"Sire, the peasants are REVOLTING!" "You said it, they stink!"

Really hard to see the Administration’s political end-game or the calculation behind the HHS mandate.

My first thought is, “Wow, that was dumb.”

They clearly did not believe crazy uncle Joe and the other prominent, experienced-in-Church-politics male Catholic in the room when they said this would be a bridge too far: Catholics would not stand for it. Not even the majority of the less-committed ones. (The Catholycs? well, there’s no accounting for them.)

Obama reportedly called Archbishop Dolan the morning the mandate and one-year “grace period,” so to speak, were declared to tell him about the decision. Obama apparently offered the one-year leeway “to come into compliance” as though it were a generous extension. The cardinal-elect reportedly responded with something like, “Mr. President, it isn’t about compliance. If this is it then we will be in civil disobedience.”

That’s the entirety of the conversation as it was reported to me, but oh to be a fly on the wall of Obama’s internal dialogue at that moment.

Since that time all but a handful of U.S. bishops and administrators in dioceses without an ordinary have issued letters condemning the decision. There hasn’t been unity like this among the U.S. bishops since they were all happy Benedict XVI came over a few years ago.

Many high-profile Catholics who have vociferously supported and defended Obama and Obamacare are turning on him. There likely are enough votes in the Congress to overturn this ruling in some way—which would have to include a large enough number of Democrats in the Senate.

Even non-Catholic Democrats and liberals who are able to recognize a violation of conscience rights when they see one are turning on him.

Yes, there will always be the Nancy Pelosis and Kathleen Sebeliuses—see the comment about Catholycs above.

Rick Santorum has surged, no doubt in part because of this mandate.

A healthy portion of independents would like to see Obamacare repealed, this didn’t hurt that portion.

To sum up, things are going very badly for the president. Very badly.

What’s he to do? Overturn his own decision? He’d suffer the full Komen treatment, rubber hoses and all. He’d lose the last bastion of support he’s got—women who seem to hate that they’ve got a womb.

If he presses on he loses the Catholic vote, more evangelicals, and a larger portion of the independent vote (recognizing that there is overlap in those groups), which means he loses Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, likely Michigan, Missouri… need I go on? That’s the election. It’s a landslide.

So what’s he to do?

He seems to want to split the atom with the power of his mind. There is an election-year-driven hint of a desire to “compromise” (note it’s a campaign mouthpiece saying this, not the Press Secretary at the White House). But then within 24 hours we have a doubling-down on the commitment to the mandate. CBS New York reports:

[The White House] wants to find some way to calm Catholic opposition, but will not back down on the policy, itself.

“I want to be clear today that the commitment to insuring the women have access to these important health care services remains very strong,” Press Secretary Jay Carney said.

See: trying to split an atom with the power of his mind. They want to calm the opposition that has erupted due to this policy (which amounts to them shouting “ouch, stop that!”), but they are steadfast in their support of the very policy that is repugnant to those erupting in opposition. Not a position that comforts one about your willingness to “compromise.”

It’s like saying, “I want to have a happy marriage, but I absolutely refuse to stop beating my wife.”

The only thing they can do is try to string along the possibility that they will grant another extension, perhaps a few waivers, and maybe they’ll think about a full repeal of the rule some time after the election, in the hopes that this will appease *enough* Catholics to vote for him. It’s a Faustian bargain, and I think it’s safe to say no one is buying that snake oil any longer (if I may mix metaphors). This is the least-reliable, most anti-life White House in the history of this nation, and this action has laid bare, for those who were not already convinced, of their willingness to trample the peoples’ rights. Any pandering or stringing along carrots of possible repeal is transparently duplicitous.

So Obama, because of his own conceit and terrible political instincts, has placed himself between the proverbial rock and a hard place. Either way he cannot win. He is hoist on his own petard. If he backs down he gets the full Komen and marginal electoral gain since his remaining support will be further disheartened and so many who heretofore support him will no longer trust his commitment to Constitutional rights. So he most likely loses the election by sticking to his guns.

If he doesn’t back down he loses the election badly, and likely loses a bunch more seats for his party in what was already shaping up to be a good year for the GOP in the House and Senate.

Either way, the mandate will be overturned before a single hospital or school closes its doors, and Obama will be working on his handicap, which is what he appears to be more comfortable doing anyhow.

Heads we win, tails you lose.

Our country was founded on a great moral truth — that all men and women are created equal and are born with God-given rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Roe v. Wade turned this beautiful truth on inside out. The Supreme Court, in effect, said that our rights do not come from God but instead are bestowed by government — by courts and legislatures.

But that’s not the truth. And if our rights are not endowed by God, then they are subject to the random whims of those who hold political power. The strong get to decide what is right and wrong, who has rights and who does not, who gets to live and who does not.

So that is why the Church will always remain at the center of this great struggle for the right to life in our time.

The right to life is the foundation of every other right and liberty in our society. Of course, we are always working for justice and peace. But we can never “disconnect” this vital work from our defense of innocent life and human dignity.

As Catholics we worship the God of the living. He is the Way, the Truth and the Life. Jesus has given his Church a mission and each of us a duty to proclaim his Gospel of life.

We are called to be a voice for those who have no voice. We are called to help our society see that every human life — from conception to natural death — is sacred and precious to God.

At a requiem Mass for the unborn Saturday night, he said:

My brothers and sisters, this is the beautiful truth and mystery of our religion. Our God loved us so much that he chose to enter into our world as each one of us did — through the womb of a mother. Our God loved us so much that he wanted to grow up in a human family.

That is why in our Gospel this evening, the drama is a “family drama.” On the one hand, we see the families ruined by Herod. But Herod does not win. Evil and death do not prevail. Because there is another family — the Holy Family of Mary, St. Joseph and the Child Jesus.

Our salvation comes to us through the Child Jesus in the sanctuary of the Holy Family. That is why the human child and the human family are so important to our civilization! In the child and the family we see the love of God.

In our Gospel this evening, the angel tells St. Joseph: “Rise, take the Child and his mother.” And Joseph does exactly what God asks of him.

Now this is our duty. Each one of us must hear the voice of God. Each one of us must rise and take the Child Jesus and his mother Mary into the dark night of our culture.

Like St. Joseph, we need to be guardians of the light of life, and shine that light in our world. We need to tell the world the good news of this Child — that the Son of God became a child of Mary so that every mother’s child can become a child of God.

Since Saturday morning, I’ve seen so many young people, so many enthusiastic and determined people, gathering in Washington, D.C. The news gets evermore disappointing from Washington but you all protesting and working to build a culture of life — especially all the young people — “thousands of Davids,”  – are a “radiant inspiration,” as Cardinal-Designate Timothy Dolan put it this morning at the closing Mass of the vigil of life at “the home of a pregnant woman who stands at the center of all history,” the Basilica of the Shrine of the Immaculate Conception.

Saint Joseph, pray for us. Our Lady of Guadalupe, help us. As each one of us hears the voice of God, rising and taking “the Child Jesus and his mother Mary into the dark night of our culture.”

Signatories included leaders from Anglican, Baptist, Catholic, Evangelical, Jewish, Lutheran, Mormon, and Pentecostal communities in the United States. Dolan was one of the four signing Catholic bishops. ‎“Marriage and religious liberty are at a crisis point in the United States,” said Archbishop Dolan.

Supporters of same-sex marriage have often claimed that religious communities try to alleviate concerns over religious liberty by stating that churches and ministers will not be forced to perform same-sex ceremonies.

Dolan and the other signatories actually agree on this point, citing the First Amendment’s protection of religious liberty. But that’s not the major threat to religious liberty that comes as a consequence of the states redefining marriage in law, they said. From their letter today:

[W]e believe the most urgent peril is this: forcing or pressuring both individuals and religious organizations—throughout their operations, well beyond religious ceremonies—to treat same-sex sexual conduct as the moral equivalent of marital sexual conduct. There is no doubt that the many people and groups whose moral and religious convictions forbid same-sex sexual conduct will resist the compulsion of the law, and church-state conflicts will result.

Cardinal-designate Timothy Dolan of New York

These conflicts bear serious consequences. They will arise in a broad range of legal contexts, because altering the civil definition of “marriage” does not change one law, but hundreds, even thousands, at once. [Emphasis mine.] By a single stroke, every law where rights depend on marital status—such as employment discrimination, employment benefits, adoption, education, healthcare, elder care, housing, property, and taxation—will change so that same-sex sexual relationships must be treated as if they were marriage. That requirement, in turn, will apply to religious people and groups in the ordinary course of their many private or public occupations and ministries—including running schools, hospitals, nursing homes and other housing facilities, providing adoption and counseling services, and many others.

So, for example, religious adoption services that place children exclusively with married couples would be required by law to place children with persons of the same sex who are civilly “married.” [Emphasis mine.] Religious marriage counselors would be denied their professional accreditation for refusing to provide counseling in support of same-sex “married” relationships. Religious employers who provide special health benefits to married employees would be required by law to extend those benefits to same-sex “spouses.” Religious employers would also face lawsuits for taking any adverse employment action—no matter how modest—against an employee for the public act of obtaining a civil “marriage” with a member of the same sex. This is not idle speculation, as these sorts of situations have already come to pass.

You can read the rest of the letter at the USCCB website.

As Robert Royal puts it:

Today, December 26, is the Feast of St. Stephen, the first martyr. The Church calendar places him right after Christmas Day. With good reason:  Christ came into the world and redeemed us alright, but the Redemption immediately begins a process that challenges the usual worldly powers, which the world does not like, and reacts violently against, in every age. It’s still going on – in China, Africa, the Middle East, and in lesser forms almost everywhere.

Yesterday has consequences, as I write in my syndicated column this week, filed before the attacks in Nigeria — being Christian does. The lives of Shahbaz Bhatti and teen Amariah Masih this year demonstrate this; they said they believed something and they held by it to their deaths, killed because they were Christians, living Christianity.

We may not all be called to literal, physical martyrdom like Bhatti and Masih, but we are called to something radical. To not look away as religious freedom is threatened. To not look away at injustice. To not be cowards in the face of Christophobia. To not walk away from the call to the radical life of love that is represented in the magnificent humility of the Nativity under a tree near you this octave.

In a special investigative report released today, The Cardinal Newman Society (CNS) provides evidence of “a well-orchestrated attempt to undermine the Church’s doctrine and its stand against homosexual ‘marriage’” at a series of conferences co-sponsored by two Jesuit universities and funded by a radical foundation.

The presidents of Fordham and Fairfield Universities had promised New York Archbishop Timothy Dolan and Bridgeport Bishop William Lori that the “More Than a Monologue” conference series would “not be a vehicle for dissent,” according to the New York Archdiocese.  However, Newman Society reporters found evidence of dissent, sacrilege and opposition to the bishops’ efforts to protect marriage.

[Continue reading Press Release] [Click here for the full report]

I began to expose the efforts by one gay-advocacy organization, the Arcus foundation, to undermine Church teaching earlier this year when I wrote:

this [research] is a smoking gun – $100,000 given by Arcus to Fairfield University is the sole and single reason why four universities – including Catholic ones – will hold forums this year to further undermine the Church’s teaching on these issues.

Fast-forward to the present day, where the Cardinal Newman Society’s report confirms what I predicted would happen:

The report also looks at the Arcus Foundation, which paid $100,000 for the “More Than a Monologue” conferences, and its web of support for efforts that could be fairly described as designed to undermine Catholic teaching on homosexuality.

… In addition to the two conferences at Fordham and Fairfield, two other conferences were held in the series at Yale Divinity School and Union Theological Seminary, which included a fake Mass without a celebrant which organizers called a “CatholiQ Eucharist” (the “Q” apparently means “queer”).

I think, in the interest of transparency, the presidents of Fordham and Fairfield should reveal their correspondence with Archbishop Dolan and Bishop Lori and explain how this happened on their watch. Did they, for instance, make any serious effort to supervise the planned content of the events and review the speaker list?

It is, after all, a very serious matter that these presidents of Catholic universities promised the bishops that these conferences would not violate their responsibilities and then failed to follow-through on that promise.

As I’ve written before, there’s a very clear project underway which, financed by well-moneyed gay rights activists, seeks to undermine the Church’s teaching on these issues from within, by sponsoring events such as the “CatholiQ Eucharist” and “More than a Monologue” conference and by funding Catholic organizations that allow their name and institutions to be co-opted by this agenda.

Catholic laypeople who care about the identity of our Catholic institutions ought to work with the bishops to demand a response from the administration of these two schools and to see that proper reparations are made.

Issuing a formal apology, promising not to allow this to happen again, and sponsoring a second round of conferences where the Church’s teaching on these issues is articulated and defended properly are all good places to start.

I’ll be following this story closely in the days and weeks to come. In the meantime, I urge you to inform yourself by reading the complete report issued by the Cardinal Newman Society.

Sen. Ben Nelson, D-NE, doesn’t sound that interested in running for re-election. http://cvote.to/7E

The Democratic Party’s unfavorable rating rises to 1984 levels (when Reagan won 49 states). http://cvote.to/7D

Sen. Marco Rubio, R-FL, would really boost the GOP chances of winning Florida, but not as much as if Obama added Secretary of State Hillary Clinton as his running mate. http://cvote.to/7G

Speaking of Rubio, he’s leading on the important issue of fighting human trafficking. http://cvote.to/7I

Convicted criminal and former lobbyist Jack Abramoff claims that George W. Bush told Ralph Reed that his presidency “would make all of us rich.” (If true, this is disgusting.) http://cvote.to/7H

Archbishop Timothy Dolan reflects on All Souls Day. http://cvote.to/7F

Abp. Dolan is careful to point out that his opinion represents the view of the bishops conference:

The Justice Department‟s move [to undermine DOMA], in addition to other troubling federal decisions occurring recently, prompts me yet again to register my grave concerns.  The content of this letter reflects the strong sentiment expressed at a recent meeting by more than thirty of my brother Bishops who serve on the Administrative Committee of our episcopal conference.  I know they are joined by hundreds of additional Catholic bishops throughout our nation…

On how Obama’s efforts to undermine marriage threatens the religious and civil freedom of Catholics:

“…it is particularly upsetting, Mr. President, when your Administration, through the various court documents, pronouncements and policies identified in the attached analysis, attributes to those who support DOMA a motivation rooted in prejudice and bias.  It is especially wrong and unfair to equate opposition to redefining marriage with either intentional or willfully ignorant racial discrimination, as your Administration insists on doing.”

A frank warning about just how serious and aggravated this situation has become:

The Administration‟s failure to change course on this matter will, as the attached analysis indicates, precipitate a national conflict between Church and State of enormous proportions and to the detriment of both institutions.

Obviously I would recommend reading the entire letter. Especially if you disagree with the US Bishops’ position on the need to protect marriage. The letter includes a 3-page USCCB staff analysis of recent federal threats to marriage from April to August of this year. The evidence is very straightforward.

The movie is much on my mind because it tells the story of a man who commits a grave crime, but is miraculously spared being caught and punished for it. As the movie concludes, we realize the man has actually been punished, in the worst way: in rationalizing his evil act, and having no earthly justice visited upon him, he is forced to kill his conscience, otherwise he knows he will go mad with guilt and self-hatred.

That’s what I see played out again as I read Maureen Dowd’s triumphalist interview with New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, who just succeeded in legalizing same-sex “marriage” in that state despite the lobbying and warnings of the Catholic Church:

I FIGURED I’d get straight to it.

“So, Governor,” I asked, “are you afraid you’re going to hell?”

… “It’s troubling for me as a Catholic to be at odds with the church,” he began, before dissolving into a wry laugh. “Having said that, it seems that my entire political life, the tension with the church has come up again and again.”

Maureen editorializes:

Just as his father seized a social issue and established himself in opposition to the church with his Notre Dame speech on abortion, now the son has seized a social issue and established himself in opposition to the church with gay marriage.

“In opposition to the Church.” What a haunting phrase. What an honest phrase. The question I have to respond with is, why on earth do Dowd and Cuomo insist on remaining Catholic, when they happily grasp the mantle of being in “opposition to the Church” on abortion and marriage? Really, why be part of a Church which one has to be in opposition to? There are plenty of denominations that have given up Christ’s teaching on life, marriage and family. Why not be part of one of those churches instead?

It gets worse:

“I have a portrait of Saint Thomas More in my office,” the governor said, calling from the statehouse in Albany. It is a picture Mario Cuomo once kept in his office. He gave it to Andrew as a present when he graduated from Albany Law School, and the younger Cuomo has kept it with him for 30 years as he moved from job to job and city to city. “It’s not the first time there is a tension between the teachings of the church and the administration of the law, for my father and for myself.” Dryly, he adds: “I haven’t lost my head yet.”

… maybe that’s a bad thing. I mean, does Cuomo have the faintest idea about what St. Thomas More’s life (and martyrdom) was all about? If he knows the story, does he see himself in Thomas More’s shoes, or King Henry’s (or Will Roper’s? or Richard Rich’s? or Thomas Cromwell’s?). Does he believe he will die the King’s good servant, but God’s first?

Maureen again:

Far from it. The New York governor says he still goes to church with his three teenage daughters. He received Communion at his Inaugural Day Mass, but mostly abstains. He has managed to stay on good terms with New York’s pugnacious archbishop…

Cuomo is trying to keep the lie up that he’s a faithful Catholic, although his conscience may be somewhat piqued because he “mostly abstains” from Communion. That means he still receives at times, with no public recanting of his public “opposition to the Church.” It’s hard for me to see how Cuomo’s being on “good terms” with Abp. Dolan is true for anyone besides Cuomo.

Now, on to the concubinage:

When I asked if the archbishop would preside over the ceremony if the governor decides to tie the knot with the Food  Network glamour girl Sandra Lee, Cuomo says it couldn’t happen “because I’m divorced.”

He shrugged off the shrill complaint of Vatican adviser Edward Peters that he’s living in “public concubinage” with his girlfriend in their Westchester home.

“He was a blogger, not from my state,” Cuomo  said of Peters. “I didn’t want to give it too much credibility.”

As for whether Lee was hurt by the crude, archaic term, he conceded, “It was not a pleasant conversation for anyone.”

A lot to point out here: a) Dowd seriously thinks +Dolan would celebrate Mass for Cuomo’s wedding? Does she know absolutely nothing about the Church? b) As for Sandree Lee being “hurt” by the “crude, archaic” term, my father responds: “It’s not a likeable word, it’s not a likeable thing.” c) If you read carefully, Cuomo dodges the question about my father’s point. “[He's] not from my state” is no answer at all. My father’s arguments (most recently today) are about the Church, which is very much in Cuomo’s state.

I could go on, but I think the more effective thing would be for me to just say the hard truth: Governor Cuomo needs a wake-up call, in the form of a public rebuke by the bishops of New York, which begins with informing him that his public actions against innocent unborn life, against the institution of marriage and the family (and the Church), and his choice to live in, yes, public concubinage with his girlfriend, prohibit him from presenting himself for the Eucharist in New York until he recants and does penance.

Andrew Cuomo’s soul is at stake. And his interview with Dowd demonstrates that he knows he is in public, personal, profound opposition to the Church, and yet because he has not yet “lost his head” he believes he can continue to present himself as a Catholic in communion with the Church. Cuomo is in danger of becoming the main character of Woody Allen’s movie Crimes & Misdemeanors, who absent earthly punishment, does violence to his conscience and puts his eternal soul in jeopardy thereby.

That’s why Christ came and died for us: to forgive us of the sins He shows us we have. The Church needs to help Cuomo see his sins, for he can no longer see them himself. God have mercy on him.

And about the belated nature of that debate — it is analogous to the whole debate. I have been getting e-mails all weekend encouraging me to criticize the archbishop for not getting the job done. But he, of course, is not an elected member of the New York State senate. There are many reasons this bill passed Friday, and he is not one of them. The fact that many checked in late to the debate — a debate many would like to avoid — is a big one.

God bless the laity who did labor for marriage in Albany. May they not lose heart.

I suspect George Weigel’s piece today on the New York marriage law will be subject to some conversation, too.

Incidentally, I witnessed friends’ beautiful wedding — and in New York — on Saturday. It is our commitment to prayer and dedication to family that will see us through — and inform our political lives and leadership.

Along with so many other people of faith – and of no particular religion at all – we Catholic pastors and citizens persevere, on this Father’s Day, in our prayers and efforts to defend the timeless definition of marriage as the loving, faithful union between one man and one woman leading to a family.

At the conclusion of tomorrow’s 10:15 Sunday Mass at Saint Patrick’s Cathedral, I’ll ask for prayers that this noble endeavor, at the heart of nature’s understanding of the common good, and historically protected by our country’s normative principles, will succeed.

We appreciate and encourage the legitimate concern of some of our thoughtful elected officials to make sure religious freedom is always guaranteed, but still in principle will oppose any radical bill to redefine the very essence of marriage.

…

We celebrate Father’s Day. The sacred word “father” implies “mother.” The terms “father and mother” presume “husband and wife,” and imply “children.”

These words are so basic that they’re the first ones a baby says; so foundational that they’re among the first words of the Creator recorded in the Bible.

Government presumes to redefine these sacred words at the peril of the common good.