Representative Nancy Pelosi
Washington DC Office235 Cannon H.O.B.
Washington, DC 20515
Madame Speaker,
I am not one of your constituents, however I am a fellow Catholic, and as such I wish to speak with you regarding your recent statement in support of the HHS Mandate set down by Secretary Sebelius. You said, and I quote, "I'm going to stand with my fellow Catholics in supporting the Administration on this. I think it was a very courageous decision that they made and I support it."1
Since your days as Speaker of the House, I have watched your career with apprehension and, frankly, with disbelief. You continually stand in direct opposition to the blatantly obvious and incontrovertible teaching of the very Church to which you claim to belong, yet you simultaneously pretend to be operating in union with that Church. This time is no different, but it is even more shocking because of the wording of your opposition and its timing. At the very same moment that you purport "to stand with my fellow Catholics in supporting the Administration on this," the bishops, archbishops, and cardinals of 153 (and counting) out of the 183 Catholic dioceses2 in the United States are actively speaking out against this deplorable mandate in no uncertain terms. I do not know to what (undoubtedly tiny) group of Catholics you are referring in your support of this unconstitutional attack on the foundational freedom of religion in America, but I can assure you that, though they, like you, were raised within the Catholic Church, that unnamed "Catholic" minority neither speak for nor protect the interests of the Catholic Church in these United States. Allow me to present to you the words just a few of those who do speak for the Church, specifically for the Church in your home state of California, for the Church in Washington, DC, and finally for the Church in Rome (which is to say for the entire, world-wide Catholic Church):
1. Cardinal and Archbishop-Emeritus Roger Mahony of the archdiocese of Los Angeles said about the mandate:
"I cannot imagine a more direct and frontal attack on freedom of conscience than this ruling today. This decision must be fought against with all the energies the Catholic Community can muster. …
"This is a sad moment in the life of our country where religious freedom and freedom of conscience led to the formation of this new Nation under God."3
This man is a Cardinal in the Catholic Church, a leader of your "fellow Catholics," yet you clearly do not stand with him. You stand in blatant and undeniable opposition to him and to us. Are you sure you've chosen the Catholic side in this confrontation?
2. Bishop Patrick McGrath of the diocese of San Jose said,
"I write to you concerning an alarming and serious matter that negatively impacts the Church in the United States directly, and that strikes at the fundamental right to religious liberty for all citizens of any faith. The federal government, which we profess to be "of, by, and for the people," has just dealt a heavy blow to almost a quarter of those people—the Catholic population of the United States—and to the millions more who are served by the Catholic Church. …
"In so ruling, the Administration has cast aside the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, denying to Catholics our Nation's first and most fundamental freedom, that of religious liberty. …
"We cannot comply with this unjust law. People of faith cannot be made second class citizens. We are already joined by our brothers and sisters of all faiths and many others of good will in this important effort to regain our religious freedom. …
"Please join me in taking this action as soon as you can, indeed in the very near future."4
Bishop McGrath is a successor of the Apostles in your Catholic Church, calling you to oppose this unconscionable mandate, and yet you clearly stand in opposition to his authoritative request to defend the First Amendment. Are you sure that you have chosen "to stand with [your] fellow Catholics"?
3. Archbishop José Gomez of the archdiocese of Los Angeles said on January 25th, 2012,
"Last Friday, the day after the Pope's address, our federal government issued a ruling that confirmed his worst fears about our country's anti-religious and anti-Christian drift. …
"It is hard not to see this new mandate as a direct attack on Catholic consciences and the freedom of our Catholic institutions.
"The mandate does not promote any civil liberties and it does not advance any significant public health goals. … [P]regnancy is not a disease for which 'preventive medicine' is required. …
"In this case, the government is imposing a narrow, radically individualistic idea of religion—defining religion as only worship and moral teaching. As many have noted, under this definition, much of what Jesus Christ did would not qualify as a 'religious' ministry. …
"The Catholic Church is the only visible religious group in American public life that holds consistent beliefs regarding the morality of life issues, including abortion and contraception. ... So it is hard to escape the conclusion that the government is singling out the Church with this new mandate.
"But the issues here go far beyond contraception and far beyond the liberties of the Catholic Church. They go to the heart of our national identity and our historic understanding of our democratic form of government."5
This archbishop wrote in solidarity with the Pope, even quoting our Holy Father in defence of his call to oppose this anti-constitutional attack on religious liberty in America. Moreover, he blatantly indicated that this mandate specifically singles out the Catholic Church in an egregious attempt to subjugate our freedom beneath the contrary will of the Federal Government. How on earth can you claim "to stand with [your] fellow Catholics" when the very mandate you support aims to strike at the very heart of the Catholic Church in America?
4. His Excellency Bishop Jaime Soto likewise spoke out, saying,
"This is an alarming matter that negatively impacts the Church in the United States directly. It strikes at the fundamental right to religious liberty for all citizens of any faith. …
"This unjust law cannot stand. People of faith cannot be made second class citizens."6
This bishop, like all the others, could not be more clearly opposed to that which you support. Are you sure that those around you in the confrontation are faithful Catholics?
5. From the diocese of San Bernadino, Bishop Gerald Barnes said,
"The decision, as we understand it, puts our Catholic hospitals, schools and public ministries in the very difficult position of having to violate their consciences in order to comply with the law. This appears to run counter to the ideal of religious freedom that has always been present in our nation. Fortunately, we have the opportunity to make our voices heard when we see injustice in laws and public policies. In fact, our faith calls us to be Faithful Citizens and stand up for the values of the Gospel today.."7
Bishop Barnes clearly states that this is an assault on the religious freedom ensured by the First Amendment, yet you support this assault. Are you sure it is fellow Catholics with whom you stand?
6. His Excellency Tod Brown, bishop of the diocese of Orange, truly does "stand with [his] fellow Catholics", saying:
"Catholics make up ¼ of the population and this mandate flies in the face of our religious liberty. …
"This unjust mandate cannot stand. In this election year, our combined outrage will have a strong impact."8
This bishop speaks of "our combined outrage" over this mandate, yet you are not outraged at all but rather admire the administration's "courageous decision," the same decision that so very many of our Catholic bishops call an "unjust mandate." How is it, then, that you still claim to "stand with [your] fellow Catholics"? I don't see them standing with you...
7. Armando Ochoa, bishop-designate of Frenso, likewise said,
"We cannot─we will not─comply with this unjust law. … Our parents and grandparents did not come to these shores to help build America's cities and towns, its infrastructure and institutions, its enterprise and culture, only to have their posterity stripped of their God-given rights. In generations past, the Church has always been able to count on the faithful to stand up and protect her sacred rights and duties. I hope and trust that she can count on this generation of Catholics to do the same. Our children and grandchildren deserve nothing less."9
This Bishop-designate calls on you to defend our religious liberties in solidarity with your ancestors, but instead you call the outright denial of those "God-given rights" a "courageous decision." How can you defy the clear will of our Catholic bishops and our Catholic forebears, who even now are watching us from Purgatory and Heaven, praying that we will listen to and obey the divine authority given to our bishops, all the while claiming "to stand with [your] fellow Catholics"?
8. Bishop Steven Blair of the diocese of Stockton said,
"In effect, the HHS ruling is presuming to define how the Catholic Church, or any religious institution, is to carry out its ministry as an expression of its faith. Essentially it is saying that freedom of religion pertains only to freedom of worship and religious teaching but not to the practice of religious faith in the charitable, social, and health institutions of the Church. Some have pointed out the irony that under this definition Jesus' miracles and care for those around Him would not qualify as religious.
"This ruling represents an alarming intrusion of government into the affairs of the Catholic Church and other faith communities. …
"The conditions of the mandate are unconstitutional and violate the First Amendment because the government is overreaching its power in legislating which Church ministries will be exempted and which ones will not. It is outside the power of government to define religion in any way whatsoever. ...
"If the government can intrude into the workings of the Catholic Church it can intrude into any religious organization in matters that are internal to the religious organization.
"We must explore and pursue every option to repeal or reverse this unjust mandate through persuasion, advocacy, litigation and other means to protect religious liberty for all. We must especially convince Congress of the need for legislative action to overturn this injustice. You can do your part by contacting your federal legislators to begin this essential process."10
As a Congresswoman, and especially as former-Speaker of the House, you are in far better a position than most Catholics, a position from which, if you were faithful to the bishops' will for you, you could make great strides toward striking down this anti-American mandate. I don't think Bishop Blair, or really any of the Bishops, could be more clear that where your fellow Catholics stand is not "in supporting the administration on this." Yet you stand apart, doing the very opposite of what the bishops ask of you. Why do you oppose us?
9. From the diocese in which you likely spend most of your time, Cardinal Archbishop Donald Wuerl has declared,
"The new mandate is the first federal regulation in our nation's history to require all faith-based institutions to pay for coverage of abortifacient drugs, sterilization and contraceptives. … Being forced to provide these services violates both our faith conviction and our freedom. …
"Even those who may disagree with the Church's teaching on the sanctity of human life, such as the editorial boards of the Washington Post and the New York Daily News, have stated that the government has no business forcing religious institutions to sponsor and pay for procedures and drugs which violate their beliefs.
"What will happen if this mandate stands? Our schools, hospitals, and charitable organizations will be placed in the untenable position of choosing between violating civil law and abandoning our religious beliefs. …
"There can no longer be any doubt that religious liberty in our country is in jeopardy. …
"This is the time to speak up. ... [A]s a community of faith we need to commit ourselves to prayer that wisdom and justice may prevail, and religious liberty may be preserved."11
How can you oppose the will even of this leader of the Catholic Church where you work daily, and yet claim "to stand with [your] fellow Catholics"?
10. And finally, if you do not care to listen even to these American bishops, perhaps you will listen to the final authority in the Catholic world: Pope Benedict XVI. On January 19th, 2012, he said,
"The Church's witness, then, is of its nature public: she seeks to convince by proposing rational arguments in the public square. The legitimate separation of Church and State cannot be taken to mean that the Church must be silent on certain issues, nor that the State may choose not to engage, or be engaged by, the voices of committed believers in determining the values which will shape the future of the nation.
"In the light of these considerations, it is imperative that the entire Catholic community in the United States come to realize the grave threats to the Church's public moral witness presented by a radical secularism which finds increasing expression in the political and cultural spheres. The seriousness of these threats needs to be clearly appreciated at every level of ecclesial life. Of particular concern are certain attempts being made to limit that most cherished of American freedoms, the freedom of religion. Many of you [the U.S. bishops] have pointed out that concerted efforts have been made to deny the right of conscientious objection on the part of Catholic individuals and institutions with regard to cooperation in intrinsically evil practices. Others have spoken to me of a worrying tendency to reduce religious freedom to mere freedom of worship without guarantees of respect for freedom of conscience. …
"As the [Second Vatican] Council noted, and I wished to reiterate during my Pastoral Visit, respect for the just autonomy of the secular sphere must also take into consideration the truth that there is no realm of worldly affairs which can be withdrawn from the Creator and his dominion (cf. Gaudium et Spes, §36)"12 [emphasis added].
The very thing which our beloved Holy Father warns us against is that thing which you call "a very courageous decision," saying, "I support it." Referring to the Church of Rome, which this Pope now leads, St. Irenaeus said, "it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere."13 And in these United States, every Church does agree with Rome. Yet, you, a layperson on your own authority, do not. Where are these "fellow Catholics" with whom you claim to stand?
From your home state alone, 8 bishops have clearly spoken out condemning Secretary Sebelius' mandate. In Washington, DC, your local bishop has spoken out against it. From the Eternal City, Our Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI, on whose shoulders rest the crown of Catholic Unity, has spoken against it. The voice of the Catholic Church has spoken from the many apostolic chairs in these United States. The voice of the Catholic Church has spoken from the Chair of Peter. The voice of the Catholic Church is clear and strong.
Regardless of whether Archbishop George H. Niederauer of your home diocese of San Francisco speaks out in the coming days or not, with over 80% of our U.S. Bishops, and even the Bishop of Rome himself, standing united against this grievously unconstitutional measure, with countless millions of faithful Catholics standing behind them, the will of the Church is undeniable. So I again ask you: which "fellow Catholics" are you thinking of when you speak of standing with them in your unconscionable support of this unprecedented attack on American liberties? Because I stand with my fellow Catholics in union with the bishops. After all, for almost 2000 years now, "wherever the Bishop shall appear... there is the Catholic Church."14 When I look around at those standing with us, I don't see you, Madame Speaker. Why is that?
I do not presume to tell you where you ought to stand on this issue. That is a matter of your own conscience. But I do ask that you be honest. Honest with yourself and with the American people. If you continue to stand where you do now, you do not stand with your fellow Catholics, because those Catholics who stand in solidarity with the Church oppose this anti-American mandate on the grounds that it strikes at the very heart and soul of this Union.
Respectfully, your fellow Catholic,
Jackford R. Macarius B. Kolk
Tenui Ecclesiam Catholicam nec dimittam.
1. "Pelosi: Obama's Anti-Catholic Birth Control Decision was 'Courageous'". http://nation.foxnews.com/nancy-pelosi/2012/02/02/pelosi-obamas-anti-catholic-birth-control-decision-was-courageous. Accessed 3 February 2012.
2. "Updated: *153* Bishops (Over 80% of Dioceses) Have Spoken Out Against Obama/HHS Mandate". http://www.catholicvote.org/discuss/index.php?p=25591. Accessed 3 February 2012.
3. "Fedeeral Government Mandate for Contraceptive/Sterilization Coverage". http://cardinalrogermahonyblogsla.blogspot.com/2012/01/federal-government-mandate-for.html. Accessed 3 February 2012.
4. "US Health and Human Services Ruling". http://www.dsj.org/about-us/bishops/bishops-statements/us-health-and-human-services-ruling. Accessed 3 February 2012.
5. "A Time for Catholic Action and Catholic Voices". http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2012/01/a-time-for-catholic-action-and-catholic-voices. Accessed 3 February 2012.
6. "Health Coverage Announcement". http://www.diocese-sacramento.org/PDFs/SotoHealthCoverageAnnouncementEnglish.pdf. Accessed 3 February 2012.
7. "HHS decision stifles religious freedom".
http://sbdiocese.blogspot.com/2012/02/hhs-decision-stifles-religious-freedom.html. Accessed 3 February 2012.
8. . http://rcbo.org/component/content/article/3/530-bishop-brown-speaks-out-on-hhs-mandate.html. Accessed 3 February 2012.
9. "Letter to Parishes". http://www.elpasodiocese.org/documents/letterToParishes012512.pdf. Accessed 3 February 2012.
10. "Helath and Human Services Statement". http://www.stocktondiocese.org/Our-Bishop/Bishop-s-Statements/Health-and-Human-Services-Statement-02-2012. Accessed 4 February 2012.
11. "An Impossible Choice". http://site.adw.org/pdfs/CardinalWuerl_e-Letters/January2012-An-Impossible-Choice.html. Accessed 4 February 2012.
12. "Address of His Holiness Benedict XVI to the Bishops of the United States of America on Their 'Ad Limina' Visit". http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2012/january/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20120119_bishops-usa_en.html. Accessed 4 February 2012.
13. St. Irenaeus of Lyons, circa A.D. 185, Against Heresies, III,3,§2. ("Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere."). http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm. Accessed 4 February 2012.
14. St. Ignatius of Antioch, circa A.D. 100, Letter to the Smyrnaeans, §8. ("Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church."). http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0109.htm. Accessed 4 February 2012.
No comments:
Post a Comment