I'M HAVING A DIFFICULT TIME TRYING TO RESOLVE SOMETHING...

What I'm trying to figure out here, and having quite a difficult time doing it, is to figure out just how it is that you can be a practicing Catholic and a practicing Democrat the same time. Because, it would seem to me, that being a practicing Democrat would prevent you, on so many levels, from being a practicing Catholic. And what kinda put me heading down this road toward my little quandary, was when I heard Rep. Gerry Connolly, a Democrat that claims to be a Catholic, from Virginia, spend his allotted five minutes to question witnesses at a House hearing today on whether the Obamacare contraceptive mandate violates Americans’ First Amendment right to religious liberty, by telling them that the hearing was a “sham,” and that they were being used in what he called a “shameful exercise."

“I believe today’s hearing is a sham,” Connolly said to, of all people, Bishop William E. Lori of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and four other leaders from the Baptist, Lutheran, and Jewish faiths. “And I believe – I have to assume each of you gentlemen came here in good faith.” Adding, “But surely it has not escaped your attention that you are being used for a political agenda.” Connolly went on to say, “Maybe you’re willingly being used, I don’t know.” Again adding that, “I think this is a shameful exercise!” Connolly further said he thought the “panel was designed -- with your conscious participation or not -- to try one more time to embarrass the president of the United States and his administration.” Where exactly does this clown get off thinking that this is in any way appropriate?


This douche-bag Connolly said he was initially concerned about how far the regulation, issued by the Department of Health and Humane Services, would go in requiring certain religious institutions or employers to provide coverage that includes sterilizations and FDA-approved contraceptives, including those that induce abortion – services that are contrary to Catholic teaching and are also opposed by many Protestants, Jews, and Muslims. But, Connolly said, he now felt confident that Barry had fixed the problem with the “accommodation” he announced on Friday, Feb. 10. This little "accommodation" didn't "fix" jack-shit, and this imbecile Connolly knows it. It was nothing more than another attempt by Barry to distract attention away from this continuing fixation that the left has with abortion.


As a direct result of what erupted into a firestorm of criticism, that you would have thought Barry would have seen coming, of the HHS amendment describing it as a violation of religious liberty, our "Dear Beloved Leader" announced on Feb. 10 what he laughably characterized as being “a solution that works for everyone.” Under this proposed "solution," Barry now decreed that all health-insurance plans in the United States would now be forced by the government to cover sterilizations, contraceptives and abortifacients completely free of charge. But, as Barry described it, if a woman works for a religious hospital or charity that objects to these services, the insurance company, not the employer, would pay to provide the services to the woman free of charge.


So, according to our "Dear Beloved Leader,“Under the rule, women will still have access to free preventive care that includes contraceptive services--no matter where they work. So that core principle remains,” the president said. “But if a woman’s employer is a charity or a hospital that has a religious objection to providing contraceptive services as part of their health plan, the insurance company--not the hospital, not the charity--will be required to reach out and offer the woman contraceptive care free of charge, without co-pays and without hassles.” As I have asked before I simply do not understand why this entire issue has become so crucial. Is it, in fact, because we must now provide an option to all of those horny women who are simply unable to control the urge when it comes to having sex.


Anyway, it was late on that Friday, when the Catholic bishops responded, saying that this “solution” was “unacceptable.” “It would still mandate that all insurers must include coverage for the objectionable services in all the policies they would write,” the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops said in a statement. It was a very pompous Rep. Connolly who admonished witnesses for taking part in the Feb. 16 hearing, saying, “Men of the cloth, it seems to me, ought to run, not walk away from that line.” Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), another one of my favorites in the House, chairman of the House Committee on Government Oversight and Reform, apologized to the panel for Connelly’s remarks and thanked them for participating, as did several other Republicans on the committee.


So I guess you can see why it is that I'm so confused here. There are great number of Democrats in Congress who are Catholics, and I can only assume that they must practice their faith rather, loosely. But I'm not sure how the many Catholic out beyond Washington are able to reconcile their religious beliefs with their political ones. Speaking as a non-Catholic, it would seem to me that it would be a bit like a Jekyll and Hyde type of existence. Now I'm not a real religious fella, so maybe I'm not one to be making any judgments here, but to me, if I was a religious fella, I would think it much more important to make sure that I put loyalty to my chosen faith above choosing to dispense any amount of loyalty to a political party which remains one of the main combatants in the ongoing war on religion in this country.