Fri 18th Apr 2014 | Last updated: Thu 17th Apr 2014 at 22:10pm

Facebook Logo Twitter Logo RSS Logo
Hot Topics

Comment & Blogs

Now Obama has proved it: he really is an enemy of the Catholic Church. But how will that affect the 54 per cent of Catholics who voted for him last time?

Why do I have a sinking feeling about the answer to that question? Someone cheer me up, do

By on Friday, 27 January 2012

President Obama and Kathleen Sebelius, US health secretary (Photo: CNS)

President Obama and Kathleen Sebelius, US health secretary (Photo: CNS)

About a year ago, I wrote a blog entitled “Why Barack Obama has to be seen as an enemy of the Catholic Church”. This was picked up by quite a few American Catholic blogs, for example this one, which reproduced the piece in full; and it attracted much favourable attention: but some of the reactions, also from American Catholics – who presumably were from that shameful 54 per cent of Catholics who voted for Obama – were not favourable.

Well, if ever there was any doubt about whether or not I was right, it has now been removed – that is for Catholics who understand, unlike the late Cardinal Bernardin, with his “seamless garment” theology (according to which abortion, say, was just one of a whole raft of other issues like war and peace, opposition to the death penalty, welfare reform and civil liberties), that actually “life issues” are not like others, negotiable or – like the morality of war, for instance – subject to context and circumstance: who understand, in other words, that abortion and euthanasia are always and under all circumstances, just wrong.

Obama’s health secretary has now issued a ruling: that under his administration’s Health Care Act not only must any provider of health care be prepared to supply artificial contraception (including drugs which, though labelled contraceptive, are in fact abortifacient) but that that definitely includes Catholics (for the CNS story, see here):

(CNSNews.com) – Cardinal Donald Wuerl, head of the Catholic archdiocese of Washington, DC, issued a warning last week against the implementation of an Obamacare regulation that would place many Catholic employers in an “untenable position” by requiring all health care plans to cover sterilization and abortion-inducing contraceptives, in violation of religious liberty and particularly Catholic moral teaching.

His warning coincided with a full-page ad by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), which said the regulation, set to start on Aug. 1, 2012, could “severely curtail” Catholic health care providers.

Catholic institutions account for 12.7 percent of the nation’s hospitals, according to the 2009 American Hospital Association Annual Survey, with more than 5.6 million patients admitted to Catholic hospitals in a one-year period. An additional 1,400 long-term care and other Catholic health facilities are present in all 50 states, according to the Catholic Health Association of the United States. Also, there are about 70 million Catholics in the United States.

So, American Catholics, you now know, if you didn’t know before: you cannot, if you are a faithful Catholic, vote for this man. He is an enemy of your Church and everything it stands for. But that prompts the question: how come so many Catholics voted for him last time? How come, while we are about it, that one of the first things that happened in his presidency was the conferring on him of an honorary degree by Notre Dame, that renowned “Catholic” University?

This is a long and murky story. It involves telling (which I don’t have time for here) all about the links between Notre Dame and certain clergy from the Archdiocese of Chicago (prop. the above-mentioned Cardinal Bernardin) and their connections with a legendary political radical, a Marxist atheist called Saul Alinsky, who despite his many attacks on the Church received vast funding from something called the Catholic Fund for Human Development (CHD), an agency of the USCCB which over the years has raised hundreds of millions from second collections taken up after Sunday Mass. The following are examples of some of the grants made by the CHD:

• 1985: $40,000 for Chicago’s Developing Communities Project, led by then lead organiser, Barack Obama
• 1986: $33,000 for Obama’s Developing Communities Project, which Obama continued to lead
• 1992: ACORN funding (see below) for Project Vote, a Chicago programme which Obama also led
• 1995: Cardinal Bernardin helped commit $116,000 from the national CHD fund to Chicago Metropolitan Sponsors, an Alinsky Industrial Areas Foundation organisation
• 2000 – 2008: $7m went to ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now), an Alinsky-influenced, leftist network under criminal investigation in several states. ACORN supports radical, ‘in your face’ local and national causes as well as abortion. CHD funding stopped only in November 2008, well after every other American wondered when the bishops would halt the allocation of $1m to the group.
• Ongoing: $20,000 to $30,000 per community group across the country under the guise of ‘community organisation’
• Also ongoing: 4% to 5% of total CHD funds to the Gamaliel Foundation, a Marxist socio-political network of Alinsky-inspired organisations
• Still ongoing: Alinsky’s own Industrial Areas Foundation, which receives 16% of CHD funds annually!

No wonder that when Obama received his degree at Notre Dame, he spoke so warmly about Cardinal Bernardin: he was addressing an institution that had been deeply impregnated with the CHD mentality and with Cardinal Bernardin’s seamless garment theology. No wonder that when he later spoke to a small group of Catholic journalists, he more or less told them that Cardinal Bernardin had given him his (very Left-wing) start in politics:

“The president said he had fond memories of Cardinal Bernardin and that when he started his neighborhood projects, they were funded by the Catholic Campaign for Human Development,” he said. “After the first question, from the National Catholic Reporter‘s Joe Feuerherd, the president jokingly asked, ‘Was there really [a controversy at Notre Dame]?’
“The president spoke about how during Cardinal Bernardin’s time the US bishops spoke about the nuclear freeze, the sanctuary movement, immigration, and the poor, but that later a decided change took place,” added Fr Kearns. “He said that the responses to his administration mirror the tensions in the Church overall, but that Cardinal Bernardin was pro-life and never hesitated to make his views known, but he had a consistent ‘seamless garment’ approach that emphasized the other issues as well. The president said that that part of the Catholic tradition continues to inspire him. Those issues, he said, seemed to have gotten buried by the abortion debate.”

Well, Mr President, you’re wrong: there has indeed been something, perhaps not yet enough, of a “decided change” (though what about the CHD? I’d like to know, if anyone can tell me): but American Catholics still take issues to do with social justice seriously, of course they do. Notre Dame, however, is now very clearly seen as being an institution which is Catholic in name only. And that is a very definite advance: at least American Catholics know where they are. It might be fitting, indeed, to end with the letter Archbishop Nienstedt of Saint Paul and Minneapolis wrote to the President of Notre Dame about his now notorious invitation to Obama, a letter which spelled out the parting of the ways very clearly:

Dear Father Jenkins:

I have just learned that you, as President of the University of Notre Dame, have invited President Barack Obama to be the graduation commencement speaker at the University’s exercises on May 17, 2009. I was also informed that you will confer on the president an honorary doctor of laws degree, one of the highest honors bestowed by your institution.

I write to protest this egregious decision on your part. President Obama has been a pro-abortion legislator. He has indicated, especially since he took office, his deliberate disregard of the unborn by lifting the ban on embryonic stem cell research, by promoting the FOCA [Freedom of Choice Act] agenda and by his open support for gay rights throughout this country.

It is a travesty that the University of Notre Dame, considered by many to be a Catholic University, should give its public support to such an anti-Catholic politician.

I hope that you are able to reconsider this decision. If not, please do not expect me to support your University in the future.

Sincerely yours,

The Most Reverend John C. Nienstedt Archbishop of Saint Paul and Minneapolis

That about says it all; and now Obama’s abortionist Health Care Act has put the matter beyond doubt. The question now is this: how will that 54 per cent of American Catholics (and that’s a lot of votes) who helped put him into the presidency, vote this time? And why is it that I have a sinking feeling about the answer to that question?

  • Anonymous

    Must be my account then. I post from all different browsers and computers and am sure to reload.

    This is kind of embarrasssing.

  • Anonymous

    How about you use paragraphs, limits the number of points, and try and keep it from a Catholic (not a Republican) point of view.

    And I’d be happy to discuss and talk with you. (truely)

  • Anonymous

    lol

  • Anonymous

    On contraception you are speaking with 90% of Catholics. Sex is pleasurable, and the Church should get over its disgust.

    Really inside a divoted marriage, when no more children are wanted, what could be the issue? No harm done.

    However having an un-wanted child is harmful for both the child, the parents and the marriage.

  • Anonymous

    you go girl. Correct choice :)

  • Anonymous

    Republicans make much more of a mockery of Catholic teachings and values. Therefore Davanna is making the right choice.

  • Anonymous

    Or else what? Don’t vote??

  • Anonymous

    The Church is not listening to ethics, nor an intelligent God, nor science.

    Its stance on contraception is absurd.

    Thats what Jesus wanted isn’t it? AIDS, children with AIDS, unwanted mistake children and familes that cannot feed their children because they have so many.

    We want a world were children are loved, and not a burden, and we want to follow science when it tells us that millions of lives could be saved with there use.

    No wonder the Pope nearly cracked over the issue with the whole ‘if you are a male prostitute then maybe” thing – the facts and effects are so blatent and obvious it’s no wonder.

  • Anonymous

    dyno-MITE! :)

  • Anonymous

    The Pope ordered Galileo’s house-arrest, and presided over all the other events mentioned.

  • Anonymous

    You seriously need to take a history class. Your playing cafeteria with the history of the Church.

  • Tpolak2002

    With due respect, Mr. Odie, you are wrong. Not a single real American Catholic voted for Obama. Those who did weren’t Catholic, they were (and probably still are) just delusional.

  • Gentillylace

    I enthusiastically voted for Obama in 2008, largely because I hoped he would improve the health care system in the United States. If he were consistently pro-life, I would vote for him again. Unfortunately, his contempt for the Church has made that not an option. None of the Republican candidates appeal to me enough for me to vote for them: I am thoroughly a woman of the left in my political sympathies, even though I am pro-life across the board. (I oppose the death penalty as absolutely as I do abortion, and I am a pacifist as well — I realize that the Catholic Church does not demand that its adherents be pacifists or absolutely against the death penalty, but I think that I must do so if I am to respect myself.) 

    I had thought of voting for Stephen Colbert as a protest, but since he is no longer running for President, I feel obliged to return to my original plan to vote a blank ballot when it comes to state legislature, Congress (both the House and the Senate), Lieutenant Governor, Governor and President unless and until there are viable left-wing consistently pro-life candidates. It is a shame that pro-life Democratic activists (at least in California, where I live) are discouraged from pursuing political office unless they can reconcile themselves to a political platform that states its support of legalized abortion.

  • Anonymous

    srdc, it is always amusing to see the logical gymnastics performed by someone trying to argue that the Church has never changed a doctrine. Extra ecclesiam nulla salus – was explained by Pope Eugenius IV in 1441,  “The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the “eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” (Matthew 25:41), unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church. ”
    That was the teaching of the Church for many centuries. Now the Church teaches something completely different. Deo Gratias for that change in doctrine.

  • Vernon

    It seems the Democratic Party has an official group which goes on web sites, whose purpose it is to “correct” any criticism of the President.  From the comments, it appears that there are some here, judging by their screams and large bold print.  They wouldn’t be embarassed at all, to assume a Catholic Identity, in order to present the “proper” Democratic propaganda.  Their tactics, even the  very idea are repugnant, and they should be ashamed of themselves.  It doesn’t speak well of the Democratic Party.  It doesn’t speak well of the person, to tout a political party line, as superior to their religion.  If you are a Catholic, it seems obvious that you should believe the Church teachings.  If you think that the ethics of the President and his party are superior to the Church, would you please be honest with yourself, and become a secular humanist who is a Democratic Party operative.  Please don’t call yourself a Catholic. 

  • Anonymous

    You, my “catholic” friend are a fool. 45,000 die each yr from lack of healthcare ?? Did you get that talking point from Nan Pelosi or David Axelrod ? There are safety nets my friend, including the fact that NO ONE in need is turned away from US emergency rooms.

    How about the 50+ MILLION children who have been slaughtered, torn limb by limb in the womb. This made-up “right” condoned and promoted by the Marxist/socialist radicals disguised as the Democrat party…disgusting bunch, hiding behind their “false” concerns for the “poor”.

    Has poverty been eradicated, fool ? NO, the socialists have enslaved them to their station in life and dupe them every election into keeping them on their plantation. It’s all about power and money. How much is Nan Pelosi worth ???

  • NewbieJames

    Paulsays, you are delusional.  You can not support murdering babies.  Period.  All three people you list will protect babies.  To smear Rick Santorum, a devout Catholic, is sick.  He doesn’t understand the “preferential option for the poor”?  Says who?  Is that the best you have?  The right is rising in the Church.

  • Anonymous

    Over the last few days Public Policy Polling asked Catholic voters “Should Catholic institutions provide contraceptive health coverage?” The results were: Provide 53% Do Not Provide 45%. That is almost exactly how the Catholic vote was split for and against Obama in 2008.

    It is pretty obvious that very few, if any, of the Catholics who voted for Obama in 2008 would support the bishops on the issue of contraception. Right wing bishops campaigned against Obama in 2008 and were ignored by most Catholics, and are unlikely to be more successful this time.

  • Joan

    This is a belated reply, but I only now stumbled across the article and I wanted to respond.  I think when Patrick_Hadley is referring to communicatio in sacris, he may be confusing simple prayer with non-Catholics and actually participating in non-Catholic religious services and receiving their form of communion.  The Church still does not permit us to receive Communion from non-Catholic churches, because we do not believe it is properly consecrated (which would require ordained Catholic ministers who believe in transubstantiation and Christ’s real presence in the Eucharist).

  • Acard944

    We are living in the age of apostasy from the true, Catholic faith and the fact that 54% of Catholics voted for Obama is proof of that apostasy.  His anti-Catholic and therefore, anti-Christian mask is now off for the whole world to see.  He who has ears, let him hear…  The Blessed Virgin Mary revealed that in the Book of Revelation, the Red Dragon is Atheistic Communism and that in the latter days, the Dragon would sweep its tail and cast 1/3 of the stars from the heavens.  This passage in scripture is to warn us of the 1/3 of the wayward clergy who have succumbed to the errors of Russia (as foretold at Fatima, Portugal in 1917).  In scripture, stars are have a nautical meaning in that they help sailors safely navigate to port. i.e. in other words, priests are supposed to help us navigate to Heaven, our intended port. The fact that 1/3 will fall away is  caused by the Devil’s battle with Heaven’s Army composed of the Church weakest triad, the Church Militant. They are the casualties of this war that has broken out in Heaven. Sadly, many priests are seduced by the spirit of the anti-Christ, that Obama brings out of the depths of hell, and thereby fail to guard the flock entrusted to them by God.

    In addition, the Holy Virgin warned that once Pope John Paul II’s immolation occurred, the darkness of apostasy, would then become general and spread around the world and submerge everything in evil, thus setting the stage for the appearance of the lawless one, the man of perdition.  Let him who has ears, let him hear and consecrate themselves to the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary so they can be saved and protected.

  • M. Cicero

    One of the most troubling things about this in this very pointed attack on Christian institutions (and see our support from our Protestant and Jewish brethren – in this we are one), Mr. Obama has egregiously violated our Constitution and the laws prescribing how rules are to be made.  Imagine, as it were, that, to save the Euro, the EU were to compel that all trade in the UK were to be conducted in Euros tomorrow.  They can legally do that no more than Obama can compel an American to violate his own conscience, and yet that is what he is doing.

    Make no mistake, the target is the conscience of those who fear God.  The weapon is the setting aside of our very Constitution.  He is as much an enemy to America as to the Church.  He views himself as the Nietzschean proto-man who merely has to step over the rules that stand in the way of his progress!  And in the name of “oppressed women” whose alliegance to Rome and to Christ is without question, he is a new Lenin.  It is little wonder that he gave his advisers the title of “czar.”