Every Single US Bishop Condemns “Contraception Mandate”

There are 180 dioceses in the United States.

Every single Bishop leading one of the 180 diocese has now condemned in public the “contraception mandate” (in reality, ” abortifacient mandate” too), as reported by The American Papist. 

I could now make some comments as to what on earth moves a US Catholic Bishop to wait for weeks (if we are good and let the count start from January; which we really shouldn’t) before he makes a move, and be preceded by many dozens of his colleagues. I could also, at this point, make some rather cynical consideration about herd mentality applying now in one direction as it applied in the past in the other.

I could, but I won’t. This is, I think, something to be remembered: the Bishops of a Western countries doing their duty as one man.

The times, they are a’-changing…


Posted on February 17, 2012, in Catholicism, Good Shepherds and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink. 6 Comments.

  1. One of the legitimate functions of government is to promote equality and fairness for all, by having everyone play by the same rules. Absolutely no one is coming into our Churches and trying to tell parishioners what to believe…or forcing them to use contraception in any way. BUT If the Bishops want to start businesses that employ millions of people of varying faiths -or no “faith” at all- THEN they must play by the rules…ESPECIALLY if they use our tax dollars in the process.  Just because a religious group in America claims to believe something, we cannot excuse them from obeying the law in the PUBLIC arena, based on that belief. They can legally attempt to change the law, not to deny it outright. And if they want to plunge overtly into politics from the pulpit, then they should give up their tax-exempt status. Did I miss something, or when it comes to the “sanctity of life”, is every single righteous Catholic still a card carrying conscientious objector, still refusing to take up arms,  still totally against the death penalty, and still against contraception and birth-control in all its forms? Oh well, hypocrisy is at the heart of politics, and politics masquerading as religion even more so. This country is an invigorating mixture of all the diversity that life has to offer, drawing its strength FROM that diversity. True religious freedom gives everyone the right to make personal decisions, including whether to use birth control, based on our own beliefs and according to what is best for our health and our families. It fiercely protects the rights of all of us to practice our faith. It does not, however, give anyone, including the bishops, the right to impose their beliefs on others and discriminate in the name of religious liberty. People of faith should not let themselves be used as pawns in a fake war “against religion”’. The only war going on here is a war against women and families who want to control their futures….a war between the lie that this is about religious liberty, and the truth. Don’t believe the hype.

    • Bollocks, Stan.

      “Equality and fairness for all” doesn’t mean to trample other people’s religious freedom, a freedom at the very core of not only the US, but all Western democracies. “Equality” and “fairness” are very empty words if they are used to force people to go against religious convictions; particularly in a country which carries the Christian God even in its banknotes.

      The argument about “obeying the law” is a circular one. The point is, there should be no such law. Similarly, when they defend their religious freedom, Catholic bishops are merely doing their duty as bishops, not “plunging overtly into politics”. With your concept of politics, everything is “plunging into politics” which goes beyond some words of private advice. This is not how religion works, and not what religious freedom is about.

      You are simply wrong in stating “every single righteous Catholic” etc., and this blog will – if you want – give you plenty of instruction about the Catholic doctrine of war, and persuade you a true catholic cannot (as: CANNOT) be against the death penalty, let alone a pacifist.

      You miss, furthermore – and again, this is a matter of sheer ignorance, for which this blog has the cure if you just use the search function – the public nature of the Christian faith in general, and of Catholicism in particular. For a (true) Catholic, his religious convictions and duties are (emphatically) NOT something limited to his private sphere, but something concerning society at large. A Christian will always (have to) fight for, say, abortion being banned for everyone, rather than being a rule of conduct applying only to Catholics. This has to do with the universal nature of Catholic truth, and the one (the private commandment) cannot be separated from the other (the public dimension this commandment is required to have). In the same way, it is to a Catholic – or to a Christian – not conceivable he should consider fine to abet abortion, or contraception, just because the majority says so. Right and wrong are not a matter of majority, nor is Democracy our god. Having said that, if this monster goes through you shouldn’t bet your pint on an armed revolution, but on an overturning of the law through the means the system puts to one’s disposal. Which doesn’t mean, of course, the bishop will have to obey in the meantime: the President’s good servants, but God’s first.

      Lastly, please notice this is a place for the promotion of the Truth of Catholicism, not of debate. If you want debate, you are obviously free to do so – isn’t it a wonderful thing, freedom – but I ask you to kindly go and look for it elsewhere. I have answered your message because it gave me occasion to make some points, but I spend my time writing a blog which tries to spread truth, not debate with those who insist in believing to lies. I am rather cynical on this, and think I could never persuade you of what is right unless you start reasoning in the right way yourself.


    • What scares me the most about people like Steve is that they believe that if person A won’t pay for something person B wants, person A is somehow denying person B a right or “imposing their beliefs on them.”

      Steve, as far as I can tell, you’ve never paid for a steak and lobster dinner for me. You’ve never paid for the headache medicine that I take if I’m feeling ill. Hey, I bet you’ve never given any money to the local Catholic parish and pro-life group I support either. Since you’re so keen on having third parties pay for stuff between two other parties, why don’t you pony up? Even if you morally object to funding pro-life activities, you’re denying me my right to engage in political speech that I may not be able to afford!

%d bloggers like this: