I am a bit appalled at the number of people who have picked this misrepresentation up and are running it down the field. Even Politico has now changed their article title to "Bishops endorse the amendment"
with this update at bottom of article "UPDATED: Headline corrected." This morning that same article title said something giving the impression that the bishops had signed off on the bill with a headline that said Bishops endorse the Bill.
I have read, and reread. the letter from the bishops. They have made it quite clear that they are for reform but at no time do they support this bill.
"The nation and the Congress are now engaged in an intense and much needed national discussion on how to provide affordable and accessible health care for all. We are not experts on health care policy and cannot assess every provision of legislation as complex as this proposal. However, health care legislation is not just political, technical, or economic, but also moral. Health care reform is about life and death, who can take their children to the doctor and who cannot, who can afford decent health care coverage and who are left to fend for themselves."While I may think the USCCB is a useless organization and their leanings toward "social justice" ignore some pertinent points, I must defend them in this matter.
I suggest that bloggers and news aggregators correct this misrepresentation. I have always felt the biggest danger to the blogosphere is people not acting as real journalists and fact checking what they write.
Update:
From Hot Air: Catholic bishops endorse Pelosi Plan with Stupak amendment?
Notice the question mark?
"Now that Pelosi has allowed the Stupak amendment to come to a vote today, a rider that would more forcefully ban any federal funding for abortion coverage, the USCCB has announced that it will endorse the Pelosi plan, according to Politico:"And the comment section is full of the most virulent anti-Catholic comments. When their statcounter is low they love to start a Catholic bashing post. I suggest all you ex-Catholics and people that call yourselves Christians, tend to your own churches.
16 comments:
Which is why I didn't site them in my analysis :)
Keep giving the correct information, Adrienne.
Sheesh! People can be so damned stupid!
The absolute arrogance and idiocy (?) of these legislators that want to cram some kind of legislation with no debate and/or knowledge is just beyond comprehension...this will affect EVERYBODY...EVERYBODY...do THEY get THAT???
We'll be living with this for a long, long time if it goes through, so it better be right...or we're in for hell on earth, I'm afraid...and I'm no pessimist...which causes me untold torture at times!!
Joe - That's why I love you..;-)
Nazareth Priest - Thank you. I really try to check and cross check everything. Today I about had enough of this "politically correct" ripping into the Catholic Church.
The only thing nastier than a ex-smoker is an ex-Catholic.
I don't run around bashing the prots but I may have to change my stance on that issue. Like the fact that hundreds and hundreds more Prot ministers have committed some form of sexual abuse than any priests ever have. Why don't we hear about that?
Ummmnhhhh.....
USCCB has often stated that 'without an abortion-funding ban, we will NOT support HR3200.'
They also mentioned conscience-protection, which has not yet been amended into the bill.
How-some-ever: it is absolutely fair to infer that WITH Stupak AND conscience-protection, the Bishops WILL support the bill.
How else would you read USCCB's statements?
Hmmmmmm?
Whatever the Bishops' desire was, they gave Pelosi a potent weapon, and that is inexcusable in a vote this close. What I found appalling does appear in the link to the Politico that you provided, and that is that they blessed the agreement for a vote on the Stupak amendment, rather than its passage:
"The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops delivered a critical endorsement to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Saturday by signing off on late-night agreement to grant a vote on an amendment barring insurance companies that participate in the exchange from covering abortions.
They should have stood on the sidelines rather than giving Pelosi any positive press. 3 people decided the outcome. There is no way of knowing of what influence the Bishops' letter had, but it went over like a turd in a punchbowl with me.
Dad29 - It may be "fair" to infer, but until I they actually explicitly state they approve of the bill, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt (which is something I rarely do as I think fully half of the bishops should be drummed out of the church based on their social justice crap)
BlogProf - I highly doubt anything the bishops say has one tiny bit of influence. The liars and cheats in Congress and the Senate don't listen to the voters, so why in hell would they listen to the bishops?
I highly doubt anything the bishops say has one tiny bit of influence. The liars and cheats in Congress and the Senate don't listen to the voters, so why in hell would they listen to the bishops?
They wouldn't, but what they wanted was political cover and + press, and they got both from the Bishops.
Adrienne, there is some hope: some of the worst bishops are apporoaching retirement age, and there are many more younger bishops coming up who aren't laboring under the delusion that FDR is still alive and that the Democratic Party is for the little guy. Here in Minnesota, we just had an excellent and orthodox priest, Fr. Lee Piche', made Auxilary Bishop this spring, and the bishop-elect for the diocese of Duluth, Fr. Paul Sirba, is another fine orthodox priest. I have hope....but I understand your frustration. I was speaking with someone and praising our new Auxilary Bishop's astuteness, and the responded, "Well, you don't get to be made bishop unless you're pretty sharp". Oh, would that that were true!!I thought of Mahoney and so many others of his ilk, and the silliness that has come out of the USCCB so often in the past....
By the way, where is our dear ACLU in all of this? I ask because, under Pelosi care, you will be fined if you don't buy insurance ($25,000), with the possibility of jail time. What about our civil liberties? Why isn't the ACLU actively engaged? Oh yeah, that's right-- there are some crosses out there that have to be taken down....
Austie - I always have hope because I know the Holy Spirit is doing His job.
"Why isn't the ACLU actively engaged? Oh yeah, that's right-- there are some crosses out there that have to be taken down....
LOL
BlogProf - "Political cover" for who? Catholics don't pay any attention to the bishops and the non-Catholics sure don't. Non-Catholics think all we do is sit around and worship statues...
The left has the msm securely in their pockets. They don't need the bishops. It appears to me that this whole bishop thing became another reason for Protestants (all 25K denominations of them) to bash Catholics. And what exactly is gained by that?
The comments on Hot Air were despicable. I hope they remember that if they have to go to a hospital, most of which were built by Catholics. And it certainly doesn't help when the conservative bloggers start cutting each others throats. This is a time for unity.
I have never in my life found it necessary to bash Protestants, or any of their beliefs, and was truly shocked when I grew up and started to hear the drivel propagated against the Catholic Church.
If there is any Catholic bashing to be done, it should be done by the Catholics. The Protestants should try taking a harder look at their own churches instead of worrying about the "Whore of Babylon".
God luv ya' Adrienne: So true, so true..."If there is any Catholic bashing to be done, it should be done by the Catholics."
I think, in my own humble estimation, it's time to take out a couple of cases of "Whoop ass" and go to it with the bishops and the priests of this country...no?
[But ya' never heard this from, yeah?:<)!]
I am a Catholic and a Registered Nurse and support the Stupak Amendment. Marie C. Gurney
Nazareth Priest - I'm a firm believer in people cleaning up their own houses. Last night I actually went looking for Catholic sites that bashed prots. I'm sure their must be some out there, but I dang sure couldn't find any.
But, my oh my, the anti-Catholic sites abound. I ran across one comment on an anti-Catholic site that matched my thinking. Some guy said "most Catholics don't think about prots at all." How true.
Ok - back to statue worshipping...heh
I'm not the Lone Ranger in reading the USCC's action as......implicit endorsement.
http://www.tomroeser.com/sectionlist.asp?Month=11&Day=11&Year=2009
If you haven't read Roeser's stuff, you should. And he knows his way around Gummint extremely well.
Post a Comment