Douglas Johnson, NRLC Legislative Director

The Obama abortion agenda: the last four years

Douglas Johnson, NRLC Legislative Director
By Douglas Johnson

WASHINGTON, D.C. October 15, 2012 (NRLN) – Over the four years of Barack Obama’s presidency, substantial damage has been inflicted to longstanding pro-life policies. In addition, new programs have been created which, during the years ahead, will result in large-scale federal subsidies to health plans that pay for abortion, other federally driven expansions of abortion, and rationing of lifesaving medical care, unless remedial legislation is enacted.

In addition, Obama placed two strongly pro-abortion justices on the U.S. Supreme Court.

However, during the last four years, additional pro-abortion initiatives have been deterred, blocked, or repaired by pro-life forces.

If pro-life Mitt Romney is elected president on November 6, we can begin to repair the worst damage, and to resume the previous progress towards increased protections for unborn children and other vulnerable members of the human family. But if President Obama is re-elected, the damage will be compounded tenfold.

In short: The last four years have been bad, but it could have been much worse–and if Barack Obama is given another four years in office, it will be.

Obama has now been in office through the entire 111th Congress (2009-2010) and through most of 112th Congress (2011-2012)–although the 112th Congress will not formally end until the conclusion of a short “lame duck” session after the November 6 general election.

Any knowledgeable and objective observer would agree that Barack Obama holds more extreme pro-abortion policy positions than any previous occupant of the White House, and that his pro-abortion ideology has led him to embrace specific policy positions that are at odds with the views and ethical instincts of the great majority of Americans–for example, in his opposition to bans on partial-birth abortions and sex-selection abortions.

Yet, over the past four years, Obama’s ability to advance his abortion-expansive agenda has been somewhat constrained by strong resistance by pro-life forces–who since January 2011 have controlled the U.S. House of Representatives–and by his desire to win a second term. If he wins re-election on November 6, the second factor will no longer inhibit him. The extent to which the Congress will continue to constrain him will be determined in substantial part by the results of the congressional elections.

The 2009-2010 Congress:

Obama’s Health Care Legislation

When Obama was sworn as president in January, 2009, the new Congress was made up of about three-fifths Democrats in both houses. Pro-abortion Democrats (House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada) were in command in both chambers, and all of the most important committees were chaired by pro-abortion Democrats.

On his third day in office–the 36th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade ruling that legalized abortion on demand nationwide–Obama issued a formal statement reaffirming his commitment to defending that ruling, stating that “this decision not only protects women’s health and reproductive freedom, but stands for a broader principle: That government should not intrude on our most private family matters.”

The statement was hardly surprising, coming from the man who just two years earlier, as a U.S. senator, had cosponsored the “Freedom of Choice Act” (FOCA, S. 1173), a bill to invalidate virtually all state and federal limits on abortion, including the federal ban on partial-birth abortion.

Early in the 2009-2010 Congress, Obama declared health care restructuring legislation to be a top priority. While campaigning for president, Obama had vowed that his “health care reform” legislation would require universal coverage of abortion, and the initial Democrat-sponsored health care bills would have fulfilled that pledge with provisions that would have effectively mandated elective abortion coverage in nearly all health insurance plans, including a giant “public plan” to be run directly by the federal government.

NRLC and other pro-life groups mounted strong resistance. In November, 2009, an NRLC-backed amendment to the health care legislation was adopted on the House floor, with the support of nearly all Republicans and one-fourth of the Democrats. The amendment (the Stupak-Pitts Amendment) would have prohibited federal subsidies for abortion under any component of the 1990-page legislation.

The health care bill–temporarily fixed on abortion, although not on rationing–was then sent to the Senate. Obama attacked the House’s adoption of the pro-life amendment, and worked with Senate Democratic Leader Reid to defeat a similar pro-life amendment in the Senate. As a consequence, in December 2009 the Senate approved a different version of the health care bill that contained multiple provisions to allow federal subsidies for abortion and health plans that cover abortion.

NRLC and other pro-life groups kept fighting against that legislation, urging the House not to approve the Senate-passed legislation, and delayed House approval of the bill for months.

Finally, however, in March 2010, a small group of House Democrats who had previously withheld support from the health care bill because of the pro-abortion provisions switched sides, saying they were satisfied with an executive order crafted by the White House. The White House presented the executive order to the public as preventing any federal subsidies for abortion under the bill–a sham largely accepted as factual by gullible organs of the mainstream news media.

The order was denounced by NRLC as “a transparent political fig leaf,” which fixed none of the multiple abortion-expansive provisions of the legislation, and was described by the president of Planned Parenthood as a “symbolic gesture.” However, a sufficient number of House Democrats embraced the charade to narrowly pass the bill, and the massive health care bill was enacted into law, although without the support of single Republican in either the House or the Senate.

Thanks to the tenacious resistance by NRLC and other pro-life forces, Obama did not end up with every abortion-expansive provision that he had originally sought. The final law does not mandate that all private health plans cover abortions, and it allows individual state legislatures to enact laws (now referred to as “opt-out laws”) to keep abortion coverage out of health plans sold through the government-administered “exchanges” that the federal law requires.

However, the legislation creates a new program under which scores of millions of Americans will receive subsidies from the federal Treasury to purchase health plans, including health plans that cover all abortions–a sharp break from decades of federal policy. Even if a citizen lives in a state in which the legislature has enacted legislation to specifically prohibit abortion coverage from being sold on that state’s exchange, that citizen cannot prevent his federal taxes from subsidizing the abortion-covering health plans in other states that do not pass such laws.

The health care law also contains multiple other provisions that empower the federal executive branch to expand subsidies for and access to abortion.

For example, a controversy that erupted in July 2010 provided further evidence that the new health care law allows abortion funding. NRLC discovered that the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) had approved proposals to cover abortions that had been submitted by some states under one of the new federal programs created by the health care law, known as the “Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan” or “high-risk pool program.” Under the ensuing glare of national media attention, the Obama Administration abruptly acted to exclude abortion coverage from that single program–while insisting that this action would not be a precedent for other programs. NRLC, the ACLU, and the White House all agreed that there was nothing in the health care law to prevent abortion coverage under the high-risk program.

(NRLC documented some of the major abortion-expansive provisions of the Obamacare law, and how they departed from decades of federal policy on abortion, in testimony presented to a House subcommittee in February 2011, available here.)

Supreme Court Appointments

During 2009 and 2010, President Obama nominated and won Senate confirmation of two justices to the U.S. Supreme Court–Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. Based on their records, both justices are expected to vote on the pro-abortion side.

Obama nominated Sotomayor in 2009 to replace retiring Justice David Souter. For a period of 12 years (1980–1992), prior to becoming a judge, Ms. Sotomayor served on the governing board of the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund (PRLDEF), and for part of that time she was the chair of the PRLDEF Litigation Committee. During her tenure on the board, the PRLDEF was actively involved in litigation that attempted to persuade the Supreme Court to expand the judge-created “right to abortion,” often beyond what the Court was willing to embrace, including nullification of parental notification requirements and restrictions on taxpayer funding of abortion.

Despite opposition from NRLC and other pro-life groups, Sotomayor won confirmation by a vote of 68-31.

In 2010, Obama nominated Kagan, then serving as U.S. solicitor general, to replace retiring Justice John Paul Stevens. In June, 2010, NRLC was the first group to call attention to documentation that Kagan, as a key member of the White House staff of President Bill Clinton, had played a central role in the successful effort to prevent enactment of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act during the Clinton Administration.

Despite opposition from NRLC and other pro-life groups, Kagan won confirmation by a vote of 63-37. Kagan was supported by 58 Democrats and by five Republicans. However, the 37 nay votes (36 of them cast by Republicans) was the largest number cast against a Democratic president’s Supreme Court nominee since the 19th century.

President Obama placed numerous other hard-core pro-abortion persons in powerful offices, including the lower federal courts. However, as Obama’s first term draws to a close, a substantial number of Obama’s judicial nominees remain unconfirmed, thanks to nearly unified opposition by Republican senators.

Executive Actions

Directly and through his political appointees, Obama also attacked pro-life policies through the use of Executive Branch powers.

Under Obama and his secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, promotion of access to abortion has become a substantial component of U.S. foreign policy, and U.S. funds are flowing to many abortion-promoting entities overseas.

On his fourth day in office, Obama issued an executive order to rescind the pro-life “Mexico City Policy” which had been enforced by Republican presidents going back to Ronald Reagan. The effect of Obama’s order was to open the door to hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. funding to private organizations that perform and promote abortion overseas.

Secretary of State Clinton openly proclaimed, at a 2009 House committee hearing, that “we are now an administration that will protect the rights of women, including their rights to reproductive health care,” that “reproductive health includes access to abortion,” and that the Administration intends to advocate for this right “anywhere in the world.”

The Obama Administration urged the Senate to ratify a treaty, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), that has been employed as a pro-abortion weapon to pressure nations to weaken or repeal laws. But strong opposition from NRLC and other pro-life forces ensured that the treaty could not muster the two-thirds vote required for ratification, and it was never brought to the Senate floor.

In March 2009 Obama signed an order allowing the federal National Institutes of Health to fund the type of stem cell research that requires the destruction of human embryos.

These and other pro-abortion executive actions by the Administration were not challenged by Congress during 2009-2010, due to both houses being in control of pro-abortion Democrats. Indeed, in response to a White House proposal, the Democratic congressional leadership rammed through legislation that lifted a longstanding ban on government funding of abortion in the District of Columbia.

The 2011–2012 Congress:

Pro-Life House, Pro-Abortion Senate

The November 2010 election results brought a major change to the power dynamic in Washington–pro-life Republicans took control of the House of Representatives.

The election brought a net shift of 63 House seats to the Republicans, giving them a 242-193 seat majority when the 112th Congress convened in January, 2013. All but a handful of the newly elected Republicans were pro-life. Pro-life Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio) was sworn in as Speaker of the House, ending Nancy Pelosi’s four-year reign as speaker. Longtime pro-life champion Eric Cantor (R-Va.) was selected as majority leader.

The election also resulted in modest changes in the Senate. The Democrats remained in control, and remained under the direction of pro-abortion Majority Leader Harry Reid, but the election reduced the Democrat majority from 59-41 to 53-47. While Reid retained the power to largely set the agenda for the Senate, the diminished Democrat majority strengthened the ability of pro-life Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) to block legislation and nominees objectionable to most Republicans–since it usually takes 60 votes to win adoption of a controversial bill, motion, or nomination in the Senate.

The first major bill brought to the House floor by the new Republican leadership was an NRLC-backed measure to completely repeal the Obama health care law (“Obamacare”). On January 19, 2011, the House passed the repeal bill (H.R. 2) by a vote of 245-189. Two weeks later, however, the Senate rejected a nearly identical measure on a straight party-line vote.

This essentially set the pattern for the entire 112th Congress. The House–with unified or nearly unified support from Republicans, joined by a small number of Democrats–passed measure after measure supported by NRLC. But all of them were either voted down outright in the Senate, or smothered without action by Reid.

These Senate-killed bills included:

– the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act (H.R. 3), sponsored by Reps. Chris Smith (R-NJ) and Dan Lipinski (D-Il.), which would establish a permanent, government-wide ban on federal subsidies for abortion, with narrow exceptions. The bill would supersede a patchwork of different laws limiting federal subsidies for abortion, many of which must be renewed each year because they are incorporated into annual appropriations bills. The House passed the bill 251-175, despite a formal veto threat issued by the White House. The Senate never voted on the House-passed bill or on the companion bill (S. 906) introduced by Senator Roger Wicker (R-Ms.).

– the “Protect Life Act” (H.R. 358), introduced by pro-life Rep. Joe Pitts (R-Pa.), a bill to prohibit pro-abortion subsidies and mandates in every component of the massive Obamacare law. The House passed the bill in October, 2011, 251-172, notwithstanding a formal veto threat issued by the White House. The Senate never voted on the House-passed bill or on the companion bill (S. 877) introduced by Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah).

– Legislation to block further federal funding, during Fiscal Year 2011–2012, for Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion provider. In the spring of 2011 the House approved such cutoffs twice, but the Senate voted 58-42 in favor of continued funding of Planned Parenthood. The issue was one of the last matters to be resolved in direct negotiations on an omnibus appropriations bill between House Speaker Boehner and President Obama. Obama indicated that he would block enactment of the government-wide funding bill–forcing a government shutdown–rather than agree to the House position that funding to Planned Parenthood should be curtailed. However, Obama did bow reluctantly to the House position in favor of restoring the longstanding ban on government funding of abortion in the District of Columbia, which had been lifted at the instigation of the White House in 2009.

During 2012, the House also conducted test votes on two other important pro-life measures, strongly supported by NRLC–both of which mustered substantial majorities on the House floor. However, the Senate failed to act on the identical companion bills. They were:

– The Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act (H.R. 3541), which would prohibit the use of abortion to eliminate an unborn child because she is not of the sex desired by the parents. The House tally was 246-148 in favor of the bill. The White House issued a statement opposing the bill the day before a majority of the House voted for it, saying that the proposed ban would “intrude” on “private family matters.” The legislation was authored by Congressman Trent Franks (R-Az.). The Senate companion bill (S. 3290) was introduced by Senator David Vitter (R-La.).

– The District of Columbia Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act (H.R. 3803). This bill would prohibit abortion in the District of Columbia after 20 weeks fetal age, based on congressional findings that by that point – if not earlier – the child is capable of experiencing pain during an abortion. Currently, there is no law whatever limiting reasons for which abortion may be performed in the nation’s capital – abortion is legal, for any reason, until the moment of birth.

The House tally was 220-154 in favor of the bill. (See roll call vote, pages 18-20.)

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney referred to the bill as “controversial, divisive social legislation” and suggested that Congress should not be wasting its time on it.

The bill, based on an NRLC model that has already been enacted in eight states, was introduced by Congressman Franks in the House, and in the Senate by Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah) as S. 2103.

Assaults on Conscience Rights

In 2011, the Obama Administration rescinded (nullified) a Bush Administration rule to help protect health care providers who are threatened with penalties for refusing to participate in providing abortions.

In 2012, the Obama Administration employed one provision of the Obamacare law to issue a new mandate (technically, a “final rule”) that most employer-sponsored health plans must pay for all FDA-approved methods of birth control, including both drugs and sterilization procedures. The mandate sparked strong protests from the Catholic Church and from many religiously affiliated colleges, employers, and other institutions.

Pro-life members of Congress responded, proposing new legislation to amend the Obamacare law so that it could not be used to force coverage of drugs and procedures contrary to conscience or religious belief. This legislation, strongly supported by NRLC, was offered by pro-life Senator Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) as an amendment to unrelated bill, but it failed, 51-48, on March 1, 2012.

In the House, the same legislation was proposed by Congressman Jeff Fortenberry (R-Ne.) as H.R. 1179, and gained 224 cosponsors–a majority of the House. But in view of the Senate’s rejection of the identical legislation and the certitude of an Obama veto, the House bill never came to the floor for a vote.

The Obama mandate has been challenged by a host of lawsuits, which remain unresolved.

Not content only to block the pro-life initiatives advanced by the House, pro-abortion members of the Senate made multiple attempts to win Senate approval of bills to roll back various longstanding pro-life policies—but these were blocked by pro-life senators in cooperation with NRLC. (See, for example, the account of the successful pro-life effort to block a funding bill containing multiple pro-abortion provisions, in “Pro-life House and Pro-abortion Senate Divided,” Fall 2011 NRL News, page. 1.)

Reprinted with permission from National Right to Life News. The opinions expressed in this article are the personal opinions of the author only.

FREE pro-life and pro-family news.

Stay up-to-date on the issues you care about the most. Subscribe today. 

Select Your Edition:


Share this article

Advertisement
Featured Image
John-Henry Westen / LifeSiteNews.com
Thaddeus Baklinski Thaddeus Baklinski Follow Thaddeus

Pope tells Girl Scouts to oppose ‘ideologies’ against God’s design for marriage

Thaddeus Baklinski Thaddeus Baklinski Follow Thaddeus
By Thaddeus Baklinski

ROME, June 30, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) – Pope Francis told Girl Scout and Girl Guide leaders from across the globe last week that it is essential they promote respect for marriage and family according to God’s design.

The pope’s remarks came as both the international organization, World Association of Girl Guides and Girl Scouts, and Girl Scouts USA face criticism over support for abortion, homosexuality, transgenderism, and contraception.

"It is very important today that a woman be adequately appreciated, and that she be able to take up fully the place that corresponds to her, be it in the Church, be it in society,” Pope Francis said in his address on the morning of June 26, prior to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision imposing same-sex “marriage” on the country.

In the face of ideologies that seek to destroy the truths about marriage and family, he said, the formation of girls through Guiding "is absolutely determinant for the future."

"We are in a world in which the most contrary ideologies are spreading to the nature and design of God on the family and on marriage. Therefore, it is a question of educating girls not only to the beauty and grandeur of their vocation of women, in a just and differentiated relation between man and woman, but also to assume important responsibilities in the Church and in society," Pope Francis said.

The pope spoke during a private audience at the world meeting of the International Conference of Catholic Guides (ICCG), which took place in Rome from June 25-30.

Stressing that among educational movements Guiding has played a pivotal role in the faith formation of young women, the pope said, "Education is, in fact, the indispensable means to enable girls to become active and responsible women, proud and happy of their faith in Christ lived in every day life. Thus they will participate in the building of a world permeated by the Gospel."

“To Live the Joy of the Gospel as a Guide” was the theme for the ICCG meeting in Rome, with the stated purpose of reaffirming and strengthening the organization's 50-year-old history within the Catholic Church.

Among the participants at the ICCG meeting in Rome were Girl Scouts USA (GSUSA) CEO Anna Maria Chávez and National President Kathy Hopinkah Hannan.

In a statement, Chavez maintained that faith is “at the heart of Girl Scouts, and is woven into everything the organization does to inspire girls to take action to make the world a better place.”

However, the US Conference of Catholic Bishops has cautioned that some aspects of the Girl Scouts pedagogy go against Catholic teaching and doctrine.

Click "like" to support Catholics Restoring the Culture!

A report by the USCCB focused on three issues:

  1. GSUSA's relationship with groups like Planned Parenthood and international affiliate World Association of Girl Guides and Girl Scouts (WAGGS);
  2. GSUSA's views on issues related "to human sexuality, contraception, and abortion";
  3. and various materials and resources GSUSA has that have "inappropriate content."

With regard to WAGGGS, the report notes that while this group claims it does not formally back abortion and "reproductive rights," language on its website leaves no doubt that such support exists, as well as support for contraceptive use.

Numerous pro-life and pro-family groups have organized boycotts of Girl Guide cookies in protest of the organization's embrace of feminist politics and activism.

The pope's address to the ICCG meeting, translated into English by Zenit, is available on the Zenit website here.

Advertisement
Featured Image
St. Peter Damian
Steve Jalsevac Steve Jalsevac Follow Steve

St. Peter Damien (1049): what Church MUST do in response to rampant homosexuality among clergy

Steve Jalsevac Steve Jalsevac Follow Steve
By Steve Jalsevac

June 29, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) – The rise of the power and influence of homosexual priests, bishops and cardinals, as well as influential laity, has been a major factor in the growing chaos within Catholicism over the past 60 years. This disorder within the Catholic Church has had a negative impact on the entire world because of the resulting decline in the positive influences that Catholicism has had on civilization for many centuries.

To think that what is happening now is new, however, betrays an ignorance of history. In 1049, when St. Peter Damien wrote his treatise, Book of Gomorrah (Liber Gomorrhianus), to Pope Leo IX, homosexuality and sexual perversion in general were far more openly rampant within the clergy than today.  This horrendous state of affairs is what the Saint addressed in his appeal to the Pope for urgently needed reforms.

We often hear from sleepy, comfortable, cowardly, timid or cultural Catholics, and especially from clergy who are directly implicated in homosexuality, that we should never criticize priests, bishops and especially the Pope. Supposedly, that is a greater sin than that of the heretics and sexual perverts facilitating great personal suffering and sending souls to Hell without anyone doing what is necessary to either convert or stop them.

St. Peter Damien was not so foolish as to listen to such nonsense denying God His justice at a time when the Church appeared to be in its death throes. He understood the grave duty to be blunt about the dangers and sinfulness, to not minimize the catastrophe that would come if strong actions were not quickly taken and to demand corrective actions. And yet, he also emphasized that all of this must be done with charity and Christian hope for the persons involved in the moral corruption. Their conversion was above all hoped and prayed for, rather than their condemnation for eternity.

An Italian translated version of the Book of Gomorrah has recently been published. An English version carefully translated by one of our LifeSite journalists will also soon become available.

On Feb. 11 of this year the Rorate Caeli website published excerpts from the introduction by Professor Roberto de Mattei to the Italian version.

Following are some paragraphs from that introduction that I hope will jar awake some of the faithful, especially considering what is going on now in the United States as a result of the mad Supreme Court decision and the moral chaos around the Synod on the Family regarding Church sexual teachings.
 

Excerpts from the Introduction:

St. Peter Damien (1007-1072) Abbot of the Fonte Avellana Monastery and subsequently Cardinal/Bishop of Ostia, was one of the most outstanding figures of Catholic reform in the XI century. His Liber Gomorrhianus, appeared around 1049, in an age when corruption was widely spread, even in the highest ranks of the ecclesiastical world.

In this writing, addressed to Pope Leo IX, Peter Damien condemns the perverted habits of his time in a language that knows no false mercy or compromises. He is convinced that of all the sins, the gravest is sodomy, a term which includes all the acts against nature and which want to satisfy sexual pleasure by separating it from procreation. “If this absolutely ignominious and abominable vice is not immediately stopped with an iron fist – he writes – the sword of Divine wrath will fall upon us, bringing ruin to many.”

There have been times in (the Church’s) history when sanctity pervades Her and others when the defection of Her members cause Her to collapse into darkness, appearing almost as if the Divinity has abandoned Her.

Peter Damien’s voice resounds today, as it did yesterday, with encouragement and comfort for those, like him, who have fought, suffered, cried and hoped, throughout the course of history.

He did not moderate his language, but kept it fiery to show his indignation. He was fearless in voicing an uncompromising hatred for sin and it was precisely this hatred that rendered his love burning for the Truth and the Good.

Today, at the beginning of the third millennium of Christ’s birth, priests, bishops and Episcopal conferences are arguing for married priests; they are placing in doubt the indissolubility of the marriage bond between man and woman and at the same time, accepting the introduction of laws for homosexual pseudo-marriage. Sodomy is not being thought of as a sin that cries to God for vengeance but is diffused in seminaries, colleges, ecclesiastical universities and even inside the Sacred Walls of the Vatican itself.

Liber Gomorrhianus reminds us that there is something worse than moral vice practiced and theorized. It is the silence that should speak, the abstention that should intervene, the bond of complicity that is established among the wicked and of those, who with the pretext of avoiding scandal are silent, and, by being silent, consent.  

Graver still, is the acceptance of homosexuality by churchmen, thought of as a “positive” tension towards the good, worthy of pastoral care and juridical protection and not as an abominable sin. In the summary Relatio post disceptationem of the first week’s work in the Synod of Bishops in October 2014, a paragraph affirmed that:   “homosexual persons have gifts and qualities to offer the Christian community”, with an invitation to the Bishops “…are we capable of welcoming these people, guaranteeing them a fraternal space in our communities?”

This scandalous statement was removed from the final report, but some bishops and cardinals, inside and outside the Synod Hall, insisted on the appeal to look for the positive aspects of a union against nature, going as far as hoping for “a way to describe the rights of people living in same-sex unions.”

St. Peter Damian as a simple monk, and with greater reason as a cardinal, did not hesitate in accusing even the Popes of that time for their scandalous omissions. Will the reading of the book Liber Gomorrhianus instill the spirit of St. Peter Damien in the hearts of some prelates or laypeople, by shaking them out of their torpor and force them to speak and act?

Even if abysmally far from the holiness and prophetic spirit of St. Peter Damien, let us make his indignation against evil, ours, and with the words that conclude his treatise we turn to the Vicar of Christ, His Holiness, Pope Francis, presently reigning, so that he may intervene and bring an end to these doctrinal and moral scandals: “May the Almighty Lord assist us, Most Reverend Father, so that during the time of Your Apostolate, all of the monstrosity of this vice be destroyed and the state of the Church, presently supine, may wholly rise up again in all its vigour.”

The book can be found in Italian here. 

Advertisement
Featured Image
Phil Lawler

So now is it ‘hate speech’ to deplore the Obergefell decision?

Phil Lawler
By Phil Lawler

June 30, 2015 (CatholicCulture.org) - The ink was barely dry on last week’s Supreme Court ruling when Father James Martin, SJ, began scolding Catholics who were, from his decorous perspective, too strident in denouncing the decision.

”No issue brings out so much hatred from so many Catholics as homosexuality,” Father Martin told his Facebook followers. He repeated the same message several times throughout the day, warning commenters that they must not indulge in “homophobia” and suggesting that someone who questioned whether we were all expected to sing “Kumbaya” was illustrating his point. So is sarcasm now prima facie evidence of hatred?

In my own surfing through the internet, reading scores of posts on the Obergefell decision, I can honestly say that I did not see a single message, a single comment, that struck me as hate-filled. Perhaps Father Martin’s email traffic is qualitatively different from mine. Or perhaps—far more likely, I’m afraid—he sees “hatred” where I see only vehement disagreement.

Is it possible to be angry about the Obergefell decision, to consider it a travesty of justice and a betrayal of the Constitution, without being viewed as a hater? Wait; let’s turn that question upside-down. Is it possible to see all serious disagreement with the decision as hate-speech, without celebrating the outcome of the Obergefell case?

I ask the latter question, you see, because if Father Martin was upset by the Supreme Court ruling, his dismay did not show through on his Twitter feed. He recommended three columns reacting to the decision: one by a fellow Jesuit, recounting how his grandmother could not marry her lesbian partner; another by the gay New York Times columnist Frank Bruni, celebrating the decision; the third by the gay activist/blogger Andrew Sullivan, also celebrating.

The recommendation for Andrew Sullivan’s piece was particularly striking because of the title: “It Is Accomplished”—an explicit reference to the words of Jesus Christ on the Cross. Father Martin, who was horrified by so much of what he read on Friday afternoon, let that blasphemous headline pass without comment. His demand for the use of temperate language, and for avoiding comments that others would find offensive, was applied to only one side of the post-Obergefell debate.

And that’s likely to be the party line for politically-correct Catholics in the wake of this momentous decision. We are allowed to disagree with the Supreme Court, politely, but not too forcefully. Any strident denunciation of the ruling or its logic might be interpreted as hate-speech, which of course is unacceptable. As the secular left clamps down on religious expression—and we’ve already been served notice that the crackdown is coming-- the Catholic left will worry aloud that, yes, some strong public expressions of religious beliefs are distasteful.

The influence of this approach, with its keen anxiety to avoid provocation, has already been evident in the statements released by some American bishops in response to the ruling. Archbishop Gregory says that he disagrees with the Court, but if you don’t know why he disagrees before you read his statement, you’re not likely to be any better informed when you’re finished. Cardinal Wuerl reminds us that we must hate the sin but love the sinner; he neglects to mention what the sin is. And Archbishop Cupich gives no indication at all that he disagrees with the Supreme Court ruling.

We have a long uphill struggle facing us as we seek to restore a proper understanding of marriage, to revive appreciation for the natural law, and to undo this wretched judicial decision. We cannot expect success if we go into the battle unarmed. If we begin the debate by saying that we must not offend our adversaries—even after our adversaries have declared our most fundamental beliefs to be offensive—we are doomed to failure.

We already know how the battle will unfold, because the campaign to crush resistance to same-sex marriage is already underway. The militant left will choose vulnerable targets—a pizza-parlor here, a baker there—and vilify them as “haters.” People who been trained to see “hatred” in any firm disagreement will nod in solemn approval as the alleged offenses are harshly punished. And so juggernaut will keep rolling, gaining momentum, until it reaches us.

There is an alternative. We can speak the truth. Yes, certainly we should avoid making unduly provocative statements. But since we are trying to provoke reactions, we cannot pull all our punches.

More to the point, if we’re going into battle—and we are—we need to know who’s on our side, and who’s working against us.

This article was originally published on CatholicCulture.org and is re-published with permission.

Advertisement

Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook