Why Do Catholic Women Reject Catholic Teachings?

Caroline Kennedy's speech at the DNC earlier this month was a prime example of what has come to be called "Cafeteria Catholicism." In a cafeteria line you can pick and choose what you want to eat, and leave behind things that are not so appealing. Similarly, Cafeteria Catholics pick and choose the teachings and practices that fit their schedule or routine or whim, and leave the "meat" behind. Perhaps they should be called "Vegetarian Catholics" instead. Or, they are often called CINOs -- Catholic In Name Only.

Whatever the name given to the phenomenon, the most notorious example of this in recent years is Catholic women and men who reject the Church's teaching on birth control and abortion. I have never understood how women in particular can call themselves Catholic while, as Ms. Kennedy does, brazenly rejecting the Church's teachings. A new study has come out that purports to answer this question. I don't think there is a one-size-fits-all answer, but this study does dig deeper than anything that I have seen to date on the subject.

 Remember back in February when the Democrats were trying to justify the mandate to provide contraceptives, abortafacients and sterilizations to women free of charge? They kept repeating the talking point that 98% of Catholic women used birth control. That number was never substantiated. Indeed, there was no way to refute it because it was made up. (It's kind of like the fictitious "jobs created or saved" statistics that the Democrats love to spew.) Anyway, that figure was debunked by a number of sources, but the mainstream media and Democrats like Nancy Pelosi and Kathleen Sebelius--both CINOs--continue to push it. They use their government jobs as bully pulpits to promote abortions and to denounce Catholic teaching.

But back to the study. The two things that it identifies as being responsible for Catholic women who reject the teachings of the Church are the influences of culture and the lack of education in Catholic teaching. LifeSiteNews explains a portion of the study:

Mistakenly or not, 53 per cent of all women in the study who dissent in part or completely from church teaching cite a couple’s “moral right” to decide which method of family planning they will use. This makes it the top reason given for rejecting church teaching on the matter.

Two other reasons are cited frequently among this group: 46 percent say couples have “the right to enjoy sexual pleasure without worrying about pregnancy”, and 41 percent think that natural family planning is not an effective method to space or postpone pregnancy.

The authors perceive two main dynamics shaping these views: the influence of a cultural mindset that divorces sex from procreation and promises “sexual pleasure without consequences”, and a deficit on the church side in presenting Church teaching.

The latter can be deduced from the fact that 72 per cent of women surveyed said they rely mainly on the homily at Sunday Mass for learning about the faith, and yet just 15 per cent of that group fully accept the Church’s teaching on sex and reproduction. The weekly Mass homily, the authors say, “seems to represent a lost opportunity when it comes to conscience formation on the contraception issue.”

As for cultural influences, they seem likely (although the authors don’t say so) to account for at least some of the scepticism about natural family planning given the systematic bad press NFP [Natural Family Planning] is give by mainstream family planners and the media.

I personally know a priest who promotes the "conscience" exception to Church teachings. He tells women (and men) that they can follow their consciences when it comes to morals. Naturally, those who think that they are not ready for a child for whatever reason will convince themselves that their conscience is telling them that contraception is okay or, if they do get pregnant, that abortion is acceptable.

My parents used to tell my siblings and me as children that misery loves company. They explained that when someone holds an opinion that they know is not right, or if they do something that they know is wrong, they want others to join them in order to make them feel justified, or to make them feel less guilty. Often times this leads to bullying. Those who hold the "right" or truthful belief are ridiculed or bullied by those who must try to lessen their own guilt. This is what I see happening amongst Catholics today.

Karen Handel

And it is happening on the political front as well. Planned Bullyhood is a new book that just came out on September 11. It was written by Karen Handel, who was senior vice-president at Susan G. Komen for the Cure  earlier this year when that organization announced that it was parting ways with Planned Parenthood. Handel reveals that the decision not to provide any more funding to the abortion-providing organization was long in the making. The lightning rod organization has been under investigation for quite some time for a number of violations. Handel's book exposes the hypocrisy and bullying that took place in the battle between the two well-known organizations. 

To order Karen Handel's Book, go to  www.plannedbullyhood.com. 

Thank you, Nancy Pelosi

I have to thank Nancy Pelosi. What? you might ask. You? Thank Nancy Pelosi? Yes, that's right. A couple of days ago Nancy brought to my attention a Catholic warrior with whom I was not familiar prior to her mentioning him in a speech she gave in mid-May. Who was the warrior? None other than Jozsef Cardinal Mindszenty of Hungary who lived from 1892 to 1975, the year I graduated from 8th grade.

Now, it is odd to me that Ms. Pelosi would mention Cardinal Mindszenty. It is only because she was speaking to an audience in Hungary that she did so. She said that she, like other Catholics her age, prayed for the cardinal when they were growing up in Catholic school. She mentions his "struggle," but never anything about the substance of what he stood for. [Side note: Joe Biden claims to be Catholic also, and is only 3 years younger than Ms. Pelosi. I wonder if he prayed for the cardinal? Hard to say since Biden's authoritative, Wikipedia bio (sic) does not mention his education until he got to high school and attended an exclusive Catholic (Norbertine) school.]

Since Ms. Pelosi is significantly older than I am, that may account for why I have never heard of Jozsef Cardinal Mindszenty. But, thanks to Pelosi, I read about him this week and was thoroughly engrossed. In fact, I think Ms. Pelosi herself should revisit the Cardinal's story, because if she does she will either not mention him again or she will be enlightened as to what she missed all those decades ago when she presumably was an angelic child praying for the Catholic warrior. I suspect she has not read anything else about the cleric since leaving behind elementary school and her prayers for the cardinal nearly 60 years ago. And her memory of what he fought against must have faded also since she and her liberal comrades espouse everything that he fought against.

I am always amazed how Pelosi touts her claim to be a Catholic when it suits her political agenda. Remember how on the first day of Lent this year she attacked the Catholic Church because it has brought its teachings around to her way of thinking? There is so much that is wrong with what Ms. Pelosi said in that video that it would take me the rest of this week to delve into it. I am sure some will condemn me as being judgmental for what I say about Ms. Pelosi, but so be it. Ms. Pelosi either does not understand the Catholic faith in which she grew up or she has chosen to ignore it. I hope it is the former and not the latter. It may be a combination of both.

The irony in what Ms. Pelosi has brought to our attention is that Cardinal Mindszenty stood up against a communist regime and refused to bend to the laws that he recognized as being violative of religious freedom. Naturally, Hungary did not have our First Amendment right to freedom of religion, but the cardinal was a staunch vocal advocate who insisted that religious freedom is a basic natural right. He drove around the country telling Catholics not to comply with the law and not to give up their property and land to the government. Even when he was arrested by the Communists in 1948, he refused to give in to the government take-over of Catholic schools and land. For most of the rest of his life he lived in a state of arrest. But he never gave in, not even to secure his own freedom.

I noted briefly last week in a posting that 43 Catholic dioceses and organizations in the United States have filed lawsuits against the Obama administration. The basis of the cause of action is the provisions of the health care mandate requiring all employers who pay for insurance to also pay for abortifacients, birth control, and sterilization so that these are free to all women. This violates the Constitutionally guaranteed right of freedom of religion.

Liberals try to argue that this is not true. They say things like, "What if Jehovah Witnesses don't believe in blood transfusions and so they say we won't pay for blood transfusions for our employees," and "If Catholics can refuse birth control, Jehovah Witnesses can refuse blood transfusions." Some Catholics have tried courageously to distinguish the two.

The bottom line is that, like Cardinal Mindszenty, some leaders of the Catholic Church in America recognize that our religious freedoms are under attack. Unless we stand up against the attempts to secularize our country completely and erase religion from having any influence on matters, we are doomed to a society that will evolve into the ones that are the subject of books like The Hunger Games series. I for one do not want to live in a district where the inhabitant slaves do the bidding of the elite who occupy the lazy, over-the-top capital in order that they might live the good life. Sadly, that possibility is not that unimaginable any more.

As Mary Ann Glendon, a Catholic professor at Harvard, points out in a recent op ed, the Obama contraception mandate is not about protecting women's health, as Ms. Pelosi and other liberals feign. It is about drawing others who are trying to remain on the "good side" over to the "bad side." It is reminiscent of the childhood story we have all experienced, of those who steal a cookie and then give half to a friend or sibling so that they are also part of the sin and cannot tell on the thief.

Liberals know they are wrong in trying to mandate things that the Catholic Church will not condone (abortion, sterilization, contraception). But they try to draw everyone into their sin so that they can partake of their wicked ways and share the cost with those who are repulsed by their actions. This is precisely what Cardinal Mindszenty fought against.

So I thank Nancy Pelosi, and I challenge her to reflect back on what she prayed for as a child in the 40s and 50s. If we are careful, we might just get what she prayed for -- religious freedom.

A Tale of Two Awakenings

Here are two stories that you will not see widely publicized in the mainstream media, even at the local level.

First is that of Jo Ann Nardelli, a Pennsylvania Democrat who founded the Blair County Federation of Democratic Women and was a state committeewoman. Nardelli, a Catholic, announced last week that she would that she is switching her party affiliation from Democrat to Republican. The final straw for her was Obama's support for gay marriage. Indeed, when fellow Catholic Joe Biden came out in support of gay marriage before Obama, Nardelli was shocked. She had once given him a rosary and said she previously had related to him.

Nardelli says that her Catholic faith and beliefs are the reason she can no longer remain affiliated with the Democrat party. (The link above is to the National Catholic Register story, and is very revealing.) Here Nardelli is seen with another Democrat who says she is Catholic.

There is zero chance that Ms. Pelosi will have a metanoia and realize the error of her ways. (I have a blog post in the works that mentions Ms. Pelosi, so I won't waste more time on say any more about her here.)

The other recent story (just yesterday, in fact) that won't get any mainstream airtime is similar. It is about an African American Southern Democrat from Alabama who also has announced that he is switching his affiliation from Democrat to Republican. His name is Arthur Davis, and until a few years ago he was a U.S. Representative from Alabama. 

As for why he defected, Davis said, "As I told a reporter last week, this is not Bill Clinton’s Democratic Party (and he knows that even if he can’t say it)." Not only is Davis switching parties, he is also switching states, moving officially from Alabama to my adopted home state of residence, Virginia. Indeed, he is considering getting back into the political arena on a GOP ticket in the not-too-distant future. It will be interesting to see if he can infuse some sense into the hearts and souls of his old constituents and bring them over from the dark side. I plan to keep my antennae up and see what he decides to do in the political arena in my neck of the woods.

So, what do you call two political defectors in the heart of the liberal East Coast?

Wait for it...

Wait for it...

Grand NEW Partiers! [Got a more clever response? Enter it in the Comments!]

Why Catholics must reject Obamacare

I have been thinking about Obamacare for over 2 years now, like many concerned people in this country. This past week was a monumental event in our country's history. I honestly believe that the decision of the Supreme Court will determine whether this country survives into the future. Today the nine justices met in closed chambers to vote on the events/arguments that took place earlier this week. They have a pretty good idea of what will be the final decision. One of them has been designated to write the majority opinion. Others are free to write their own opinions.

What is so hard about all of this for me as a conservative Catholic is that I deal with very liberal Catholics, primarily religious women, on a day to day basis. Some of them are just clueless, some are misinformed followers, and others are radical feminists who want nothing more than to advance the same agenda as such radical organizations as NOW, Planned Parenthood (like the one  that is 2 blocks from my office), and NARAL. I was so utterly offended by Nancy Pelosi and Sandra Fluke purporting to speak for all women and asking for Congress to make me pay for their (well, Sandra and her BFFs anyway) birth control, sterilization and abortions, that it sickens me. When religious women lend their names and clout to the fray, contrary to what the true leaders of the Church advocate, it is not only disheartening, but infuriating.

So, getting back to the unprecedented 6 hours of arguments on the constitutionality of the health care law that the Supreme Court set aside this week, I want to lay out clearly what the arguments involved, since the mainstream media and the liberal politicians are trying to make this about things that it is  NOT about, namely a race, gender and class war.

On Monday the Court heard arguments on whether Obamacare provides that a tax to be implemented against those who do not choose to comply with the mandate to buy insurance. If the penalty for failing to buy health insurance is a tax, then the issue is not "ripe" and no Court  can hear the case until the tax is implemented -- in 2014 or 2015. Both sides want the arguments to go forward, so they agreed it was NOT a tax. But the liberal attorney for the plaintiffs (Obamacare advocates) kept stumbling over his words and using the term "tax" over and over, and was called out by the Court repeatedly. In the end, unless the Court just does not want to make a decision, then this should be an issue that is easily overcome.

Tuesday was the heart of the matter -- the individual mandate. We all know the arguments on both sides. What I would add to the mix is that I am baffled as to why the leaders in some religious institutes are so ready and willing to completely divest themselves of any and all responsibility for the types of care upon which so many religious institutes were founded. One such advocate is the leader of a national lobbying network who supports the individual mandate and, undoubtedly, a single payer system. The president of a national Catholic hospital association also has damaged the unity of the Church by advocating for Obamacare and its mandate that requires employers to pay for birth control, sterilization, and abortafacients. These women need to hear from Catholics who are praying for this country to stop ignoring its Christian history and to uphold TRUE Gospel values rather than their skewed view of what makes them feel and look good to other liberals. Catholic hospitals and social service organizations are not what they used to be. Many are not Catholic, and they need to be held accountable.

What I never hear these and other liberal Catholic women discuss is the fact that once you turn over payment of healthcare to the government, then the government gets to tell you what is included in the services they afford you, that to which you are entitled, who will deliver the services, when they will be delivered, when you get them, and when you are not worth the investment. The government will become the "death panel" that Sarah Palin boiled it all down to.

So many women religious in this country fight against the male leadership in the Church. They complain that because the Church's leaders are men, they cannot do ANYTHING for women. They blame everything on the fact that the men have male gonads. Of course they do not use that language, but that is what it all boils down to. It is so ludicrous. No one can reason with these women when they are dead set against men having moral or theological authority or leadership in the Church.

Sure, mistakes have been made by a wide number of male leaders in a wide variety of circumstances throughout the history of the Church. But why these religious women are so willing to turn over their personal health care (and that of ALL women, even though most of us DO NOT WANT  THE GOVERNMENT OVERSIGHT) to Kathleen Sebilius and, come next January when a new administration takes over, an appointee of a new conservative President, is beyond me. Can they not see that whoever controls the purse strings controls what the money inside will be allowed to buy?

Wednesday's SCOTUS hearings were on severability (morning) and the effect of the expansion of Medicaid coverage on states (afternoon). You can find out about these arguments on a plethora of websites, so I will spare you. On Wednesday, I took off a couple of hours from work to go down to the Supreme Court and see what it was like to be in the crowd on these momentous days. I got there just as the morning session was adjourning for lunch. I got to see Rep. Steve King from Iowa, Rep. Louie Gohmert from Texas, and Rep. Michele Bachmann from Minnesota as they spoke to the crowd gathered in front of the SCOTUS building. It was electric.

Michele Bachmann 3.28.12 in front of Supreme Court building

I have been to a number of Tea Party events, and it always is an amazing experience. The only thing that marred the occasion in front of the Supreme Court on Wednesday is that when these three Congress men and woman were speaking, the liberals who were present were chanting and shouting loudly and non-stop  to try and drown out the free speech of conservatives. It was not surprising. The liberals' idea of free speech is that they get to speak freely, we have to listen, and if they disagree with what we have to say, they will shout us down so the truth cannot be heard. It is as fascist as any tactic of Mussolini. They remind me of little children who pitch a hissy fit when they do not get what they want, or a grade school bully who tries to steal your lunch money. Finally, though, conservatives are going Ralphie on the liberal bully Scott Farkus. 

I gotta go now. My husband is sleeping across the room in his raise-em-up chair. We are going to go up and sleep peacefully through the night.

May I remind my Catholic friends and relatives that we are about to enter Holy Week. I plan to increase my prayers this coming week, praying that the Justices on the Supreme Court will be enlightened and will understand that this country cannot stand if the government can force us to buy anything that some majority of the 535 voting members of Congress (House and Senate) see fit to impose upon the other 320,000,000 of us. It is despicable, it is scary, and it is un-American.

God, please, save us from ourselves.