society" is so tasked.  However, since when are "federal government" and "society" synonymous?  Answer - they aren't!

In Rerum Novarum, Pope Leo XIII set forth the principle of subsidiarity.  Basically, that principle teaches that the fulfillment of human needs must be undertaken at the lowest level of society possible - starting with the individual.  Leo was all too aware of the tendency of centralized government to arrogate to itself all manners of inappropriate functions and to grow into a behemoth.  Our American founding fathers, although predominanty Protestant, seemed to have an instinctive grasp of that principle when they set strict limits on the scope of federal goverment in the United States Constitution - particularly the Tenth Amendment.  Today we find that many progressives, many of them occupying high offices in church structures, are attempting to grow the federal government by ascribing to it all manners of responsibility - and thus authority.

On Thursday I posted about a planned bastardization of Rerum Novarum that will be run almost exclusively by socialists.  One of the two liberal chairs of a discussion panel has, and probably still is, receiving funds from George Soros via the magazine that he edits.  These are the sorts of people whom the Amchurch bureaucracy is allowing to interpret and mutate the authentic social teachings of the Church.  This "circus/circle" is just one more manifestation.

ps HT to Pewsitter