Every Single U.S. Bishop

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.

Posted Tuesday, February 21, 2012 1:15 PM By Tee
Had every single U.S. Bishop supported Humnae Vitae when promulgated by Pope Pius VI on July 25, 1968, placed an ad in the New York Times on July 28, 1968 stating so, would the Catholic Church in the US be extolling that fact that all the shepherds are in accord in condeming the Obama Mandate? What do you think? Are the U.S. Bishops a little late at the plate? Or, how does one put the genie back in the bottle.

Posted Tuesday, February 21, 2012 2:20 PM By JLS
ann r, that is an amazing program you bring up!!! Is there a track record? It sounds like a “to each according to his needs, and from each according to his abilities”. History is loaded with such efforts, most notably Leo Tolstoi, who established a community in Russia attempting to create a society based on this view of Christianity.

Posted Tuesday, February 21, 2012 2:36 PM By JMJ
I believe that these Bishops being in agreement 100% is a FIRST and I thank Obama for doing one thing right. I wish that I could be in agreement with Catherine about Juergensen, but, it is apparent that he hasn’t read what our very Holy and Blessed Father, Pope John II said not only about those that have very little (or no) choice in the matter about pro-death people running for office, but, he has also talked about the politicians that are in a very difficult position, when a bill comes up that needs to be enacted upon that has an abortion-link attached to it, that they must very clearly state that they are against the evil that is placed in there. Sorry, Juergensen, Pope Benedict did not pass this mess off onto the Bishops in the manner that you implied and your implies are pure nonsense. Re-read his statement, without adding anything to it or taking anything out of it and while you are at it, read his New Year’s day “state of the union”. +JMJ+

Posted Tuesday, February 21, 2012 2:57 PM By Kenneth M. Fisher
Closing the barn door after the livestock have already escaped! I also agree with Jurrgensen. God bless, yours in Their Hearts, Kenneth M. Fisher

Posted Tuesday, February 21, 2012 4:00 PM By Tracy
ann r, I have looked into Samaritan as you have suggested, which I presume you belong to. I have a problem with their Guidelines part B. It states “I believe that all people are born with a sinful nature and can be saved from eternal death only by trusting in Christ’s atoning death and resurrection to save us from our sins and give us eternal life.” This statement, to my understanding, eliminates the need for Baptism. Obviously, I do not agree with this. That being said, I think cost sharing, might be something the Catholic Church might want to look into, just know that if it got big enough, it will be found to be illegal by Big Government Also, Sameritan, will not allow anyone with pre-existing heart disease as well as only covers bills up to $250,000, which does not sound like major medical coverage to me. Bottom Line the Bishops need to speak out against the way all health insurance is currently allowed by US law. We should not be limited to purchasing health insurance only from a company participating in the state where we live. I’ll say it again, the Bishops have not been concerned that many Catholics have and continue to be forced into this quandary of violating their conscience.

Posted Tuesday, February 21, 2012 6:38 PM By michael P. Mc Crory.
All very confusing for most catholics, I think. What a grave derelection of duty and shockingly bad leadership from our Bishops , as a unit. Is it not time that the good Bishops stand up and point out the bad ones so the people would know who is loyal and who is not. Look how blunt Jesus could be with His top man, Peter. He would not tolerate Peter misleading the others. How can the loyal, Majisterium Bishops stay silent when they know their fellow Bishops are misleading ( or NOT leading, more often ) their poorly informed flock. Time to get behind our Pope and NOT Collegiality. Frank Sheed ( of Sheed and Ward, ) nailed it in the 1970’s when he said: ” The pews of today’s churches are filled with people whose day to day lives are not significantly influenced by Christ.” The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Most good catholics know that a man who is a true priest, and thankfully I’ve known many a one, is a treasure beyond measure – the greatest gift to our world. Having said that, I do believe that if Christ were to return now MOST of our priests and Bishops would be running scared and hiding in shame. At least I have found it so. Benedicamus Domino.

Posted Tuesday, February 21, 2012 6:40 PM By SoCal
In a land of Big Government, everything else gets real small. In the U.S., the Catholic Bishops, have generally been on board with the “social justice” agenda. It never seemed to occur to them to ask themselves, If health care is a “human right” in the debased contemporary sense (i.e., not a restraint upon the state — as in Magna Carta — but a gift of the state), then who gets to define what health care is? Answer: Commissar Sebelius. As government grows, the separation of church and state is replaced by the state as church — an established religion of sacred secularism that crowds any rivals out of the public square. I hope Shepards are finally waking up to the fact that The State has become a pack of ravenous wolves and stops feeding them and bringing them into the sheepfold.

Posted Tuesday, February 21, 2012 7:11 PM By JLS
A priest and a mininster and a half dozen protesters were arrested today at the White House. Let the bishops now rally up and bring forth their rams horns and walk around the White House aka the New Jerico, ’til the walls of tyranny come a’tumblin’ down. A few bishops hauled off to the slammer might awaken a few million dozing Catholics.

Posted Tuesday, February 21, 2012 7:15 PM By JLS
I continue to think that there is something incredibly wrong with the extreme prices of medical care.

Posted Tuesday, February 21, 2012 7:23 PM By Juergensen
JMJ: I did not say the Holy father “pass[ed] this mess off onto the Bishops.” Your term “passing off” implies it was the Holy Father’s mess to begin with, which it certainly wasn’t. What I said is that “I read that Pope Benedict XVI decided not to involve himself personally in this debacle and to leave its resolution to the American bishops,” as the Holy Father sees this as a “debacle of the American bishops’ own doing,” as per EWTN News Chief Raymond Arroyo’s comment that “The bishops I spoke to say that maybe half of their brother bishops, if not more, voted for Obama.” The Holy Father didn’t issue “Faithful Citizenship,” or vote for Obama, or lead 52% of Catholics to vote for Obama, so he had nothing to “pass off.”

Posted Tuesday, February 21, 2012 7:51 PM By Cody in Tucson
This article states “I am no longer able to find a single Roman Catholic bishop who has NOT spoken out against the mandate publicly”. I will argue about the definition of the word “PUBLICLY”. How is Bishop Kicanas included in this list? Do 2-3 statements buried in his Monday Memo on his website mean he has made this issue public (not on the home page like I have seen other Bishops do, Olmsted and Vigneron for example)? Is 1 TV interview (he was probably asked to make comment by a local TV station which I never saw), public? Is a statement made through Cath Relief Services public? I think not! I have not seen any statement of his published in the bulletin at 3 parishes or read from the pulpit. Is this public? If you randomly surveyed Catholics in the Diocese of Tucson and asked them when and where they might have heard any statement from the Bishop, how many would have a clue? How many would give a shrug of their shoulders?

Posted Tuesday, February 21, 2012 7:58 PM By Cody in Tucson
Kenneth – Another thought about my favorite “orthodox” bishop. During the primary season back in 2008 Bishop Kicanas published about 8 positive articles in his diocesan paper about the democrat candidates, mostly about Obama and a couple mentioned Clinton. Now in 2012, with 2 Catholics running on the Republican side, one being very traditional, there have been absolutely NO, ZERO, NONE, NATTA articles published in his paper about these candidates.

Posted Tuesday, February 21, 2012 10:22 PM By ann r
Tracy, we certainly thought about that phrase very seriously before we joined, and decided that it did not run counter our faith. “I believe that all people are born with a sinful nature and can be saved from eternal death only by trusting in Christ’s atoning death and resurrection to save us from our sins and give us eternal life.” We need baptism and the church because we need Christ’s atoning death to save us, so we figured the statement actually underlay our need for the sacraments. Because it is a broadly Christian, not strictly Catholic, organization, the belief statement has to be pretty basic. I would say most members are evangelicals, however there are Amish and Mennonites as well. One must also subscribe to Christian standards of morality, and the organization is strongly pro-life. While pre-existing conditions are not covered, they will often publish them as uncovered needs, and kindly, generous souls will help out anyway. And how many insurance companies pray for you!

Posted Wednesday, February 22, 2012 12:03 AM By JLS
The problem with the phrase is that it is a cleverly worded Calvinist concept. Catholicism teaches that we are created with a fallen nature and not one full of sin aka sinful. Calvinism teaches that man is created totally depraved, and also that salvation does not depend on the individual soul but on the will of God. So, this phrase points to the Calvinist doctrine. But it is worded carefully so as not to offend Catholics … obviously, or else it would be worded more strongly. It is a hook with a financial worm on it. On the Cross Jesus refused medicare in the form of government provided anaesthetic offered him by one of the soldiers. That is what it ultimately comes down to; however, Calvinist doctrine says that it is already over and no more will the Crucifixion take place. Catholicism teaches that Crucifixion continues. Calvinism teaches that government and religion are the same, somewhat in the manner of a theocracy, somewhat in the manner of the ancient Jews. To the Calvinist, the “separation of church and state” means the exclusion of Catholicism and other non-Calvinist religions such as Islam. The Pope recently said that he approved of separation of Church and state; Jesus teaches via the passage about the Zealots, that the Church, ie His Kingdom, is not of this world, but is of a different order. The Church disciples the nations, but does not become one; the Pope tells the bishops to become holy … no mention about becoming a government. Those who cannot see the difference, always accuse the Church of wanting to take over govts, a rival of all other governments. Catholics who push abortion have gone with the Zealots of this world and not with the Kingdom of the next.

Posted Wednesday, February 22, 2012 12:09 AM By JLS
Cody, how is it that you say Santorum is “very traditional”, when he pushes widespread contraception and birth control? All I see that he has going for him is the same as what Romney has going for him, large families with the original wives. Noot is a convert, and so far I have not heard of any anti-Catholic position from him since his conversion.

Posted Wednesday, February 22, 2012 12:16 AM By JLS
Can’t blame the state for taking more and more control, and the bishops less and less. They’re on the federal payroll, what else could possibly be the outcome? The problem is not the state but the bishops, who are effectively in God’s way. This is why the Pope has told them to become holy … ie, their reason for being. Most of them are neither hot nor cold, but milquetoast, lukewarm, vapid, banal, and do nothing but cause problems and manage financial enterprises for their worldly overlords in Washington.

Posted Wednesday, February 22, 2012 6:36 AM By kaves1
I found an article on the EWTN website that I found interesting. Below is a paraphrase of what I read. Supporters of the Obama HHS ‘accommodation’ have said in defense of the ‘accommodation’ that it will reduce cost and that this savings must be used by the insurance company to pay for birth control. The religious institutions would not have to pay. The savings would come in lessened postnatal costs from fewer births. By this convoluted logic the religious institution, to avoid paying for birth control, would need to have a sufficient number of its employees using artificial birth control/abortion inducing drugs. Otherwise, there would be no savings. But this puts the institution in the awkward position of avoiding payment only by having a sufficient number of its employees go against the religious institutions teaching! If the institution were to accept this it would be acting in a very hypocritical manner. Do you see the deception in Obama’s and his supporters ‘accommodation’?

Posted Wednesday, February 22, 2012 10:01 AM By Lenny
Hey Juergensen, I hate to tell you this, but John McCain was not against abortion. He said the decision belonged at the state level. But seriously, saying Obama has a lust for abortion is over the line, isn’t it?

Posted Wednesday, February 22, 2012 11:32 AM By Juergensen
Lenny: First, I have not said anything about McCain and abortion. Second, while not 100% pro-life, McCain was far more opposed to abortion than Obama, who relishes abortion so much that as a state Senator he voted against a bill that would have protected the lives of babies that survived abortion. Yes, Obama votes not only to slaughter babies in the womb, but to have them killed outside the womb too.

Posted Wednesday, February 22, 2012 4:33 PM By Abeca Christian
Lenny the word hate is a strong word. Don’t water it down, if you hate to tell him that, then don’t do it. Plus Juergensen is right, Obama has no issue with partial birth abortion on any late stages of the pregnancy!

Posted Wednesday, February 22, 2012 5:43 PM By Abeca Christian
The new and improved Go Green logo includes saving the unborn children, it’s good for the environment!

Posted Wednesday, February 22, 2012 6:46 PM By Cody in Tucson
JLS – Boy, you sure do read a lot into people’s comments, more than is actually there. I never mentioned a name when I said “very traditional”, but Santorum does attend the Latin Mass. Take a breath!

Posted Wednesday, February 22, 2012 8:34 PM By JLS
Cody, how is Santorum a traditional Catholic, since his rise in politics has been in company with pushing contraception and allowing abortion? I thought traditional Catholicism was the same as faithful Catholicism.

Posted Wednesday, February 22, 2012 11:29 PM By JLS
Cody, I just re-read your post in question. You mention Santorum, because you mention two Catholic candidates and one being traditional. Newt is certainly not traditional and that leaves Ricky. So it’s a traditionalist with big solid family who throws the “people” to the wolves … Cody this is not Christianity, but the same old thing Jesus continually excoriated the stiff necked Jews for. Let’s look at Prodigal Son, Noot: So far I have yet to hear how since his conversion to the Church that he has enabled abortion or contraception. Noot seems to be open to view and not disguised with a publicity persona. Maybe I’m wrong on this, but it’s time to learn the facts.

Posted Thursday, February 23, 2012 1:28 AM By Kenneth M. Fisher
JLS, Do you have any idea how much “Malpractice Insurance” cost. “Malpractice Insurance” that in most cases the Doctors are forced to obtain by our litegious society and the government. Tort reform is your solution to high medical costs, not government! God bless, yours in Their Hearts, Kenneth M. Fisher

Posted Thursday, February 23, 2012 1:42 AM By he pushes widesprea
JLS, Please quote time and verse where Santorum has pushed widespread contraception and birth control if you can? I can support either Santorum or Gingrich. Neither one is perfect, but only Our Lord and His Mother were perfect! God bless, yours in Their Hearts, Kenneth M. Fisher

Posted Thursday, February 23, 2012 10:01 AM By Abeca Christian
Mr, Fisher my uncle who lives in Stanton Island, he would agree with you, malpractice insurance is very expensive. He is an excellent doctor but still has to buy that insurance to protect himself from those who falsely want to sue. When he told me what he had to pay for yearly, I almost fell off my chair. So expensive, that is also an abuse and I often wonder, who would want to be a doctor today, they can’t even practice medicine the right way anymore because for fear of being sued. I’m speaking for the good doctors. Also my sister is a PA (physician assistant), she wanted to go full on and also become a doctor but instead became a PA (which is also a doctor except you are the assistant) but she didn’t want to worry about all those extra huge expenses of being a doctor, it was better if she was under the umbrella of a doctor instead. She said less headache.

Posted Thursday, February 23, 2012 1:49 PM By Anne T.
One blogger on another site put it all in perspective when he wrote, “Obama’s philosophy on birthcontrol:: It’s cheaper to slay them than pay them.” I think that blogger “put it all in a nutshell”.

Posted Thursday, February 23, 2012 4:03 PM By JLS
Anne T., the problem with “cheaper to slay them than to pay them” is that it is a myth. The population is growing despite abortion and contraception. The number is regulated by the economy, not by abortion. The abortionists who claim it to be an economic benefit are lying. It is a human sacrifice to the devil,whether they comprehend what they are doing or not.

Posted Thursday, February 23, 2012 4:09 PM By JLS
Kenneth: Huff Post Feb 23 “Santorum In ’95: ‘I Was Basically Pro-Choice All My Life, Until I Ran For Congress’ ” Kenneth, this title is the intro; the essay has more to say than this. Is it factual? Maybe you can determine.

Posted Thursday, February 23, 2012 6:25 PM By Noelle
NOW, if every single “Catholic” bishop would excommunicate pro-choice, anti-marriage politicians, then maybe, just maybe, they would set an example for the rest of the flock to follow. ELECTING PRO-ABORT AND PRO-HOMSEXUAL POLITICIANS WILL RESULT IN LAWLESSNESS, IMMORAILITY, AND THE END OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION AND AMERICA FOREVER!!!!!!!

Posted Thursday, February 23, 2012 9:01 PM By Kenneth M. Fisher
JLS, “Until” means he is not now, what is the problem? I would not trust Huff Post with my worst enemy because Our Lord said we must love our enemies! They are also trying to stop him because his wife was once a nurse to an abortionist. I have and had friends who were once abortionist, no problem praise God and His Mother that they are such no more. God bless, yours in Their Hearts, Kenneth M. Fisher

Posted Friday, February 24, 2012 6:32 PM By Anne T.
Well, what I meant, JLS, is that you and I and other pro-life people know that but President Obama does not. I am sorry I did not make that clearer.

Posted Friday, February 24, 2012 6:44 PM By Anne T.
Also, JLS, Senator Santorum has been one of the few legislators who had consistently shown what abortions actually are to Congress. He has made Senators Barbara Boxer, Dianne Feinstein and Nancy Pelosi very angry by his confrontations. I do not think he has ever pushed contraceptives or abortions. He did one time back Senator Arlen Specter, which made me angry, but he has said that that was to get his co operation on another good bill, and I think it was a bill that would have limited abortion somewhat, such as the Born Alive Act. When he says that he would not outlaw contraceptives totally, it is only because he could not do so unless the American public wanted that and backed him. I do not think, though, that he would encourage the use of them because he has already said that he thinks they are harmful to women, etc.

Posted Friday, February 24, 2012 6:58 PM By Anne T.
As far as Newt Gringrich, I think his association with Pope John Paul II has all been for his betterment. As far as his second wife is concerned, I have no sympathy for her whatsoever. From what I have read and heard, although she knew he was married or when she found out, she had no trouble breaking up his marriage. She should have dumped him when she found out as many other woman have done to married men.

Posted Friday, February 24, 2012 7:08 PM By JLS
The political laundry has to be aired and the truth told; otherwise it will not go well for Santorum, as it will make him look like he is hiding it.

Posted Friday, February 24, 2012 7:17 PM By k
I was shocked to see that Rick Santorum said on Greta Van Susteren’s Fox News show “On the Record” that he voted for public funding of contraception even through organizations like Planned Parenthoood. The tape I saw was dated February 17.

Posted Saturday, February 25, 2012 9:01 PM By Anne T.
Calista, whom Newt Gringrich is married to now, is not the wife who broke up his first marriage.

Posted Tuesday, March 06, 2012 9:58 AM By kaves1
Don’t close down, don’t pay the fines and when the govt comes to shut the place down video tape them onto You tube, etc for the world to see.