U.S. Soldiers Burned Koran in Afghanistan

The United States “stepped in it” again. Local laborers taking out the trash at Bagram airbase found remnants of several burned Korans. A huge protest erupted outside the base with more than 2,000 Afghans yelling and throwing things outside the gates.

One of the Afghan protestors, Haji Shirin, reportedly said, “We Afghans don’t want these Christians and infidels, they are the enemy of our soil, our honor and our Koran.”

U.S. helicopters shot flares into the crowd to end the protest. General John Allen, International Security Assistance Force’s top man, issued a written statement and released a video to apologize. The burned Koran remnants will be turned over to religious officials. How thoughtful.

The apology has done nothing to satisfy the anger and hurt the Afghan citizens feel about the blatantly disrespectful act. Not surprising since this isn’t the first time General Allen had to apologize. Back in November, he issued a “sincere apology” when NATO forces fired on Pakistani soldiers conducting a drill close to the border.

How would Catholics react if Afghan troops burned copies of the Catholic Bible? Or if any one of the Arab counties’ armed forces committed such an atrocity?

Courses for individual Catholics take a good look at Good Book

Catholic laypeople aren’t known for studying Scripture — a habit more often associated with their Protestant brethren.

“In the past, unfortunately, that’s been true, but we’re changing that,” said Ben Akers, director of the Denver Catholic Biblical School at St. John Vianney Theological Seminary.

The school, celebrating its 30th anniversary this year, offers classes that are hosted by more than 20 parishes across the Denver Archdiocese. When you sign up for Catholic Bible study here, you can expect a four-year course in the Good Book. There is homework. There will be a test.

Catholic Biblical School’s popularity is soaring, with a record 718 people enrolled for the September-through-May academic year. A two-year course in Catholic catechism drew more than 150 students.

At a school-sponsored workshop on the Bible on Saturday morning, more than 400 people crowded into a small auditorium at Mullen High School to hear speakers, including the Rev. Robert Barron, founder of “Word on Fire” ministry and creator of the national television series “Catholicism.”

“It’s a real revival,” Akers said. “It’s a sign of hope there is such a hunger to learn.”

Only a Catholic institution is likely to call a 30-year-old school “a new approach” to building better lay members. Yet for a church that thinks in terms of centuries, Akers said, in-depth Bible study for the masses still strikes many as novel.

Scripture scholars say the Second Vatican Council, 1962-65, turned the page on the Bible in the Catholic Church, as more chapters and verses from the Old and New Testaments were made part of the liturgy of the Mass. The weekly exposure sparked interest in the Bible.

The seeds of Vatican II have taken a few decades to really root, scholars observe, but the average Catholic’s investment in studying the Bible has been increasing steadily since then.

By 1974, the Diocese of Little Rock in Arkansas had developed and begun distributing Bible study materials for Catholic adults that could be used in parishes across the country.

Eight years later, Denver Archbishop James V. Casey asked a Franciscan nun, Sister Macrina Scott, to develop a rigorous program here that would help prepare would-be Bible teachers to spread the Scripttures.

“That was the reason for making the course so intense,” Scott said. “Yet, to our surprise, we found out that a great many Catholics other than teachers were interested. Catholics were hungry for the Scriptures.”

Over the school’s three decades, 2,400 people have completed the full four-year program.

“We study every single book in some depth. As far as we know,” Akers said, “we’re the most comprehensive course” — outside a seminary or degree program.

“In four years we still just skim the surface, but we lay the foundation for a lifetime of Bible study,” said teacher Kyle Mills. “We like to say we’re a mile wide and a little more than an inch deep.”

The course costs $555 a year. Students enroll for a year at a time. They meet two hours a week, morning or evening. The teachers have at least a master’s degree in biblical theology or scriptural studies, Akers said.

Enrollees come from all education levels, including judges and high school dropouts, Akers said. The only requirement is that students be 18 years or older.

Electa Draper: 303-954-1276 or edraper@denverpost.com

---

More info

Call 303-715-3195, or go to sjvdenver.edu.

Alain de Botton’s pastoral atheism

RELIGION

Patrick McCabe February 21, 2012

If the provocative title of Alain de Botton’s book Religion for Atheists does not annoy believers and non-believers alike, then its first line probably will: ‘The most boring and unproductive question one can ask of any religion is whether or not it is true.’

And if any sanguine readers out there remain unmoved, the book’s central thesis should rile even them. De Botton says religions are not true, and God does not exist. Yet atheists should not dismiss religions on these grounds. The rituals, modes of thinking, methodologies, and approaches to life that religions promote can still be of great assistance to atheists.

For instance, de Botton argues that atheists could learn how to foster a sense of community from the Catholic Mass. The Jewish Day of Atonement could help atheists build better interpersonal relationships. Zen Buddhist retreats could assist atheists to reflect on the direction of their lives.

(As this representative sample suggests, the book could probably have been more precisely titled Catholicism, Judaism and Zen Buddhism for Atheists.)

One chapter commends religious places of worship and the feelings they can induce in us. De Botton suggests building a secular ‘Temple to Perspective’ — a place where humans can put their troubles into perspective by reflecting on the 460 million years Earth has existed for.

With typical zeal, de Botton has already put this suggestion into action, raising almost half of the million pounds required to actually build this temple in London.

The proposal has angered fellow atheists. Richard Dawkins has condemned the plan, declaring that ‘atheists don’t need temples’, and that the money would be better spent on promoting ‘rational, critical thinking’. The Guardian‘s Steve Rose protests that the Temple of Perspective is insufficiently atheist, and so ‘a Christian or Muslim’ might also be able to enjoy it.

These criticisms demonstrate the gap between de Botton and other atheists. Dawkins and Rose’s outlook is missionary, while de Botton’s is pastoral. Dawkins and his ilk want to save souls from religion, and promote the good news of atheism. De Botton is more concerned with the spiritual needs of the existing flock.

Many atheists argue that religious people are childish, irrational, needy, and vulnerable, and that atheism is about turning away from all those things, and embracing a rational, ‘grown-up’ existence. That argument is implicit in Dawkins’ dismissive ‘atheists don’t need temples’.

While de Botton agrees atheism is the rational choice, he argues that those who make that choice do not suddenly cease to be irrational and childish. It is not religious people who are childish and vulnerable, but human beings. The wisdom of religion is to recognise our inherent vulnerability, and cater to that aspect of our being.

It is evident why atheists might be angered by de Botton’s ideas. But what should theists make of this book?

It will offend theists who believe the only reason to practise religious rituals is simply to adhere to God’s edicts. For such theists, God’s reasons for prescribing particular rituals are irrelevant and inscrutable. To put it bluntly, God might as well have commanded us to do the hokey-pokey, and these theists would perform it with as much zeal as they might attend a Catholic Mass.

These believers will regard de Botton’s use of elements of religious rituals outside of a theistic context as absurd and blasphemous.

Other theists, such as myself, instead see religious rituals and practices as a means of guiding and enabling a life lived in accordance with the beliefs and values of a particular faith. Religion for Atheists can help this type of believer gain a new appreciation for the utility of religious rituals.

De Botton eloquently demonstrates just how helpful religious practices are, even when the theistic content is substituted for lessons about ‘perspective’ or ‘community’. Believers can see that when the more profound teachings of religions are re-inserted into the rituals, those rituals are powerful tools indeed for assisting us to live our lives in a way that is attuned to theistic values and beliefs.

While de Botton’s individual ideas and arguments are at times open to fundamental criticisms, his general perspective is a valuable one. His book can help theists articulate the importance of religious practices in a world that is, even among believers, increasingly sceptical of organised religion.

But at the same time, it can also assist believers to fearlessly adapt and improve aspects of traditional religion where that is required. In a new epoch that requires religions to be introspective if they wish to remain strong, this can only be a good thing. 

---

Patrick McCabe works at an Adelaide law firm while completing a Graduate Diploma in Legal Practice. He is a former contributor to the Adelaide University magazine On Dit. Patrick won Eureka Street‘s 2011 Margaret Dooley Award for Young Writers with this essay. 

 

---

Enjoyed this article? To ensure that Eureka Street can continue its 20 year publishing tradition, click here to make a donation to Eureka Street.

To email to a friend, click here.

 

 

Submitted feedback is moderated. Email is requested for identification purposes only.

---

SUBMITTED COMMENTS

 

Patricia Taylor22 Feb 2012

I watched him interviewed on television and concluded that only good can come out of this book.

---

John Whitehead22 Feb 2012

Thought provoking and a challenge to both theists and atheists alike, which comprises most or all of society.

Challenge makes us either grow or retract into a shell. We all need to grow, so challenge should be embraced. If his book challenges and assists us in understanding the truth of our existence then this is always good.

---

PHILIP HARVEY22 Feb 2012

Thank you, Patrick, for this measured appraisal of the latest conversation from Alain de Botton. This book is one of the sanest informed presentations on the value of religion yet to come from a self-confessed non-believer. There should be more of it. De Botton has noticed that religion is one of the most extraordinary efforts to come to terms with being human. This is perfectly obvious to most people who call themselves religious, but doesn’t seem to be so obvious to many atheists, especially those of the more belligerent kind.

Religion itself is the most amazing product of time and human belief in wisdom. De Botton is thoughtful enough to see you don’t want to throw the baby out with the bath water. It is refreshing to hear someone in this debate who actually debates, rather than just sending sprays at all and sundry, and not waiting for a reply.

A clue to this book is what I see as De Botton’s main philosophical cause, which is finding answers to what is the Good Life. De Botton is a kind of epicurian, not in the sense of someone who tries seven different cheeses just for the first course, but someone who asks what is the best way to live, and to live with others. Religious people (you know who you are) can let out an ironic sigh when they read that De Botton discovers the answer to the Good Life in religion.

---

Nigel Sinnott22 Feb 2012

As a committed and active atheist for half a century, I found this review very informative: it gave me a clear description of de Botton’s “angle” and what some of his critics have made of it.Thank you, Patrick McCabe!

---

AURELIUS22 Feb 2012

From reading Patrick’s article, I would presume De Botton would support government funding of community services run by churches (schools, hospitals, homeless hostels, rehab centres etc) not because of the God factor, but because of the intrinsic value of the service itself. I’m wondering however what value chaplains would be and how the different brands of proselytising might be exposed for the good/bad they do from De Botton’s perspective.

---

Pam22 Feb 2012

I agree with Patricia. I was most impressed watching his interview on TV last night. I think God might have been smiling too.

---

Michelle Goldsmith22 Feb 2012

It is clear that de Botton has only observed, romantically, but actually never attempted to be part of a “community”, such as a traditional Catholic parish, in which individuals happen to celebrate Mass in proximity to each other, mainly because they are obliged to. The Catholic Mass, in my substantial experience, is rather like a whole lot of toddlers playing intently beside each other, not necessarily with each other, acknowledging each others’ presence merely incidentally or at the instigation of the teacher. The mindset of a Catholic parish (community) is more one of if you’re not with us you’re against us – there are too many religiously prescribed excuses for excluding and shunning, to some degree, those deemed to have transgressed particular, peculiar narrow values. It is, more often than not, unthinkingly tribal and reactionary – consciously and proudly separate from the society and wider community in which it sits. Whether atheist or theist, motivation for being “a good person” should be that it is the right way to conduct yourself, without the “reward of heaven or the threat of hell” mentality which ultimately underpins religious thought. de Botton is correct in advocating a knowledge of religious thought and practise however – being forewarned means being forearmed. Luckily, reviews such as this one, and his title alone should save lots of us from shelling out for this simplistic rehash.

---

john frawley22 Feb 2012

What an informative observation from a pastoral atheist that “atheists could learn to foster a sense of community from the Catholic Mass”. And this coming at a time when Catholic community is in disarray as clearly indicated by the results of the survey finalised in July, 2009 by the Pastoral Projects Office of the Australian Catholic Bishops Conference. This survey titled “Catholics who have stopped attending Mass’ indicated that 83% of respondents stated that the Mass was irrelevant. Further, the survey indicated that over half of the respondents (all of whom were in the post Vatican II educational age group)did not know or did not understand fundamental Catholic teaching). It takes an atheist author with a pastoral vision to tell the Catholic Church why it is losing community while the remnants of that community still wait in hope that the Australian bishops will act on the results of the survey which they commissioned, particularly in the areas of school and adult education.

---

chris g22 Feb 2012

To Michelle Goldsmith; as a very long-term lapserian Catholic myself can I recommend a visit to New Orleans and attendance at Mass at St Peter Claver’s in Treme, a wonderful and fully involving community celebration. Didn’t send me back to my local parish on my return but did make me realise that the Mass can be a powerful community force.
I don’t know if De Botton’s idea of a ‘temple for atheists’ is worthwhile, isn’t that what the Freemasons were on about?

St. Lucie Religion Notes, Updated Feb. 21

St. Lucie Religion Notes

NEW LISTINGS

Mark’s Gospel Live: Experience the Gospel of St. Mark though amazing storytelling. St. Bernadette Catholic Church, 350 NW California Blvd., Port St. Lucie, 7 pm. Mar. 10. 772-336-9956; StBernadettesCatholicChurch.org.

THIS WEEK

Huntley Brown Concert: 1st United Methodist Church, 260 SW Prima Vista Blvd., Port St. Lucie, 7 pm Feb. 18, 4 pm Feb. 19. Offering. 772-878-1155; pslfumc.com.

Black Catholic Mass: Celebrating traditions of Caribbean Islands, African Catholic faith. Holy Family Catholic Church, 2330 Mariposa Ave., Port St. Lucie, noon, Feb. 19. 772-335-2385; holyfamilyccpsl.com.

Pancake Supper: Shrove Tuesday to begin Lenten Season. Community United Methodist Church, 3114 Okeechobee Rd., Fort Pierce, 5-7 pm, Feb. 21. $3-$5; children under 6 free. 772-461-2499.

Ash Wednesday: Holy Eucharist, imposition of ashes. Holy Faith Episcopal Church, 6990 S. Federal Hwy., Port St. Lucie, 10 am, 5 pm, 7 pm, Feb. 22. 772-464-4570; holyfaithpsl.org.

Divine Mercy: Conference, Day of Reflection. Holy Family Catholic Church, 2330 Mariposa Ave., Port St. Lucie, Mar. 24. 8:30 Mass; 9:45-3:30 conference. Adults. $10. Ticket: 772-335-2385; holyfamilyccpsl.com.

UPCOMING

Canadian Brass: World’s leading brass ensemble. The Community Church, 1901 23rd St., Vero Beach, 7:30 pm, Feb. 26. $15-$35. 772-469-2317.

Revival: Evangelist David Maynard. Lighthouse Baptist Church, 6731 S US 1, Port St Lucie, 10 am, 6 pm Feb. 26; 7 pm Feb. 27-Mar. 2. 772-408-3108.

Leah Williamson Chapter Of Hadassh: General meeting, program on Alzheimer’s brown bag lunch. Temple Beth El Israel, 551 SW Bethany Dr., Port St. Lucie, 12:30-3 pm, Feb. 28. $212/lifetime membership. Donations accepted. RSVP: 772-873-8140.

Well Community Church: 1-year anniversary Worship Experience. The Refuge at Kings Plaza, US 1 and Prima Vista Blvd., Port St. Lucie, 6 pm, Mar. 18. 706-680-3197; TheSundayNightChurch.com.

Ira Sullivan In Concert: Five-time grammy nominee jazz artist. St. Andrew Lutheran Church, 295 NW Prima Vista Blvd., Port St. Lucie, 7 pm, Feb. 26. $10. 772-878-0954; marylou@standrewpsl.org.

The Dunnemans: Musical ministry. White City United Methodist Church, 810 Midway Rd., Fort Pierce, 10 am, Feb. 26. 772-873-0643; canoepark@comcast.net.

Fish Fry: White City United Methodist Church, 810 Midway Rd., Fort Pierce, 11 am-4 pm, Mar. 3. All. $3-$7. 772-464-2298.

MEETINGS/CLASSES

Monday

The Landing: Students dealing w/peer pressure, rejection, divorce, anger, etc. Morningside Church, 2180 SE Morningside Blvd., Pt. St. Lucie, 6:30-8:30 pm. Ages 13-18. 772-335-5166; morningsidechurch.com/thelanding.

Wellness Warriors: Daniel plan. St. Andrew Lutheran Church, 295 NW Prima Vista Blvd., Port St. Lucie, 7 pm, thru Feb. 13. Adults. Register: 772-878-0954; marylou@standrewpsl.org.

Tuesday

Bible Discussion Group: Safe place to ask questions explore the Bible. Surfside Community Church, 3453 Sunrise Blvd., Fort Pierce, 6-7 pm. 772-579-7576; surfsidechurch@yahoo.com.

Wednesday

Children’s Awana Club: Grace Emmanuel Church, 707 Kitterman Rd., Port St. Lucie, 6:45-8:30 pm. Ages: 3-grade 6. 772-489-9696.

Thursday

Common Sense Parenting: St. Andrew Lutheran Church, 295 NW Prima Vista Blvd., Port St. Lucie, 6 pm, thru Feb. 16. Adults. Register: 772-878-0954; marylou@standrewpsl.org.

Prayer Service: White City United Methodist Church, 810 W Midway Rd., Fort Pierce, 7 am. 772-224-1478.

Day Lilies: Craft Group. White City United Methodist Church, 810 W. Midway Rd, Fort Pierce, 9:30 am–noon. 772-46-60246.

Morning Quilters: White City United Methodist Church, 810 W Midway Rd, Fort Pierce, 9 am-noon. 772-344-3800.

Friday

Hot Meal: Sarah’s kitchen. Notre Dame Catholic Mission, 217 N US 1, Fort Pierce, 5:30-6:30 pm. 772-466-9617; notredamecatholicmission@hotmail.com.

United Methodist Women: Fellowship, refreshments. White City United Methodist Church, 810 W. Midway Rd, Fort Pierce, 10:30 am, 2nd Fri. 772-873-0643.

SaturdayJames Mercy Triumphs: Women’s Bible study with Beth Moore. Fairlawn Baptist Church, 3003 Rhode Island Ave, Fort Pierce, 9 am, thru Mar. 10. Ages: 15+. $15. Register: 772-461-0814; FairlawnBaptistfp.com.

Men’s Breakfest: Fellowship breakfest. White City United Methodist Church, 810 W. Midway Rd., Fort Pierce, 8 am. 772-464-2298.

Sunday

Alternative Worship Service: Release conditioning, experience wholeness through singing, chanting, movement silence. Unity of Fort Pierce, 3414 Sunrise Blvd., Fort Pierce, 9:30 am. Offering. 772-461-2272; unityoffortpierce.com.

Last night’s viewing – Big Fat Gypsy Weddings, Channel 4; Prisoners’ Wives, BBC1

The truth of Big Fat Gypsy Weddings – as the advertising campaign that promised that this series would be “Bigger. Fatter. Gypsier” – is that it knowingly toys with feeding a social prejudice while taking care to keep its toes just this side of the line. Logically and legally, you can argue, “Gypsier” is no more racist than “more French” or “Dutcher” would be. But all the same Channel 4′s marketing department knows perfectly well that the series’ main audience will get the message. More to gawp at, more to tut at, more to consolidate that pleasing sense that you are on the right side of respectability and you’re free to look down. And if you still maintain that everyone watching is tuning in for a sympathetic explanation of a life lived at an angle to convention, then I’d suggest that you follow a Twitter feed or comment board when the programme is on. One warning, though – it isn’t pretty.

It’s true that you’d have to watch with a lot of prejudice never to feel sympathy at all. When Chloe went straight from her Holy Communion to visit her father in jail and was turned away from the visitors’ centre because they’d been delayed in traffic, you didn’t see a Traveller child. You just saw a little girl weeping because her big day had crumbled. And following the scramble of eviction from one site and the race to beat the authorities to the next one, you got a sense of how harried life can be. Even then, though, for every stereotype Big Fat Gypsy Weddings disturbs, it reinforces another two. They’re very clever about not crossing that line. There’s not a frame that couldn’t be defended as just a transcription of the facts. But you can’t help wondering if the nuanced truth of Traveller life lies anywhere near the line at all. Or if nearly as many people would watch if they weren’t teetering so close to falling.

Watching Prisoners’ Wives, I couldn’t help wondering what would have happened if Chloe had made it in time to see her dad. Searching her would have been a nightmare, given that she had enough room under her skirt for a collapsible ladder and a getaway car. The proxy humiliations of incarceration are one of the consistent themes in this series, which continues to impress. It does raise one question, though. We’re invited to sympathise with all the men in prison but permitted to loathe the criminals outside it, including a memorably nasty drug dealer. If he goes inside, do we have to care about him too?

Americans and Foreign Languages: Our Love-Hate Relationship

I recently received one of those emails from a popular language-learning company promising that I could painlessly master a foreign language in just 10 days. I watched the attached video and saw that there would be no annoying grammar, no tiresome lists of vocabulary to remember, in fact no effort whatsoever. It would just magically happen. All I had to do was choose my language, give my credit card number and get started.

The video prompted some thoughts about our American desire for instant gratification and our collective naiveté. Presumably, these ads work, otherwise the various companies would not promote them so persistently. And also I wondered, what was so magical about 10 days? Why not eight or 14?

Perhaps eight was too short even for Americans accustomed to instant wonders and 14 implied too much effort would be required. I assume the number 10 was tested in focus groups and produced the most favorable response.

Of course, language courses are much like dieting plans. People buy them, hoping for miracles but not truly expecting them. Perhaps they can do some good, people think. At worst, they won’t do any harm.

It so happens that I once did buy a course from one of the major companies — in basic Romanian. This was six years ago, before I was due to spend nine months teaching journalism in Bucharest. I received five 90 minute CDs which my wife and I religiously went through several times.

I am not going to totally dismiss the results. We did learn a few basic phrases which, because of the constant repetition, have stuck in my mind.

“Where is Boulevard Eminescu? Is it over there? No, it is here.”
“Would you like to eat something? No I would like to drink something.”

We supplemented the course with a couple of dozen hours with a tutor and then with many hours working our way through a much more sophisticated course which did include boring grammar and horrid, horrid vocab. And then we arrived in Bucharest where we were greeted with the unintelligible babble of Romanians actually speaking their language. Our efforts were not totally useless. We could take a taxi, order a restaurant meal, buy vegetables in the market, pay the phone bill — but that was about it.

Of course, a language is the gateway to an entire culture. One could scarcely say one was truly fluent in English without a working knowledge of sources as diffuse as Shakespeare, the King James Bible, Lucille Ball, John F. Kennedy, Jane Austen and Monty Python. Whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.This is a truth universally unacknowledged by the purveyors of instant fluency. Bereft of life, they may rest in peace.

As one who grew up in Britain, coming to the United States involved learning a whole range of new cultural references before I became semi-fluent in American. I knew what a sticky wicket and a googly were but my grasp of baseball was strictly bush league. My idea of a Hail Mary was based in my slight knowledge of Catholic theology. I was very familiar with Nobby Stiles (he played on England’s victorious 1966 World Cup team in football — that is to say, soccer) but the significance of Jackie Robinson escaped me. I had watched Yogi Bear comics on TV as a kid — but I had no idea there was a real live person called Yogi Berra or that he was famous for his quips.

An old and bad joke goes as follows: “A person who speaks two languages can said to be bilingual and one who speaks three is trilingual — but what do you call a person who only speaks one language? Answer: an American.”

During his 2008 presidential campaign, Barack Obama gave some truth to that statement. “I don’t speak a foreign language. It’s embarrassing!” he said at a town hall meeting in Dayton, Ohio.

Since 1997, the percentage of elementary and middle schools that offer foreign language courses has fallen significantly, from 31 percent to 25 percent at the elementary level and from 75 percent to 58 percent at the middle school level, according to a nationwide survey of public and private schools conducted in 2008 by the Center for Applied Linguistics in Washington, D.C.

The Census Bureau reported in 2007 that just under 20 percent of Americans, mostly immigrants and the children of immigrants, speak a language other than English.

In comparison, in the European Union, which is composed of 27 different countries and 23 official languages, 56 percent of Europeans speak a language other than their mother tongue, and 28 percent speak two foreign languages, according to a 2006 European Commission survey.

When I was a foreign correspondent for Reuters New Service in Jerusalem and later in Stockholm, it was quite normal for major American news organizations to send correspondents to cover those countries with no knowledge of the languages spoken in them. Of course, one could argue that most of the intelligentsia in both Israel and Sweden and many of the regular folk you meet on the street speak good English. But as a reporter, you also need to know what they are saying to each other, what they are hearing on the radio and watching on TV. You have to hear the country talking to itself. When they talk to you in English, it’s just not the same.

Sorry Pimsleur. Sorry Rosetta Stone and all the others. The bad news is that it takes hard work and concerted effort for adults to learn a foreign language. The good news is that it’s not impossible and it’s so rewarding when you succeed.

Follow Alan Elsner on Twitter:

www.twitter.com/alanelsner

Every Single US Bishop

View Comments     Email Article
     
Printable Version

Published: February 21, 2012

Has Condemned the Obama Mandate

The following comes from Thomas Peters’ American Papist blog on CatholicVote.org

From Portland, Maine to San Diego, California–
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!

Click here to go directly to American Papist blog.

---

Posted Tuesday, February 21, 2012 1:42 AM By BETTY

AMEN. I hope the USCCB has learned its lesson, and will stop putting its ‘Faith’ in the US Government. Let’s support our Bishops in this critical issue of FREEDOM of RELIGION, and encourage BISHOPS to support “SUBSIDIARITY” (CCC 1883,1885,1894,2209). I was shocked to see the USCCB supporting government flu shots, which has nothing to do with our Catholic Faith, and since no one knows what the Government will do next. There should be nothing on the USCCB web site that is not of the Catholic Faith. (Freedom of Religion is in the CCC.) Next the Bishops will have to deal with euthanasia, and health care rationing for the elderly, and physically and mentally disabled due to OBAMACARE and its costs. Everything has a cause and effect.

---

Posted Tuesday, February 21, 2012 3:50 AM By Juergensen

This is all well and good. However, there is an elephant in the room. It is the sad fact that before Obama launched this direct attack on the Church, the bishops had been largely silent as regards this monster. Had Obama simply waited until after the election to impose these new regulations on the Church, we would have heard virtually nothing from the bishops on Obama. Oh, wait, I stand corrected. We have heard from the bishops on Obama. Their USCCB tells us we can vote for this absolute abortionist “if” we simply “intend” not to support abortion when we pull the lever for him (Sec. 34, “Faithful Citizenship”). Which raises an interesting question: If Obama’s lust for abortion can be so cavalierly overlooked by Catholics in the voting booth, voting him into office while “intending” not to support abortion, why can’t the USCCB comply with Obama’s mandate while “intending” not to support contraception? Alas, the fruit of “Faithful Citizenship.”

---

Posted Tuesday, February 21, 2012 5:21 AM By Prof Helen

Finally. Thank God.

---

Posted Tuesday, February 21, 2012 6:25 AM By Juergensen

I read that Pope Benedict XVI decided not to involve himself personally in this debacle and to leave its resolution to the American bishops. Perhaps the Holy Father sees this as a debacle of the American bishops’ own doing. Perhaps the Holy Father is aware of EWTN News Chief Raymond Arroyo’s comments in an interview he gave to Laura Ingraham after the 2008 presidential election: “LAURA INGRAHAM: ‘Here is the problem, how many of the bishops voted for Obama?’ RAYMOND ARROYO: ‘The bishops I spoke to say that maybe half of their brother bishops, if not more, voted for Obama.’”

---

Posted Tuesday, February 21, 2012 6:45 AM By Proud Cathlic

Thank God for the courage of the faithful! May God richly bless you all!

---

Posted Tuesday, February 21, 2012 6:49 AM By Robert Lockwood

“Every single Bishop” should have condemed Mr. Obama when he ran for office in the first place – he has been anti-everything we hold as truths long before he ran for president. The question is why are our Catholic leaders so blind to what this man really is?

---

Posted Tuesday, February 21, 2012 7:45 AM By jOAN

I agree with Robert Lockwood….looking the other way is
the SIN of Omission, we are all guilty of that and we will all
pay for it in this world and in the next.

---

Posted Tuesday, February 21, 2012 7:45 AM By OneoftheSheep

For a time such as this, God raises up the voices of His saints. Gloria in excelsis Deo!

---

Posted Tuesday, February 21, 2012 8:58 AM By Tracy

As far as I know, unless you are with a company or church that is self insured, and you have insurance in California, whether through your job or buy it yourself or are provided it by the government, you pay for abortions and contraception. So you see, presently most Catholics in California have only two choices, go without insurance or pay for abortions and contraception and continue to violate our consciences. Federal Law will not allow one to buy medical insurance across state lines. The Bishops never had a problem with this and apparently still don’t. Please, if anyone knows of a health insurance policy we can buy in California that doesn’t cover these things, please let me know.

---

Posted Tuesday, February 21, 2012 9:19 AM By Abeca Christian

Bravo Bravo! There is power in numbers! Praise BE JESUS CHRIST! I just hope it’s not too late because this power in numbers should of came years before for preventative care of the soul and our salvation! Woe to many Catholics who voted for OBAMA!

---

Posted Tuesday, February 21, 2012 9:32 AM By Patrick

First time for everything.

---

Posted Tuesday, February 21, 2012 9:46 AM By Jeff

Unless the USCCB revises (like NOW) their wording of their document, Faithful Citizenship, their unity here means very little if anything for the future. Left as is Catholics will again support pro-abortion politicians in November.

---

Posted Tuesday, February 21, 2012 12:07 PM By Catherine

I agree with everything that Juergensen has written. We also must pray for the conversion of the many Catholic voters who still belong to those Catholic Institutions that still support Obama. The number of those many Catholics who were initially influenced by our bishops are much more than 181. There will have to be very strong preaching from each Diocese to reach, educate and teach Catholics in the pews. They need to hear that they should not have ever voted for any candidate that completely disregards the sanctity of life. They need to hear that when a candidate’s track record vehemently disregards the sanctity of life, they will surely be able to soon disregard the Constitution which protects all rights, including religious rights. To beat Obama in the next election, we will definitely need to miraculously reach the hearts and minds of the many Catholics who are sitting in the pews. The number of their votes to defeat Obama depends on total cooperation with God’s Grace and will make much more of a difference than only 181 very crucial but newly converted votes.

---

Posted Tuesday, February 21, 2012 12:30 PM By ann r

Even if you live in California, there are alternatives: Christian cost sharing ministries. I recommend Samaritan. Instead of sending money to a big insurance co. paying high salaries to executives, you send your monthly share directly to another Christian who needs it. If you have medical costs, you go as private pay and other Christians reimburse you, plus send you an upbeat note and promise to pray for you. For big ticket needs, the ministry administration negotiates for you for favorable rates. Abortion is not supported.

© California Catholic Daily 2012. All Rights Reserved.

Birth control politics and theology – Macon Chronicle

I ended up concentrating on the politics of birth control in my column on the issue, since I was running out of space and I’m a lousy theologian.

I will note for the record that I had a long, pleasant lunch last week with a Catholic friend, who is seminary-trained and experienced working with the hierarchy, who strongly disagrees with me on this and many other political issues.  He was kind enough to give me a book explaining Church teachings  on 12 tough issues, including contraception and homosexuality.  I remain unconvinced, mostly because it seems to rest, like most religious arguments, on the “proof” that the Bible tells me so. Frankly, that doesn’t carry a lot of intellectual weight with me.

I will share one theological note that I ended up cutting from a column that was still too long.  As he was explaining that the Church’s teachings on contraception were based on the idea that one should not artificially interfere with the natural process of reproduction, my friend confessed the reservation that “tooth decay is a natural process too, but the Church doesn’t tell us not to get cavities filled.”

In any event, Garry Wills is better versed in Catholic theology than I’ll ever be. He effectively debunks the position of the U.S. bishops here, in Latin where necessary, concluding that the bishops are looking for “religious dictatorship, not religious freedom.”

 

Santorum: ‘Theology’ comments about Obama’s ‘radical’ energy agenda, not faith

This is a rush transcript from “Hannity,” February 20, 2012. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

SEAN HANNITY, HOST: And there was controversy on the campaign trail over the weekend after some on the left accused presidential candidate Rick Santorum of questioning Barack Obama’s Christian values. Now, the senator denies doing so, and very openly admits that he accepts the fact that the President is a Christian. He simply says that the following statement is being taken out of context. Let’s take a look.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SANTORUM: It doesn’t fit his pattern of trying to drive down consumption, trying to drive up your cost of transportation, to accomplish his political science goal of reducing carbon dioxide emissions. This is what the president’s agenda is. It’s not about you. It’s not about you. It’s not about your quality of life. It’s not about your jobs. It’s about some phony ideal. Some phony theology. Oh, not a theology based on Bible. A different theology.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HANNITY: Obama supporters have ignored the fact that the senator was talking about radical environmentalism and not the president’s religion. Instead they are turning this into a political football. Here is our old friend — we’ve missed him — Robert Gibbs.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, “THIS WEEK”/ABC)

ROBERT GIBBS, FORMER WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: I think, it is time in our politics in which we get rid of this mindset that if we disagree we have to disqualify each other. That if we — not just on political positions but we question character and faith.

UNIDENTIFIED MAN: Do you think he was questioning his faith?

GIBBS: I can’t help but think that those remarks are well over the line. It is wrong, it’s destructive, it makes it virtually impossible to solve the problems that we all face together as Americans.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HANNITY: And joining me tonight to respond to our friend Robert Gibbs and to set the record straight once and for all, is the candidate himself, presidential candidate Rick Santorum. By the way, did President Obama say that Republicans want dirty air and water and old people and kids with autism and Down syndrome to fend for themselves –

SANTORUM: Sure.

HANNITY: Now, we got a lecture on civility from Robert Gibbs. I’m sorry, I missed that before.

SANTORUM: Yes. Throwing grandma off the cliff because we want to reform the Medicare system. This is — it’s very clear. You know, what I was talking about is the president’s driving up of gas prices. I was just in Brocket (ph) in North Dakota. And, you know, I was standing at a wellhead. And they told me that they have to sell this light sweet crude which is a premium product. I mean, this is the most highly valued crude out there. And they have to sell it to the $32 discount. Why? Because they don’t have a way to get it to the market. Because this radical environmental agenda of this president, not building the Keystone pipeline, not providing the opportunity as we’re going to lose probably the next five to 10 years, four to five million barrels a day from Alaska, Mexico, Venezuela. And we have an opportunity to build a pipeline, so we can get oil sands, oil from the oil sands in Canada and oil shale in the Backen (ph) and this president holds, you know, holds to this higher power that somehow or another, we have to worry about the global warming. That is what I considered a radical ideology. And I refer to it as a theology. But obviously, it has nothing to do with the president’s faith.

HANNITY: Let me ask you this. Because I remember you saying this. Didn’t you on numerous other occasions when asked about the president and his faith and Christianity, say that you believe he is a Christian, that he stated his Christianity.

SANTORUM: Sure.

HANNITY: How many times do you think you’ve said that on the campaign trail and elsewhere?

SANTORUM: Just about every time. I mean, look, he went to Reverend Wright’s church for 20 years. I mean, now you can question what kind of theology Reverend Wright has but it’s a Christian church. He says, he’s a Christian, he goes to Christian church now. Look, I am not going to question the president and what the president believes in when it comes to his faith. But I am going to question what he is doing in this country to drive up the cost of energy, destroy this economy and do so at the behest of a bunch of radical environmentalists who do, in fact, want to drive up the cost of energy and slow down this economy.

HANNITY: But it is interesting, because the president himself, you know, he used the quote, at the prayer breakfast that you just referenced here, and, you know, for on to whom much is given much should be required. And wasn’t he using that to justify in that particular case him quote, “Raising taxes on the rich,” so he can redistribute wealth? I mean, was he questioning the Christian faith of those that think we are overtaxed? Can we interpret it that way? As I watched you on “Face the Nation” this weekend, I was thinking, you know, why does the media have this double standard when it comes to President Obama?

SANTORUM: Well, it’s perfectly clear. I mean, let’s be honest. This is standard fare. I mean, I’m not saying anything particularly new here. I mean, what we have been talking about, the radical environmental agenda that puts the earth over the needs of man, that, you know, doesn’t understand that the best way to create a sound environment is for people to be doing well and to have prosperity. Because you go to countries where in fact the mankind is not doing well. And let me assure you, the last thing they worry about is the environment. It depends on America’s growth and prosperity, so we can in fact be good — husband to the environment as the way we should. And that is all I was talking about. And for them to continually distort, this is the kind of stuff that I think is actually, I think one of the reasons we’re doing well in the polls, because people see it for what it is. They see a national media trying to destroy conservatives.

HANNITY: Let me ask you this. Because this I think is very, very important. Because obviously your vetting is going on right now. And it seems to more than anything else revolve around social issues and social conservatism. You talk a lot about national security and about the economy. And about Iran as a threat. All these things. But it seems to now be focused more than anything else as you know about these issues. As senator, and you are Catholic, you have your views on birth control that as I understand that are in sync with the Catholic Church, is that correct?

SANTORUM: Right. They are. Yes.

HANNITY: OK. Now in your years as senator, did you ever vote to ban birth control? Would you ever vote to ban birth control? Did you ever vote to deny funding for government programs that provide contraceptive or birth control? It looks like you are laughing, or frustrated. I’m not trying to frustrate you. I’m trying to –

SANTORUM: No, no, no, I’m not frustrated at all. I mean, you know, look, this issue is not about birth control. I mean, there is nothing in my record that shows that I try to block anybody from getting birth control. Look, I’m not a big fan of Title X, that is Planned Parenthood. No, I want to defund Planned Parenthood. I supported, you know, title 20 programs. You know, not providing, you know, Planned Parenthood with all these government dollars for that purpose. But as far as people’s right to get them, absolutely people have the right to get them. It’s a country, this is a freedom that people have. And there is nothing in my record that would impose my values on this. But that is not the question here. The question is religious liberty. What the Obama administration was doing was telling a group of Catholics or people of faith that they had to do, they had to violate their own faith in order to do something –

HANNITY: On the contraception mandate.

SANTORUM: – the government told them they had to do. Yes. That’s right.

HANNITY: Go ahead. I wasn’t questioning your position on that. Because I think that has been very well vetted now. And I think it was a clear violation of our first amendment on a lot of different areas. But it seems that right now, that there are people that are trying to position you as an extreme social conservative that in a general election is going to have a hard time, you know, syncing up with the feelings or sentiment of the nation and getting elected against Obama in a general election matchup. So, that’s why I wanted to get to specifics of it.

SANTORUM: Yes, well, the specifics are, you know, not everything that is immoral — look, I don’t believe people should lie. But I’m not going to pass a law that is going to criminalize lying. I mean, this is the absurdity again of the tenets, that when you stand up and you say well, you know, this is how I believe morally that I should live my life. All of a sudden now, because your moral values don’t comport with what their moral values are, all of a sudden, oh, he must be trying to impose his values. This is the kind of, you know, this makes it, you know, really a war on people of faith. Particularly the Catholic faith. Which again, I mean, it’s very clear what the Obama administration is doing on that front. And it’s very clear that if you hold those type of beliefs, that you’re going to be held up for ridicule for doing so, and accused of doing something which I haven’t done in my political career, which is to try to impose those values on anybody else.

Content and Programming Copyright 2012 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2012 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.

Birth control politics and theology

I ended up concentrating on the politics of birth control in my column on the issue, since I was running out of space and I’m a lousy theologian.

I will note for the record that I had a long, pleasant lunch last week with a Catholic friend, who is seminary-trained and experienced working with the hierarchy, who strongly disagrees with me on this and many other political issues.  He was kind enough to give me a book explaining Church teachings  on 12 tough issues, including contraception and homosexuality.  I remain unconvinced, mostly because it seems to rest, like most religious arguments, on the “proof” that the Bible tells me so. Frankly, that doesn’t carry a lot of intellectual weight with me.

I will share one theological note that I ended up cutting from a column that was still too long.  As he was explaining that the Church’s teachings on contraception were based on the idea that one should not artificially interfere with the natural process of reproduction, my friend confessed the reservation that “tooth decay is a natural process too, but the Church doesn’t tell us not to get cavities filled.”

In any event, Garry Wills is better versed in Catholic theology than I’ll ever be. He effectively debunks the position of the U.S. bishops here, in Latin where necessary, concluding that the bishops are looking for “religious dictatorship, not religious freedom.”