28 January 2012

Just Say NO to B.O.

Archbishop Gregory Aymond of New Orleans asked his pastors to read a letter at this weekend's Masses.  When I read the letter to myself, I thought it was rather tame.  However, when I read it aloud, I was struck by the force of his words and motivated to act.

Rarely have I asked HancAquam readers to anything specific. . .OK. . ."buy me books" counts, I guess!  :-)

Let me ask you to do something now:  contact your Congressmen and Senators and let them know that you strongly object to the Obama administration's intrusion into our lives as faithful Catholics.

Even those of you who think the Church's teaching on contraception and abortion is wrongheaded or too extreme, or even if you don't really understand the Church's teachings, you can appreciate the gross malfeasance of requiring Catholic institutions to pay for contraceptives and abortions.  The Amish are exempted from buying health insurance and sending their children to public schools.  The Quakers are exempted from serving in the military.  Why are Catholics being required to violate their conscience in the funding of abortion?

Spirit of Vatican Two Catholics and JPII-BXVI Catholics can agree that the well-formed conscience of a religious believer is not subject to regulation by secular political forces.  

B.O. is setting himself against both the leadership of the Church and against the free conscience of individual Catholics when he orders that we work in order to supply money to those who want to violate the natural law by killing their children.  This is a rank, cynical political move to shore up his base before an election by demonizing the only institution left in this country that believes in objective truth and knowable moral norms.  

Not only is he ordering us to give our money to abortionists, he's implicating us in mortal sin.

Let your representatives know that they have your support in opposing B.O.'s attempt to get you to pay for his supporters' abortions.

Follow HancAquam and visit the Kindle Wish List and the Books & Things Wish List

Recommend this post on Google!


  1. Joe Magee10:50 PM

    I too am outraged that the HHS mandate is a grevious violation of conscience rights and religious freedom. But, in the interest of accuracy, I do not believe it mandates insurance coverage for elective, surgical abortions. It requires coverage for contraceptives (some of which are chemically abortifacient) and sterilization. Your remarks make it sound as though the Obama admin. is requiring Catholic institutions to pay all manner of abortions.

    What I have not heard in any discussion of the recent HHS announcement is the ghost of the Stupak amendment, or the toothless Executive Order which was to have replaced it. Even if the HHS mandate does not mean the federal govt. pays for surgical abortion, the Obama administration on record as defending the conscience rights of those opposed to abortion, and related medical technology?

  2. Joe, I understand your point but I'm not sure what moral difference there is btw "elective surgical abortion" and "the use of abortifacients." Forcing Catholics to pay for either one is forcing us to "pay for abortions."

    Maybe I'm not understanding the distinction you're drawing between surgical and pharmaceutical abortions and how this distinction make a difference in the morality of forcing Catholic to pay for them.

    And you are absolutely right about the Stupak Amendment and the E.O. All political cover.

  3. Joe Magee11:28 AM

    I agree there is no moral difference between abortifacient contraceptives and surgical abortions. But I raise the point to warn that the amiguous phrase "pay for abortions" could (and probably would) be cited as fear-mongering since HHS doesn't require paying for surgical abortions. I am only advocating for clarity of expression. It would be a serious violation of conscience protection and religious freedom if Catholics were required to pay for condoms, or anything our religious convictions prohibit. The principle is the same.

    As to political cover: we should use the E.O. against the president, or rather, take him at his word. Let us remind the him, and the general public, of the E.O. and his promises to respect conscience

  4. If I give you $300 for a surgical abortion or $15 for a pill that causes an abortion, I've paid for an abortion in both cases, right?

    I get your point that the phrase "pay for abortions" might be ambiguous to some; however, it is frightfully clear to me that regardless of how the procedure is done and regardless of how much it costs, we're being told to pay for abortions.