Catholic church rejects surrender terms from Obama

Here’s the tale of Father Larry Swink, a Catholic priest in D.C. who’s one of many now massing the Catholic pews into action against Obama:

My Catholic priest, Father Larry Swink, delivered a homily on Sunday that I told him would make headlines. In the toughest sermon I have ever heard from a pulpit, he attacked the Obama Administration as evil, even demonic, and warned of religious persecution ahead. What was also newsworthy about the sermon was that he cited The Washington Post in agreement—not on the subject of the Obama Administration being evil, but on the matter of its abridgment of the constitutional right to freedom of religion.

What is happening is extraordinary and unprecedented. The Catholic Church is in open revolt against the Obama Administration, with Fr. Swink noting from the pulpit that priests across the archdiocese were joining the call on Sunday to rally Catholics to resistance against the U.S. Government. He said we are entering a time of religious persecution and that Catholics and others will have to make a final decision about which side they are on.

The issue is what the Catholic Bishops have called a “literally unconscionable” edict by the Obama Administration demanding that sterilization, abortifacients and contraception be included in virtually all health plans.

At a time when the media are full of reports about who is ahead and behind in the polls, and who will win the next Republican presidential primary, this incredible uprising in the Catholic Church is something that could not only overshadow the political campaign season, but also may have a major impact on the ultimate outcome—if Republicans know how to handle it. This matter goes beyond partisan politics to the growing perception of an unconstitutional Obama Administration assault on religious freedom. To hear the Catholic Bishops and Priests describe it, our constitutional republic and our freedoms hang in the balance.

The administration claims there is a religious exemption in the mandate, but the bishops say it is so narrow that it fails to cover the vast majority of faith-based organizations, including Catholic hospitals, universities and service organizations that help millions every year. “Ironically,” they say, “not even Jesus & his disciples would have qualified.”

The bishops go on, “Now that the Administration has refused to recognize the Constitutional conscience rights of organizations and individuals who oppose the mandate, the bishops are now urging Catholics and others of good will to fight this unprecedented attack on conscience rights and religious liberty.”

Interestingly, The Washington Post, as Father Swink indicated, agrees with the bishops. The paper said, “In this circumstance, requiring a religiously affiliated employer to spend its own money in a way that violates its religious principles does not make an adequate accommodation for those deeply held views. Having recognized the principle of a religious exemption, the administration should have expanded it.”
So why would the administration pick a major fight with the Catholic Church?

The separation of Church and state clause is often referenced by the judicial branch as a wall between government and religion as Thomas Jefferson wrote in his 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptists. The argument for the First Amendment freedom of religion clause was to keep government out of churches and to prevent government from establishing a national religion or church. It was not to keep religion out of government. Government has crossed the line, it is a direct attack on every religious institution not just the Catholic Church. If you do not believe this you know nothing about the history of the Constitution and our founders.

What our dictatorial executive branch is doing to the Catholic Church forcing a mandate on them to comply with their demands is no different than deciding observant Jews will be denied Kosher food. Think about that folks. It does not matter what your religious beliefs or lack thereof, if the tyrannical government can decide against the teachings of one religious group then they can decide how all of us are to believe, behave and worship or not worship. I am not Catholic, I am protestant but I stand with the Catholics, Mormons, Jews and any religious group who oppose tyranny and the socialist/marxist president.

Be prepared, very prepared. This corrosive dictatorial consolidation of power and absolute disregard of Constitutional government and the Rule of Law is just the beginning. It will get much worse unless we have a radical transformation soon and it must be this year or we lose as a nation because we will choose sides and the unspeakable may begin.

Julian VanDyke, Jr.

"Tracker" is a Vietnam War veteran with a lot of anger to share. We asked him his rank once and he told us to stuff ourselves. He's on your team, and that's probably all you need to know scruff.

  1. The other part of this story is the Obama admin using the military to silence Catholic chaplains. It is so unconscionable and outright tyranny.

    Obama deserves the hordes of agitated Catholics that will run amuck from this political blunder, not just because it’s still the right side to support, but because he’s not even very good at learning his history if he’s making a classic blunder of taking on the Jesuits politically.

  2. So… what you’re saying is that the government has no right to ban female circumcision or prevent jiihadists from killing infidels? If their religion tells them to do it, we can’t say otherwise, or we’d be stomping all over their rights!  How about the biblical mandate to publicly execute non-virgins and mouthy children? We can’t allow the government to tell us who we can and can’t kill, when that’s God’s job, right? So the entire DOJ and the police force and all those laws banning murder and human sacrifice are ALSO an attack on religion! Or is that too much hyperbole to add to an article that says access to birth control is the beginning of unspeakable tyrranny and the end of all freedom as we know it? You know, because I wouldn’t want to exaggerate anything, would I? That would be bad if I did that.