Though I don’t like being labeled that way, I don’t mind as much as I used to. You see, the word “partisan” actually has a definition, one that precludes people from using it the way most of them do. Let me explain.

According to Merriam-Webster, “partisan” refers to

“a firm adherent to a party, faction, cause or person; especially one exhibiting blind, prejudiced and unreasoning allegiance.”

The word can also refer to a soldier on a particular side in a war, but since I’m not in the habit of being seen publicly wearing fatigues and toting semi-automatic weapons whilst dangling a machete from my belt and chomping on a half-smoked cigar, I’m guessing that my critics are referring to the above definition.

So let’s be clear. Based on that definition, one’s not partisan just because they are a card-carrying member of this or that group. And it’s not just that one is taking a stand, or defending their beliefs. If it were, then arguing in favor of the right to life would be considered partisan, and…well… I suppose it is to some, which is just my point. People don’t use the word correctly.

But if just standing up for what you believed in were partisan then everyone is partisan and the word is meaningless.  Rather, according to the definition above, it’s the “blind, prejudiced and unreasoning” aspect of the thing that makes the word a suitable epithet. It’s the fact that one adheres to a group or idea with such unreasonable zeal or without even bothering to consider the opposing view that makes one partisan.

So here’s the first important point: What makes one partisan is the interior mechanism by which one stays loyal to a group or idea or person. It is not, I repeat NOT, about the effects that one’s position or statement or action might have on another group.

I’ve been called partisan for my criticism of the HHS Mandate. To what am I adhering with such blind unreasonableness? Well, there’s the rub. The critics can’t believe that it’s the faith to which I’m holding fast. It cannot possibly be the teaching of Vatican II which tells us that

“all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits.”Dignitatis humanae #2

No no. My critics have to presume that my speech at our local Fortnight for Freedom Rally or my articles on the subject here at CatholicVote.org and the rest is actually motivated by a blind, unthinking prejudice against President Obama the candidate or for the Republican Party. Yes, that has to be it. It can’t be about what I actually say and write.

Now how do my critics have this prescient understanding of my inner thoughts, wants and desires? Well they figure that because the effect of my efforts could be negative for the Obama campaign …well then, ipso facto, it is partisan activity.

That some of the things I and other have said and written might have a negative effect for the White House is probably true. This is why the mainstream media didn’t report on the Fortnight. But again, that there is a negative effect doesn’t make something partisan. Please see the definition above.

Look, the struggle for civil rights was a human issue that had obvious political ramifications, but would anyone claim that the Rev. Martin Luther King was being partisan because one party was for segregation and the other was not?

This is not to compare the abuses against African-Americans to what is happening to Catholics here and now, but that’s neither here nor there. The principle to which the bishops are appealing through the Fortnight and other venues is the same one used by Rev. King and the very same one to which I appeal when criticizing the HHS Mandate. The principle is the freedom of conscience. So it doesn’t matter which party adheres to what. What matters is that we human beings have a dignity that demands our standing up for the truth.

This is no good for the critics. I’m still a partisan because my principled stand negatively affects one party over another. Indeed, this has been a common claim against the bishops and many pro-life Catholics over the years. Doug Kmiec referred to Catholic Answers as “Republican Faith Partisans” because their “non-negotiable” issues lined up with the Republican Party platform.

Now, I personally believe that Catholic Answers should have included torture in that list of non-negotiables, but calling Catholic Answers partisan ignores the possibility that those issues are IN FACT non-negotiable. Who cares how it affects a political party? It’s not our job as Catholics to prop up the Republican Party or to defend the Democratic Party. Our job is to stay true to the teaching of the Church for the sake of the common good, and if the common good demands that we defend unborn life, marriage, embryonic life, the elderly and the ill, as well as the integrity of humanity against cloning… well then… that’s what the common good demands.

What if there were a political party that were against allowing, oh… I don’t know… against allowing Jews to vote for instance, and the other party had no problem with Jewish suffrage, would it be partisan to defend the Jew’s right to self determination through the political process? Is it the defender’s fault that one political party has defined itself as being anti-Semitic? Why is one side partisan because the other side choses issues that stand diametrically opposed to the Church’s teaching?

See, I get nervous when Catholic pundits start making the argument that we should all just keep our traps shut lest something we say might look bad for one particular party.

The fact of the matter is that it is the Obama administration and the Democratic Party that has chosen these issues at this time. To say that the bishops are at fault for defending our basic human right is to blame the victim and then to accuse them of slander for daring to point out the abuse. Or it’s like this: it would be like accusing Pope John Paul II of partisanship for decrying war before and after the U.S. started to attack Iraq. It may be a lot of things, but it ain’t partisan.

Now some other of my critics say that 501(c)3’s like the Catholic Church are barred from lobbying. Decrying the HHS Mandate at an event sponsored by the Church as I did is lobbying and verboten – as the Germans would say. And to this one just has to say, “Phooey.”

The truth is that non-profits are allowed to lobby for or against particular legislative issues. The IRS says that (c)3’s are not allowed to devote “a substantial part” of their activities to lobbying, and they are not allowed to support or attack a particular candidate. But non-profits like the Church can indeed lobby through grassroots efforts for or against laws, and this is what the Church is doing now.

To claim that the Church is being partisan for lobbying is to ignore the rules of the IRS and it is limiting the Church’s free speech… and of course it is still using the word incorrectly.

Another argument I’ve heard goes something like this: well I agree with you Omar – if that’s your real name – but we critics are more worried with the practical effect of your choices here. You might be defending the faith. But the point is that you appear to be partisan, and that perception is hurting the Church and driving Catholics away.

Yes…well… here’s another truism for you: perception is NOT reality. Reality is reality. This is sacrilege in a media-driven world, I know, but I don’t care. I understand that no one wants bravado when it comes to defending a position. When more measured and accurate language will suffice, extreme rhetoric can lead people to conclude that one is partisan. It is true that we should try to be measured. But the idea that our fear for how our society thinks of us should keep us quiet about a fundamental injustice is asinine. What happened to speaking truth to power, after all?

As for the notion that I and others are driving Catholics away, I just have to ask, “Which Catholics?” About only a third of American, self-described Catholics attend Mass with weekly regularity… and that’s being optimistic. It seems there are a lot of Catholics who aren’t practicing already, that is before I even bothered to have my first cup of coffee this morning, much less started spouting partisan rhetoric… as is apparently my wont, if you believe me critics.

Interestingly, many of the same critics had no problem with the bishops lobbying for the reduction of nuclear arms. Yesterday’s bishops were being prophetic but today’s bishops are partisan. Frankly, that smacks of partisanship itself.

No, I say it is the critics that are partisan. The defining characteristic of being partisan is not that you stand up for something. It is not just being firm about a cause or a movement or faction that happens to have political ramifications. It is certainly not vying against a law you consider unjust. It’s the “blind, prejudiced and unreasoning allegiance” to something.

With that perspective in mind, notice that these critics tend to have been vocal supporters of the Obama administration, men and women who often do not agree with the Church’s teaching on contraception or even that it is the bishops’ responsibility to guard that teaching. I think it is either an unreasoning allegiance to the Democratic Party or against the Republican that has caused these critics to be blind to the strictures on religion in our culture and increasingly in the law?

I see non-Catholics, and Democrats, and people of nearly every political and religious stripe say publicly that the Obama administration is violating religious freedom. Yet there are still Catholics out there who cry “partisanship.” How so? Even William Galston thinks the HHS Mandate violates the bipartisan Religious Freedom and Restoration Act of 1993, and he used to work for the Clinton Administration. Does anyone recall the Hosanna-Tabor case which the administration lost 9-0? What can it be but partisanship that keeps these critics from seeing a pattern of attack against our religious freedom?

Sorry, but that kind of “unreasoning allegiance” to the Democratic Party or against the Republican Party is the very definition of partisanship, and it should be abandoned. I’d say the same to those who similarly defend the Republican Party over the Democratic as well, by the way… which is probably why I’m so often called a liberal, leftist nut too. At any rate, when it is these folks that call me “partisan” several times over, before I’ve even had a chance to check the box scores that day, I don’t mind so much…not anymore.

Now, if the matter were about the unassailable fact of the evil that is the New York Yankees, well then… that makes more sense, I’m waaaaay partisan there. Go Tribe.

On Thursday of last week, by a vote of 171-26, the bishops decided to put together a committee to draft a message on the U.S. Economy. The idea to provide guidance about the economy was that of Bishop Blaire, who is the chair of the bishops’ Committee on Domestic Justice and Human Development. The last time the bishops really addressed the economy was in the 58,000 word Economic Justice for All. There were later expressions of the bishops  on such matters, but they were always in reference to the 1986 document. With such a momentous decision on the part of the bishops, an important discussion was had.

Bishop Earl Boyea

Before the vote, several bishops expressed serious concern that the bishops’ message on the economy be strict about what the Church can and cannot say. The concern arises as a result of a letter sent by Bishop Blaire regarding Congressman Paul Ryan’s budget proposal for 2013. Bishop Boyea noted that many laity expressed concern about the “perceived” “partisan action against Congressman Ryan and the budget he had proposed.”Archbishop Joseph Naumann of Kansas City reiterated the perception of partisanship which stemmed from the letter.

The problematic perception comes from the fact that Bishop Blaire did not just lay out the principles of Catholic social teaching. Providing principles for discernment, criteria for judgment and directives for action is part and parcel of social teaching. The Church and her leaders have not only the right but the obligation to provide principles if we are to form our consciences correctly.

Bishop Blaire, however, chose to apply those principles to Ryan’s budget based on estimates and projections provided – one would presume – by advisors in his committee. Those estimates and projections, though, are not matters of doctrinal principle. They are fallible interpolations colored, as estimates tend to be, by prejudices and presumptions that can at times produce vastly different results between economists. So many were dismayed that Bishop Blaire could so adamantly conclude that Congressman Ryan’s budget was “unjust” and that it failed the basic moral tests.

At the USCCB meeting last week, Bishop Boyea and other bishops shared that they were concerned that this appearance of partisanship would shut down dialogue. This is how Bishop Boyea put it,

“There have been some concerns raised by lay Catholics, especially some Catholic economists, about what was perceived as a partisan action against Congressman Ryan and the budget he had proposed. We need to be articulate only in principles, and let the laity make these applications.”

He went on to say,

“I’m not sure that we have the humility yet not to stray into areas where we lack competence, and where we need to let the laity take the lead. We need to learn far more than we need to teach in this area. We need to listen more than we need to speak. We already have an excellent, fine Compendium [on the Social Doctrine of the Church].”

Archbishop Naumann expressed his concern that the bishops are being perceived as “encouraging the government to spend more money with no realistic way of how we’re going to afford to do this.”

In his defense, Bishop Blaire did note in his letter that the government needs to balance the budget. His argument was that the balancing cannot happen on the backs of the poor while military spending, for instance, is ignored. He wrote in the letter that

“A just framework for future budgets cannot rely on disproportionate cuts in essential services to poor persons; it requires shared sacrifice by all, including raising adequate revenues, eliminating unnecessary military and other spending, and addressing the long-term costs of health insurance and retirement programs fairly.”

The difficulty, of course, is that while this may all be true in principle, the practical application of these principles by means of prudence can lead good Catholics to different conclusions. Thus the perception that Bishop Blaire’s letter was partisan and trying to convince Catholic voters that, regardless of their own prudential discernment, Ryan’s budget cannot be considered just. Where, then, does this leave prudence?

Prudence enjoys a small section in the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church. In paragraph 547 we learn that

“the lay faithful should act according to the dictates of prudence, the virtue that makes it possible to discern the true good in every circumstance and to choose the right means for achieving it. Thanks to this virtue, moral principles are applied correctly to particular cases.”

Note that prudence is the application of “moral principles,” and an application that is done by the laity. No one doubts that the Committee on Domestic Justice and Human Development should be providing our nation with moral principles. But the very essence of prudence is when those principles are applied, and the laity ought to have a role in that, especially if the laity in question are experts on the budget like Congressman Ryan.

Paragraph 548 in the Compendium teaches that

“Prudence makes it possible to make decisions that are consistent, and to make them with realism and a sense of responsibility for the consequences of one’s action.”

It is around “realism” and “responsibility” that many believe Bishop Blaire’s letter fails. For instance, while the estimates provided about the effect of Ryan’s budget may be accurate in the short term, do they ignore the possibility that a balanced budget will spur economic growth that will ease the strain on the poor in the long run?

The good bishop desires “raising adequate revenues.” Fine, but does that have to be done by raising the taxes on the wealthy when 50% of the nation’s citizens pay no income tax at all? Or can this goal be met by Ryan’s restructuring the tax code in order to spur the growth which would produce the desired revenues? Bishop Blaire asks for “eliminating unnecessary military and other spending,” but isn’t it up to the Congress and the President to determine what is “unnecessary” as they have all the information, classified and non, required to make such a prudential decision? And Bishop Blaire asks that Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security be dealt with “fairly,” but who’s to determine fairness in the midst of crushing debt? Is maintaining the retirement age fair to me, when I’m paying into a system that is universally projected to be bankrupt by the time I retire?

Bishop Stephen E. Blaire

Bishop Blaire’s letter criticizes Congressman Ryan’s change in policy for the Child Tax Credit (CTC), but he does not address the documented fraud associated with the CTC. Currently, the CTC provides $1,000 of credit per child for taxpayers who provide Social Security Numbers (SSN) or an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN) for their child. But the ITINs provided by the IRS to persons who do not have a SSN are a lot easier to obtain than SSNs. As a result, some immigrant families have been claiming non-existent children through fake ITINs, thus exempting themselves from any tax burden.

The government knows what a huge loophole this ITIN identification can be, which is why the IRS closed it for the Earned Income Tax Credit years ago before there even was a CTC. So the Ryan budget puts the CTC on par with other regulations already in the tax code.

Now, Ryan’s budget may indeed result, as Bishop Blaire states, in excluding immigrant children, but it will also end a loophole that cost the nation $4.2 billion in 2010. It would certainly make fraud harder; and it would make sure that everyone, including undocumented workers, pay their taxes… which brings up another point.

When the Committee on Domestic Justice and Human Development’s argument in defense of undocumented immigrants includes the insistence that they are in fact paying taxes, it does not help to defend the current policy which has been abused by scores of undocumented immigrants in order to avoid paying those taxes.

Or take Bishop Blaire’s criticism of cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), aka food stamps. The good Bishop quotes the estimate of millions of families who will not receive SNAP, but he doesn’t mention that as unemployment has gone down since 2009 the rolls of those on SNAP have actually increased by 11.2 million, i.e. by 25%. Something is wrong with the program, especially as one considers that of the $100 billion in the proposed Farm Bill $80 billion of that is going to cover SNAP.

But the particularities of Bishop Blaire’s letter aside, the fact remains that the issues over which he condemns Ryan’s budget are all obviously prudential matters. What many Catholics have argued and some bishops have heard is that Bishop Blaire’s letter crosses the line of what the institutional Church is competent to say. Bishop Blaire and his advisors may be absolutely correct that Congressman Ryan’s budget fails the basic moral test of Catholic social teaching, but they may also be spectacularly wrong because the great graces of Holy Orders do no protect him or his advisors from error in the estimates and projections of economic budgets.

Let me be clear that I am not arguing that the Church should “shut up and pray” when it comes to economic matters or that the bishops should keep quiet when injustices occur. If the bishops really believed that Congressman Ryan wants to line the pockets of millionaires while watching little children starve to death, I can understand a bishop’s desire to act. But to believe such a thing is, by the account of many, the very definition of partisanship.

I should also say that Bishop Blaire has the unenviable job to proclaim the Gospel of Christ in the public square that many in our society – many Catholics included sadly – don’t think should be influenced by that Gospel. I believe him when he says that he seeks balance and moderation from all sides of the political machine.

Still, the point is that Bishop Blaire and all the bishops need to be more cautious when it comes to applying the principles which are their purview to concrete matters of public policy that are so obviously prudential and thus not a matter of episcopal expertise. I say “obviously prudential” knowing that even that phrase is a catalyst for sparring wits, but if the percentage of GDP dedicated to Federal assistance programs in 2013 dollars is not a matter of prudence, then nothing is.

Also, Cardinal Dolan recently said that no Americans, conservative or liberal, want their bishops telling them how to vote. And Bishop Blaire was certainly not doing that. But when such prudential matters are spoken of so forcefully, the crucially important discourse amongst Catholics about these matters is choked. That’s not good for the Church, for this nation, and especially not for the poor who need real answers from moral economists.

Hopefully the new economic pastoral that will come out of the USCCB will express the balance between principle and prudence in a way that we can all better understand and apply. All in all, the conversation in Atlanta last week gave me great confidence that the wonderfully Catholic “both/and” would be brought into the economic discussions by the bishops. No doubt everyone will consult their own experts, but the principles should stand on the firm footing of Catholic social teaching, principles which Bishop Blaire and the other bishops have done very well in expressing.

I participated in a wonderful conference this past week.  Sponsored by the Foundation for Economic Education (Larry Reed, the anti communist Indiana Jones of the 1980s, is the president; Carl Oberg is his vice president), a number of faculty explored the history of the notion and manifestations of liberty.  The facilities were excellent as were the students.

The Foundation put all participants up at a Hyatt.  Purely by coincidence, two other groups were staying at the same hotel, a fraternal organization by the name of “100 Black Men” and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops!  What a wonderful gathering for all.

For my part, I had the fine pleasure of seeing my bishop, Earl Boyea, and I also somewhat obnoxiously introduced myself to Archbishop Chaput.  I also kept running into the same bishop (several times a day).  He was as friendly as could be and we started joking that we were stalking one another.  After the conference, I looked him up on Google and found him to be the bishop of the Diocese of St. Petersburg.  An entry on the internet described him as “extremely left.”  If so, I didn’t see it.  He seemed like an amiable and holy man, not an ideologue.

A small protest formed outside of the Hyatt.  Frankly, it was about as impotent as it was small.  There seemed to be no enthusiasm for the protest, by the protestors or those watching the protestors.  I doubt if anyone but the local media took any notice of these folks.  As my two oldest daughters and I walked out of the hotel, I turned my camera on the group.  A hawk-eyed woman in the protest immediately turned her sign toward me.  My guess is that no one else (again, other than the local media) cared about them.

The only protest that was more of a failure–at least in my own viewing–was one I tried to organize while in graduate school, protesting one of the military interventions by President Clinton.  Three libertarians and an old 60s hippie showed up.  We had a great time talking, but I don’t think we changed the minds of a single person.  Our signs were even more pathetic than the one above.

But, I risk becoming cynical. . . .

On a more interesting note, the world of progressive rock has been booming in all of its creativity and glory during the last dozen years or so.  More is to come.  The always brilliant Big Big Train have announced their forthcoming album, “English Electric, Volume I.”  You can pre-order it now.  Additionally, the band has produced a rather beautiful 4.5 minute video.  It’s well worth watching. Trust me, you’ll be happy you did.

On Tuesday, the Canadian progressive rock trio, Rush, released its 20th studio album, “Clockwork Angels.”  I wrote a review as well as a very personal autobiographical reflection on the lyrics of Rush for The Imaginative Conservative.  For what it’s worth, Neil Peart’s lyrics (along with the works of Tolkien and Bradbury) sustained my understanding of a moral world during my own teenage atheism and rebellion.  Peart approaches the age of sixty, but his lyrics and his drumming only improve with age.  He remains one of the greatest men of integrity of our era.

Though most regard 1981’s “Moving Pictures” as Rush’s masterpiece, I’ve always been most taken with “Grace Under Pressure.”  I even had the gall in a liberal-arts core course my sophomore year of college (spring of 1988) to write a major paper on the lyrics of the album, trying to piece together a coherent philosophy.  I’m sure to many TIC readers, this just sounds nothing short of bizarre.  But, “Grace Under Pressure” deals with concentration camps, ideologies, artificial intelligence, fear, death, and almost every complication imaginable in human life.  From the opening note to the last, every part of the music and the lyrics radiate intensity.  For a high-school student first encountering this in 1984, this was truly heady stuff.  A title from Hemingway, a song based on a Ray Bradbury story, and references to T.S. Eliot’s poetry?  It didn’t get much better for me.  And, frankly, even at the age of 44, I’m still very moved by this album.

If you’re interested in reading more, please go here.

A blessed weekend to everyone.

At a recent meeting between staff of the bishops’ conference and the White House staff, our staff members asked directly whether the broader concerns of religious freedom—that is, revisiting the straight-jacketing mandates, or broadening the maligned exemption—are all off the table. They were informed that they are. So much for “working out the wrinkles.” Instead, they advised the bishops’ conference that we should listen to the “enlightened” voices of accommodation, such as the recent, hardly surprising yet terribly unfortunate editorial in America. The White House seems to think we bishops simply do not know or understand Catholic teaching and so, taking a cue from its own definition of religious freedom, now has nominated its own handpicked official Catholic teachers

Let’s break this down so we don’t miss anything about the context or gravity of the situation:

1. This meeting was prompted because the White House decided to curtail and violate the religious freedom of the Catholic Church and individual Catholics.

2. The White House refused to consult with Catholic bishops while originally formulating and issuing this mandate. President Obama misled Cardinal Dolan when he promised the Cardinal he would be happy with the White House’s final decision.

3. The White House has continually lied about and misrepresented the opinion and position of the U.S. Bishops in this process (claiming, for instance, that they were always against Obamacare and that Catholic Charities USA supported their false accomodation). They have continued to act in bad faith.

4. The White House has also chosen to ally itself with liberal, left-wing Catholic dissenters like Sr. Carol Keehan throughout this process, thereby snubbing the U.S. Bishops and all faithful Catholics.

(Are you still there? Because now it gets really good….)

5. After all of this, when the White House finally gets around to inviting staff authorized by the USCCB to negotiate on behalf of them, the White House says what to them?! First, they issue an ultimatum saying all compromise is off the table. So what on earth are they supposed to talk about if the White House refuses from the outset to compromise in any way, shape, or form? The cynical answer is the White House, once again, simply wanted to establish the appearance of dialogue while offering zero substance.

6. Then, the White House proceeds to lecture the USCCB staff about how to interpret Catholic teaching! Can you imagine anything more offensive? Telling Catholics how to be Catholic? They show them a copy of the America editorial as if a) the staff has not already read it and b) the U.S. Bishops give a fig what the editors of America think.

7. Let’s read Cardinal Dolan’s line again:

The White House seems to think we bishops simply do not know or understand Catholic teaching and so, taking a cue from its own definition of religious freedom, now has nominated its own handpicked official Catholic teachers.

In other words, what we have here is NOT a failure to communicate. What we have here is an Administration and White House officials who believe they know Catholic teaching better than us. And who have the hubris to lecture us about what our faith teaches.

The editors of the Wall Street Journal comment:

As a study in ideology and power, the anecdote [of the White House meeting described above] is chilling, compounded by all the recent claims by Democrats and liberals that Catholics who actually abide by their faith are opposed to modernity. Such prejudice is supposedly defunct in contemporary America, except when it’s practiced against religion.

And not just any religion – Catholic religion.

I don’t know about you, but I don’t take kindly to my elected leaders lecturing me about what my faith teaches. Talk about the height of hypocrisy. Talk about an offense that cries out to the ballot box to be answered definitely.

From Miami, Florida to Seattle, Washington–

Every single Roman Catholic bishop in the United States has condemned in public the Obamacare HHS mandate — all 181 bishops who lead dioceses in the U.S. have spoken.

This is a simply incredible, unified, universal Catholic witness on this critical issue of religious freedom.

(To those wondering about my methodology, it is now negative instead of positive — I am no longer able to find a single Roman Catholic bishop who has NOT spoken out against the mandate publicly. It is also my presumption that this conclusion applies to all Eastern Rite and Sui Iuris bishops in the U.S.).

Meanwhile, my list of Catholic institutions that have spoken out against the mandate is now at 30 (and continues to grow). The list also includes 10 non-Catholic groups who have condemned the mandate.

Thank you to everyone who made building this list possible. It’s a complimentary sign of Catholic solidarity that so many Catholics across the country proudly helped me add their bishop’s name to this list!

2) Senator Marco Rubio today introduced a bill (“the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 2012″) to repeal the Obama/HHS mandate. This is significant because the Democrat-controlled Senate will be the hardest obstacle to overcome on the way to getting legislation to President Obama’s desk to overturn this onerous law.

3) Pat Buchanan predicts that Catholics can win this fight if they play for keeps:

Not only should the bishops file suit in federal court against the president and Sebelius for violation of the constitutional principle of separation of church and state, they should inform the White House that no bishop will give an invocation at the Democratic Convention.

Then, they should inform the White House that in the last two weeks of the 2012 campaign, priests in every parish will read from the pulpit at Sunday mass a letter denouncing Obama as anti-Catholic for denying the Church its right to live according to its beliefs.

If Obama loses the Catholic vote, he loses the election.

The White House will come around, fast. Rely upon it.

4) Brian Montopoli of CBSNews’ Political Hotsheet blog has to win the prize for most anti-Catholic biased headline: “Catholics hear anti-Obama letter in church” — are you kidding me? GetReligion has good coverage of the Media ignoring the controversy.

5) As far as gauging Catholics-in-the-pews reaction to these statements from the bishop I have been monitoring, Catholics in Green Bay gave their bishop a standing ovation after he read his statement after Mass (I’m no fan for applause during Mass, but if you’re going to applaud anything after Mass, this is a good choice):

]]> http://www.catholicvote.org/obama-vs-religious-liberty-5-notable-updates/feed/ 21 http://www.catholicvote.org/exclusive-my-thoughts-on-hhs-hearing-statement-by-rep-ann-marie-buerkle/ http://www.catholicvote.org/exclusive-my-thoughts-on-hhs-hearing-statement-by-rep-ann-marie-buerkle/#comments Thu, 01 Dec 2011 22:17:49 +0000 Thomas Peters http://www.catholicvote.org/discuss/index.php?p=23624 This morning I attended the Congressional oversight committee’s hearing on the Department of Health and Human Service’s decision to pass-over the US Bishops Conference and award a grant to help victims of human trafficking to other, less-qualified organizations that consent to doing referrals for abortions, sterilization and contraception.

Before I get to summarizing my experiences, I want to share with you a statement passed-along to me exclusively from Rep. Ann Marie Buerkle (NY-25), a Republican Congresswoman who appeared at the hearing and pursued a very powerful line of questioning:

“Since 2006, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) has received Health and Human Services (HHS) grants for the case management of victims of human trafficking.  Through 2011, the USCCB received exemplary marks during evaluation of its services provided to these victims.  It is of great concern to me to see that this organization was not awarded an HHS grant this year, despite its proven record of responsible stewardship and success.  It appears that under this administration it is no longer business as usual.  The politicization of the grant process puts the integrity of U.S. outreach efforts into question and has instead elevated the priority of partisanship over the needs of those victims of human trafficking and purposefully at the expense of an organization capable of meeting those needs.”

My thoughts on what I saw and heard at the hearing:

In many ways, the hearing revealed our government at its bureaucratic worst. Over the course of three hours, George Sheldon, acting assistant HHS secretary for the Administration for Children and Families (isn’t that a mouthful?) stayed very close to his prepared talking points.

Democrat members on the committee spent little time acknowledging the actual reason the committee was convened, namely, to answer the question whether or not HHS politicized its choice to deny the US Bishops grant money because of pro-abortion ideology.

Instead, Democrat members spent the lion’s share of their time talking about the plight of persons who have been the victim of human trafficking. While this is an important matter, this is not the question the committee was attempting to resolve. Reps. Gerry Connolly (VA-11) and John Tierney (MA-6) were particularly shameless in expressing that, although they were “raised” Catholic they proudly dissent from the Church’s teaching in these areas.

Republican members, meanwhile, are to be commended for showing up, doing their research, and asking tough questions. Chairman Darrell Issa vigorously pressured HHS Sheldon to answer the questions, and Reps. Chris Smith (NJ-4), James Lankford (OK-5), Tim Whalburg (MI-7) and Ann Marie Buerkle (NY-25) are to be particularly commended for their focused and enlightening line of questions. The mere fact that Congress is holding a hearing to examine what happened is meaningful because it will cause other agencies to pause before treating faith-based groups like the Catholic Church as second class applicants.

The narrative that emerged from the question and answer period, as best as I can make out, is that HHS, after previously awarding grant money to the US Bishops (who received and continue to receive excellent marks for their performance), during this new wave of awarding grants, inserted a litmus test that required all grantees to refer for abortion, contraception and sterilization, or risk not being funded at all, which is why they rejected the US Bishops’ application.

Much remains to be discovered, and the hearing ended with a promise that HHS will continue to turn over documents detailing the process that led to their final decision. One big outstanding question that remains is to what degree Kathleen Sebelius, her office, and political pressure from the Obama administration may have led HHS to do what it did. So simply put: we haven’t heard the end of this inquiry.

Apart from the religious liberty and conscience questions, there remains underlying all of these issues a fundamental disagreement between Democrats + HHS, and Republicans + US Bishops about what sort of care victims of human trafficking deserve, and who is best suited to give them that care.

One thing that became clear during the course of the morning was that, in the eyes of the Democrats and those who made the final decision at HHS, it is more important that a victim of human trafficking (often girls as young as 12-14 years old), it’s more important that they be offered abortion, sterilization and contraception than that they be cared for by a faith-based organization such as the Catholic Church.

Steve Wagner’s National Catholic Register column [link fixed] points out how denying young women who have been victims of sex trafficking the unique care and human-dignity-affirming compassion of the Catholic Church is unconscionable. I couldn’t agree more.

I’ll be following this story in the days and weeks to come and urge you to do the same!

UPDATE — for those of you who want to break out the popcorn, here’s the video of the hearing:

And here’s more statement and video clips:

Testimony by Acting Assistant Secretary for Children and Families George H. Sheldon

Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ) video

Statement by Rep. James Lankford (R-OK) and video Part 1 and Part 2

Statement by Rep. Mike Kelly (R-PA) and video

Wagner rightly points out that Kathleen Sebelius, in her ideological goal to push the Catholic Church (and other faith-based organizations who don’t employ contraception and abortion) away from helping these poor victims, is in fact further victimizing them:

If someone is being trafficked — which is to say, under the domination of a pimp/trafficker — she is by definition unable to provide informed consent to an abortion or to a regime of contraception. The victim has no voice in this decision. Indeed, providing such services to a victim of sexual trafficking benefits only the trafficker by getting the victim back out on the street and making money sooner.

The average age of entry into commercial sex exploitation is about 14. The average life expectancy of someone in commercial sexual exploitation is seven years. Start at 14, dead by 21. The mortality rate for someone in commercial sexual exploitation is 40 times higher than for a non-exploited person of the same age. Helping a victim return to exploitation more quickly by terminating a pregnancy increases the odds of death. [National Catholic Register]

Wagner then focuses on the underlying practical question: who do we want helping such women? The USCCB … or Planned Parenthood?

So, on the one hand, we have the USCCB, which will never facilitate an abortion but will arrange to meet all of the other appropriate service needs of victims, from residence to medical and mental-health treatment. On the other hand, we have an abortion provider such as Planned Parenthood, whose staff have been videotaped as being willing to perpetuate the apparent sex slavery of a juvenile by arranging for an abortion and not reporting the suspicion of felony sex abuse of a minor to authorities. Which is acting in the authentic interests of the victim?

When this becomes the question, it’s no surprise that more and more people are raising their voices that Sebelius needs to step down. I eagerly join that chorus of voices.

I hope to attend tomorrow’s congressional hearing on why HHS chose not to renew funding for the USCCB’s successful program to assist human trafficking victims and look forward to seeing how much more of the truth comes out.

In the meantime, please join me in praying for the victims of sex trafficking, that may receive love, care and compassion equal to their immeasurable dignity and worth.

Next week the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee will hold a hearing on the administration’s decision not to renew funding for United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) program to assist human trafficking victims.

According to news reports, the decision was made due to USCCB’s pro-life stance and funds were withheld despite objections by career staff. The hearing [is] titled “HHS and the Catholic Church: Examining the Politicization of Grants”.

Some background for those of you who haven’t been following this story:

• AmP: 27 Senators Demand HHS Explain Denial of Grant to US Bishops
• Michael Gerson: Obama turns his back on Catholics
• WaPo: Abortion, birth control access at issue in dispute over denial of grant to Catholic group
• WaPo: Health, abortion issues split Obama administration and Catholic groups

Props to the Washington Post, by the way, for reporting this important story.

Today witnessed another important development in Washington, DC:

Senators Rubio and Ayotte

Twenty-seven U.S. senators requested information on how the Department of Health and Human Services graded applicants for anti-trafficking grants and asked why the U.S. bishops’ Migration and Refugee Services was denied one.

EWTN News obtained a copy of a Nov. 9 letter—signed by legislators including Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) and Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.)—which gives department secretary Kathleen Sebelius until Nov. 18 to ensure that the department respected the bishops’ conscience rights “and did not violate current law in awarding this grant.”

The senators asked for “a full explanation of your department’s decision” and whether the bishops’ “position regarding abortion referrals was a factor in your department’s decision making.”

They also requested a list of grant applicants, their applications, scores and comments from an independent review, as well as all department documents and communications related to the funding decision. [EWTN News/CNA]

I explained the backstory in this Nov. 1st post: “Obama Appointees Denied USCCB Grant By Utilizing “Unfair, Politicized” Justifications”

The Health and Human Services department, under the leadership of (catholyc) Kathleen Sebelius, is amassing quite a track record of stonewalling Catholics, the US Bishops, and now, 27 Senators elected by the American people when they demand to know if the agency is making decisions based on political ideology. In other words, HHS seems intent on rewarding its pro-abortion friends, and harming pro-life organizations, even when (as in this case) the pro-life groups have an objectively better track record of assisting people who need help.

What happened to the “most transparent administration in history”, Mr. President?