DON VINCENZO writes:
OVERWHELMING numbers of blacks, Latinos, Jews and Asians voted for President Obama in November. That is well-known. Less well-known is the fact that a majority of self-described Catholics, especially of Latin American ancestry, voted for him as well. While exit polls are notoriously inaccurate, more serious polling data from the election indicates that 51 percent, a small majority to be sure, of “Catholics” voted for a man who is, without question, the most principled enemy of the Church in my lifetime.
In order to eliminate the tag of being “anti-Catholic,” and potentially alienating some of this slender Catholic majority, the administration has surrounded itself with “Catholic” cabinet secretaries and legislative leaders, and in so doing can point to their presence as prima facie evidence that no such animus exists. If ”liberal” Republicans can be referred to as Republicans in Name Only (RINOs), then the Sebelius, Panetta, Kerry, and Biden group should then be called CINOs — Catholics in Name Only.
But to sell the message that no such ill will exists, the administration needs those who will carry their water to the public, and no one is better suited to fulfill this requirement than the columnist of The Washington Post, E. J. Dionne. I find it difficult to read Dionne, but when his columns deal with Church matters, duty calls to see what howlers and outrages have been put to paper.
In a recent column entitled, “Obama’s olive branch to Catholics,” the columnist writes of this administration’s efforts to seek a “compromise” with Church leaders over the issue of forcing Catholic institutions, as well as private companies, to pay for birth control and abortifacients, despite their religious beliefs. This is of no concern to the Obama people, but what does matter to Dionne is that the Obama personality cult remain sacrosanct. Reporters for Pravda prior to the fall of communism must have had similar tasks, but I wonder if they were as pleased to carry out their assignments as Dionne.
For those unfamiliar with Dionne, a syndicated columnist, his perspective is simple: the Church must do everything possible to aid and abet the liberal agenda. Hence to demur or to object to any proposal put forth by Obama’s administration must be seen as a sign of reactionary intransigence, even though that resistance is bound to Catholic teaching. On the issue of Church organization’s paying for birth control and abortifacients, Dionne sees an answer in “compromise,” which generally means that one side has to give in. To Dionne, “Many of the country’s most prominent prelates are inclined to do just that (compromise), – even if the most conservative bishops to want to keep the battle raging.” I guess Dionne is referring to mean-spirited clerics such as the Archbishop of Philadelphia, Charles Chaput, who has informed the administration that the Church will not carry out this ruling.
But Kathleen Sebelius, the CINO Health and Human Services Secretary, who has orchestrated this grab for power from the beginning, “…showed a becoming humility…” in attempting to iron out the differences. The problem with Dionne and Sebelius, too, is that they have no core beliefs that cannot be bargained away. To them, all things are negotiable.
The other problem with Dionne’s column is that he is lying through his teeth. This was not a fight the bishops wanted; indeed, they were assured that the problem would never arise, but more to the point, the claim that the administration seeks “compromise” means you accept the government’s position, for the new statement by Sebelius last week will not permit any religious institution or company to dissent from the fiat of the administration. Whether directly or through a third party (insurer), the bill does not change the Obama administrations’s rejection of ”religious liberty,” enshrined in the First Amendment. That must take a back seat as the solons of our dysfunctional capital take the nation further along on the path to national suicide.