It pains me as a Catholic to say it, but this response by Archbishop Dolan to the Obama administration’s in-your-face HHS-mandate provocation is simply pathetic:
Dolan said he met with the president weeks ago in the Oval Office to talk about the law. Dolan said the president gave his promise the provision would go away, but it hasn’t. “It seems to be at odds with very sincere assurances that he gave me, that he wanted to continue to work with the church in these endeavors and views and projects he shared a passionate interest in, so I can’t figure it out,” Dolan said.
“When I left the Oval Office, where I was very grateful for his invitation to be there, I left with high hopes. That nothing his administration would do would impede the good work that he admitted and acknowledged in the church,” Dolan said. “And I’m afraid I don’t have those sentiments of hope now.”
Is the American clergy this naive? Are their moral detectors so deficient that they would trust a man of Obama’s moral track record? “Sincere assurances” and “high hopes” mean nothing to an Alinskyite practitioner of American taqiyya, for whom subterfuge, dissimulation, misdirection, and bald-faced lying are a way of life, but it’s obvious that the Cardinal-designate is utterly clueless about these things.
I mean, really: “Can’t figure it out”? “Seems to be at odds”? Your Eminence, it is at odds, which should lead you only to one conclusion about the president’s sincerity and veracity. As Sherlock Holmes liked to say, “when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.”
No one wants to believe the president of the United States or any other high governmental official would deliberately lie to the Archbishop of New York. But what other conclusion can a reasonable person reach? That Valerie Jarrett and Kathleen Sebelius made him do it?
One of the problems the Right consistently has in dealing with the Left is its touching credulity in their stated motives, instead of assessing their genuine objectives. Like the Archbishop, we’re constantly taken by surprise when the entirely predictable happens. Haven’t any of the princes of the Church read the essential text on the subject of good and evil (and the deception that evil must practice in order to overcome good), Milton’s Paradise Lost?
As God says to Jesus in Book Three regarding Satan’s seductive mission:
Onely begotten Son, seest thou what rage
Transports our adversarie, whom no bounds
Prescrib’d, no barrs of Hell, nor all the chains
Heapt on him there, nor yet the main Abyss
Wide interrupt can hold; so bent he seems
On desparate reveng, that shall redound
Upon his own rebellious head. And now
Through all restraint broke loose he wings his way
Not farr off Heav’n, in the Precincts of light,
Directly towards the new created World,
And Man there plac’t, with purpose to assay
If him by force he can destroy, or worse,
By some false guile pervert; and shall pervert
For man will heark’n to his glozing lyes,
And easily transgress the sole Command,
Sole pledge of his obedience: So will fall,
Hee and his faithless Progenie: whose fault?
Whose but his own? ingrate, he had of mee
All he could have; I made him just and right,
Sufficient to have stood, though free to fall.
No, they were probably boning up on liberation theology instead.
Somewhere, Dagger John is weeping.
I think you stabbed the heart of it, there.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDid the President promise him that the provision would go away? Based on the quote from the Archbishop, it doesn't seem so. He says the President gave him assurances that the President "wanted to continue to work with the church in these endeavors and views and projects he shared a passionate interest in." That's far from a promise to remove the HHS mandate. That's politician speak for "no, of course I'm not going to do what you want, but I'm going to tell you how valuable you are to me because I don't want to lose ALL your votes, just in case you're stupid enough to think I'm on your side."
Did the Archbishop ask him a direct question and receive a direct answer about the HHS provision? It sounds to me like the Archbishop was incredibly naive in believing that reassurances of being valued are the same thing as promises to do something. Why is it that in today's society, so many important people have a hard time asking direct, hard questions?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNo, what is pathetic is to expect the chairman of the USCCB to comport himself in a less-than-diplomatic way. Talk of civil disobedience, etc. is silly and premature considering that both Congress and the Supreme Court have yet to formally weigh in. Balance of powers FTW.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMr. Walsh: How dare you take issue with anything the catholic leadership says; next thing you know catholics won't slavishly adhere to doctrine and other human-contrived rules.
This line is the funniest in the post in terms of overheated blathering: "“Sincere assurances” and “high hopes” mean nothing to an Alinskyite practitioner of American taqiyya, for whom subterfuge, dissimulation, misdirection, and bald-faced lying are a way of life, but it’s obvious that the Cardinal-designate is utterly clueless about these things."
The Cardinal-designate is very familiar with all of these tactics as he and his colleagues used them to deal with the molestation scandal.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse4th paragraph word should be "sincerity" not "sincerely."
Great article. How can lay Catholics help give this voice to our clergy to wake up? It is time to appropriately label this mandate as Evil.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"mean nothing to an Alinskyite practitioner of American taqiyya, for whom subterfuge, dissimulation, misdirection, and bald-faced lying are a way of life"
What is this, World Net Daily?
Can't we get analysis that's a little higher-brow than this dreck at NRO? Geez
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSwim away, you pompous dolt.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSuch as your own analysis, perhaps? C'mon... Dazzle us.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuseyes, yes, obama is evil and comparable to satan. you persuaded me.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt probably takes a while for a man of the cloth to realize the leader of the free world is nothing but a con man. Now that he's been sucker punched, I think Dolan will come back swinging.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThat's kinda what I was thinking. I think Dolan is taking the high road, trying hard to give Obama, the President of the United States, the "leader of the free world," the benefit of the doubt. This is just his initial reaction. I read grave disappointment in his words. Let's wait and see what he does next before we judge his response as inadequate.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI doubt it. This dust up with Dolan is more like the spats between Obama and Pelosi in 2009/10. Sort of a lovers quarrel between Liberals.
The Catholic Church (I'm Catholic) has not figured out that American Liberals seek its subservience to The State. In its headlong, left-wing rush to "social justice", the Church has ignored the basic reality of Big Government...BG tolerates no dissent, and BG tolerates no market competition.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"But what other conclusion can a reasonable person reach? That Valerie Jarrett and Kathleen Sebelius made him do it?"
What's amusing is that the Obama apologia pieces in the media yesterday - obvious leaks in advance of today's climb-down, to give the President cover - paint a picture of a "White House divided", with some inside the White House questioning the moves, and others (Sebelius et al.) stridently advancing them; with the President caught, torn, in the middle; dragged down the wrong path by bad advice, wringing his hands all the way.
Total nonsense. Of course this was the President's move. He appointed Sebelius, he knew precisely what decisions she would make, which are precisely the sort of decisions that the furthest-to-the-left-in-the-Senate Obama of yesteryear would have made. The decision was ultimately his, and he ultimately bears responsibility, and if there was a fight in the White House, he should be to blame, not just for ending up on the wrong side, but for having started it all in the first place.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOf course Abp. Dolan knows the President is a bald-faced liar. He is proceeding tactically, making it clear that he is a victim of religious persecution here, not a pol looking to pick a fight with the president. I hate to say it's a game, but it is, and His Excellency is playing smart.
This is how Speaker Gingrich should have done it in '95.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseObama is quickly running out of people to lie to. Dolan is certainly not the first, and definitely not the last, person to walk into Obama's office, get lied to straight-up, then find out later that all the smiles and assurances were phony as a $2 bill.
Think about that list of people Obama has flat-out lied to. It is long. It spans both parties and crosses the political spectrum. It is overseas and at home. The man is a 100% fraud on every level. Dolan is just the latest sucker, and he is far too polite and diplomatic in calling the President the liar that he is.
As for the Archbishop's experience, speaking as a Catholic and an active participant in the local church community, I can frankly say that this is the chickens coming home to roost. The Catholic Church from the Pope on down, has asserted a "universal human right to health care". The only problem the Church has with Obamacare is that the Government, not the Church, gets to decide who gets what kinds of treatment. The Church is all in favor of "universal healthcare", and would have actively backed Obamacare were it not for the abortion provisions.
What the left-wingers in the Catholic Church are finding out, is that when it comes to Big Government Socialism, you're getting Marxism-light, and Marxism does not tolerate competition for the hearts and minds (government doesn't recognize souls) of the masses. They probably thought (like all good Libs) that they would get their special carve-out. That Liberalism would not be applied to them, because they're good Liberals. Well, now they know. I won't expect the Church to suddenly take a close look at the false religion of Liberalism, but I am enjoying watching the Church finally have its reckoning with the pro-death party it has tried to accomodate.
I'm also enjoying watching Obama's fake religiosity shatter itself on his own pretentiousness. Obama can lie to everyone everywhere, but he cannot lie to God.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseArchbishop Dolan is not necessarily telling all the truth here. Let's be a little skeptical. This is a totally manufactured controversy. Hundreds of Catholic-affiliated hopitals, universities and other institutions have been offering birth-control coverage in their insurance plans for years without a peep from the bishops until the last couple of weeks. Suddenly it's an attack on religious freedom.
bill
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSo... you're saying there's no meaningful difference between voluntarily providing a service and being forced by law to provide the same service. You're saying that, because some Catholic institutions choose to provide insurance plans that cover birth-control, there's no problem with forcing all Catholic institutions to provide insurance plans that cover birth-control.
Change the verbage slightly and see if it still holds up...
Some Christian churches choose to provide wedding ceremonies for homosexual couples. Under your logic, it is not therefore an attack on religious freedom for the Federal government to force all Christian churches to provide wedding ceremonies for homosexual couples. And any Christians who raise a fuss about such a mandate would just be angling for some nebulous political gain?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThere's a very simple reason for this. If church organizations choose to violate the rules of their own faith, that's their problem. They can take it up with God. Religious freedom is not at issue.
When the State requires a church organization to violate the rules of its faith, that IS a religious freedom issue, by definition.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseActually there are a large number of "catholic" hospitals that are no longer affiliated with the RCC. If you go to thier website and search thier org chart, you will find innocuous things like "sponsored by the Sister of the..."; you may even find a nun or priest that sits on thier board. But, these hospitals no longer are "Catholic" in the sense that they must abide by Church directives concerning abortion, contraception, and sterilization. And in many cases, the Orders have died out due to old age or death. But, quite a few of these hospitals keep thier original name despite thier loss of affiliation.
Many Catholic Universities are going the same route. Local Bishops have the authority to pull thier affiliation if thier actions, cirriculum, and theological stances run contrary to the Church's. However, if a Bishop fails to do this, the affiliation remains no matter how outrageous the school's behavior.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSo, Democrats are evil incarnate and Obama is Satan? That ought to win you some swing states...
Seriously, as (I think) a thoughtful person from the political left, I come to NRO to hear thoughtful discussions form the other side of the spectrum and I usually get it. If I wanted to hear half-baked rhetoric about how "evil" the other side is, there are (unfortunately) lots of places I could go. This sludge doesn't belong here.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse