…we note at the outset that the lack of clear protection for key stakeholders—for self-insured religious employers; for religious and secular for-profit employers; for secular non-profit employers; for religious insurers; and for individuals—is unacceptable and must be corrected. And in the case where the employee and insurer agree to add the objectionable coverage, that coverage is still provided as a part of the objecting employer’s plan, financed in the same way as the rest of the coverage offered by the objecting employer. This, too, raises serious moral concerns.

We just received information about this proposal for the first time this morning; we were not consulted in advance. Some information we have is in writing and some is oral. We will, of course, continue to press for the greatest conscience protection we can secure from the Executive Branch. But stepping away from the particulars, we note that today’s proposal continues to involve needless government intrusion in the internal governance of religious institutions, and to threaten government coercion of religious people and groups to violate their most deeply held convictions. In a nation dedicated to religious liberty as its first and founding principle, we should not be limited to negotiating within these parameters. The only complete solution to this religious liberty problem is for HHS to rescind the mandate of these objectionable services.

We will therefore continue—with no less vigor, no less sense of urgency—our efforts to correct this problem through the other two branches of government. For example, we renew our call on Congress to pass, and the Administration to sign, the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act. And we renew our call to the Catholic faithful, and to all our fellow Americans, to join together in this effort to protect religious liberty and freedom of conscience for all.

Indeed, the Wall Street Journal confirms that President Obama’s “accommodation” has simply made matters worse for him. An editorial sums up the lameness of his attempt at making his edict more politically tolerable:

So you almost have to admire the absurdity of the new plan President Obama floated yesterday: The government will now write a rule that says the best things in life are “free,” including contraception. Thus a political mandate will be compounded by an uneconomic one—in other words, behold the soul of ObamaCare.

Under the original Health and Human Services regulation, all religious institutions except for houses of worship would be required to cover birth control, including hospitals, schools and charities. Under the new rule, which the White House stresses is “an accommodation” and not a compromise, nonprofit religious organizations won’t have to directly cover birth control and can opt out. But the insurers they hire to cover their employees can’t opt out. If that sounds like a distinction without a difference, odds are you’re a rational person.

But, jumping on the muted initial statement by the Catholic bishops about the “accommodation,” President Obama’s Catholic left base rushed in with their response, signaling their satisfaction with the shell game, never mind that the consciences of religious organizations can’t tell the difference between directly covering free contraception, etc. or writing a check out to an insurance company to do it for them. And never mind that they are satisfied with President Obama- the government- telling a private company what it can and cannot do.

Sister Carol Keehan, head of the Catholic Health Association, who provided the “appearance” of Catholic support for ObamaCare to the president, responded to the “accommodation:”

The Catholic Health Association is very pleased with the White House announcement that a resolution has been reached that protects the religious liberty and conscience rights of Catholic institutions. The framework developed has responded to the issues we identified that needed to be fixed. We are pleased and grateful that the religious liberty and conscience protection needs of so many ministries that serve our country were appreciated enough that an early resolution of this issue was accomplished. The unity of Catholic organizations in addressing this concern was a sign of its importance. This difference has at times been uncomfortable but it has helped our country sort through an issue that has been important throughout the history of our great democracy.

So, if we follow the logic of Sister Keehan, it appears it is against one’s conscience to kill someone yourself, but it is not against one’s conscience to hire someone to kill on your behalf. As the Wall Street Journal so aptly noted, “If that sounds like a distinction without a difference, odds are you’re a rational person.”

There’s obviously been a lot of media attention this week on ACORN’s well-deserved meltdown.  One aspect of this sad tale that should not be forgotten is the shameful way the Catholic Church has been played the fool over the years by ACORN.

First, some stipulations.  I am a very faithful Roman Catholic who regularly attends Mass at my parish in Alexandria, VA with my family.  I even go to Mass during the week in downtown Washington, DC.  Just for fun, I pray the older breviary in Latin, and am taking an ecclesiastical Latin class on Saturday afternoons.  Suffice it to say, I love the Church and only want to prevent her further embarassment.

Many in the Church have big hearts and small brains.  The Catholic Church is the largest and oldest social welfare organization in the word.  We practically or actually invented hospitals, soup kitchens, schools, shelters, etc.  As such, the “social teaching” of the Church has always been a very high priority, and the execution of the corporal works of mercy is a necessity to salvation.  The people working on this day-to-day, though, are often naive fools.

And they were suckered by ACORN.

For about fifty years, Catholics attending Mass the Sunday after Thanksgiving have been met with a second offertory collection for the “Catholic Campaign for Human Development” (CCHD).  This is an arm of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), essentially a trade association for the 200 or so diocesan bishops in the U.S.

This collection is divided so that 25% of funds go to the local, diocesan CCHD offfice, and the other 75% are kicked upstairs to the head CCHD office at the USCCB.  So, the local bishop has a profit-sharing incentive to push the collection.  Parish pastors, even if they’re uncomfortable with where CCHD monies ultimately end up, don’t feel as if they can ruffle feathers with their boss to whom they have pledged a lifetime of obedience, the bishop.  At my parish, and I would guess most other orthodox parishes, it’s offered without comment by the pastor (which savvy people can interpret as they see fit).

CCHD sent millions to ACORN over the past decade.  We all know what ACORN did.   Increasingly, it appeared that the Catholic Church was using the faithful’s monies to fund a group which steals elections for pro-abortion candidates for office.  Many, including myself, were livid.  And we let our bishops and others know it.It got so bad, the bishops felt under pressure from Catholic bloggers and influential Catholic media types and policymakers and took action (side note: it’s unlikely that anything would have happened a decade or more ago, before the rise of the Catholic blogosphere, as Notre Dame recently found out).

The bishops finally announced that CHD would no longer be funding ACORN around this time last year.  Of course, that was only after $7.3 million had been appropriated to ACORN over the past decade by the CCHD.  Ralph McCloud, the executive director of CCHD, even admitted that some of this money was “probably” used by ACORN to conduct voter registration drives.

Today, the CCHD continues to state that ACORN receives no money, and that better safeguards are in place.  However, one must ask the following questions:

1. Why did anyone think it was a good idea to fund ACORN in the first place?
2. Did those decision makers get fired, or are they still appropriating our money?
3. Why would anyone be stupid enough to give to this collection ever again?
4. Why haven’t the bishops disbanded CCHD, or at least made the collection optional for parishes?

Speaking for myself, I never gave to this (or any other) second collection, because I don’t trust that my money won’t be stolen from the big-hearted goops that work in Catholic charitable endeavors.  There are lots of ACORNs out there, prowling about seeking the ruin of souls (at least the souls of the charity check-writers).  Put simply, Catholic charitable endeavors cannot be trusted with my money.  Neither can chanceries, since bishops obviously let their local CCHDs get out of hand.

Here is what I did, and what I would recommend to anyone.  At my parish, 7 percent of the general collection every week is kicked upstairs to the diocese as a kind of tax or tribute.  Because dollars are fungible, I don’t want that to happen with my money.  So, I give only to capital campaign collections at my parish, which all stays there.  My pastor is happy to receive my contribution any way in which I feel comfortable, and I’ve fulfilled my canon law obligation to support my parish financially (221.1).

I suggest anyone concerned about the next dumb Catholic/smart ACORN strategy do the same.  Hopefully, the Catholic Church hierarchy has learned, once again, that prudence is a cardinal virtue that informs the theological virtue of charity.