Wednesday, May 25, 2011
RE: Adding legal power to the USCCB
Archbishop Timothy Dolan, President
U. S. Catholic Conference of Bishops
Archdiocese of New York
1011 First Avenue
New York, N.Y. 10022
Phone: 212-371-1011
Your Excellency:
The value your reviewing, yourself; as opposed to having another do so for you; my enclosed 6-page article and legal definition of the burden on the free exercise of religion, is – for the first time – to make “Constitutional”, now, Prolife conduct, designed to outlaw both abortion and/or contraception, and/or the governmental funding thereof, as proposed by the United States Catholic Conference of Bishops [“USCCB”], which before your doing so was protected only at the discretion of the United States’ Congress and/or the States’ legislatures to enact legislation, accordingly; yet, which in many, if not in all, instances the United States’ Congress and/or the States’ legislatures failed to do so, notwithstanding the money, time and grass-roots efforts by the USCCB to do otherwise in favor of the Prolife Movement, according to Our Catholic Faith.
A case in point is regarding the Reverend Bishop William Murphy (of Rockville Center, Long Island, New York, which is the dioceses where I am from), who represented the USCCB in December, 2009 before the United States Congress and who opposed only “surgical” abortions as proposed in Obamacare, but did not oppose contraception, abortifacients, and/or Embryonic Stem Cell Research [“ESCR”], thereby, accurately, reflecting official Roman Catholic teaching.
Yet, Bishop Murphy’s omission did not go unnoticed by the Catholic Press: E.g., Christopher Manion, who is a writer for the Wanderer Press in his column, titled, “From Under the Rubble”, painted Bishop Murphy, ab silencio, as an embarrassment to the Roman Catholic Church [RCC] for not defending official Roman Catholic teaching.; see attached N.Y. Times Intern. Article [p. A6, 12/13/’08]. What is the underlying motive why Bishop Murphy abandoned the Roman Catholic Faith in December, 2009? I found out “religiously” why on October 25, 2004 - as I described on page 4, endnote #4, to my enclosed 6-page article – when I had personally handed Bishop Murphy; in front of some 50 young adults at the Wantagh Inn. in Wantagh, Long Island; my book, which my 6-page article is only a condensed version, thereof, which described in detail exactly how the USCCB can successfully challenge in Court the New York State Women’s Wellness Act [“WWA”] - which is a fact simile of California’s Women’s Contraceptive Equity Act [“WCEA”] - even though the U. S. Supreme Court denied certiorari on October 1, 2007!
Yet, on October 25, 2004, after I, briefly, orally, exposed to him that my book uncovered that the current law - regarding the State’s imposition upon the Roman Catholic Church to sponsor religiously offensive coverage for contraception in group health insurance - is unconstitutional, nevertheless, Bishop Murphy, with a straight face mine you, said this to me: “As a Roman Catholic, I (the Bishop) am bound to obey the civil law following Rom 13:1-7.” On the other hand, Your Excellency, Bishop Murphy was seriously defying his obligation as a Bishop of the RCC to follow Acts 5:29. After all, what makes his remark, especially, add insult to injury, is the fact that, against the background that he had in his hands my book which, if read, would keep the RCC contraception-free, nevertheless, Our Lord said his guilt will remain, as per John 9: 1-41.
Again, in answer to the above question, “What is the underlying motive why Bishop Murphy abandoned the Roman Catholic Faith in December, 2009?”, it was not until early 2010 that Bishop Murphy provided one of his attorneys to offer me his “legal” reason why my book was ignored, which essentially was that Bishop Murphy’s legal staff was doing such a great job, in concert with all the other legal professional help all around the country, of course, so that I should conclude that my statement, made in a letter the month before, affirming that Bishop Murphy had “caved-in”, was indeed inappropriate! See my 6-page article on page 4, endnote #4.
In other words, both Bishop Murphy and his attorney would rather choose to insult my intelligence, rather than to think of stopping the murder of the millions of unborn children since 2004, conceived by contraception because acting as abortifacients, all of which were paid for by the Holy Roman Catholic Church, in addition, making the RCC a co-conspirator to serious sin!
Nevertheless, my specific legal strategy, as detailed in my book, in order to eliminate coverage for abortion, contraception and ESCR, as unconstitutional, was never addressed, no less rebutted! Yet, never rebutted was my legal argument why all governmental funding for abortion, contraception and ESCR is unconstitutional, as a matter of law. I never was paid for the 30 plus years it took for me to develop my Prolife legal reasoning to prove my legal proposals, however, the Bishops attorneys are paid to work for the Bishop, and, ultimately, for the RCC. Essentially, Bishop Murphy is defying what Pope John Paul II ordered him to do, as a result of the sexual scandal, which was for Bishop Murphy not to act like a CEO of the RCC who, thereby, delegates responsibility! Rather, in reality, Bishop Murphy is a shepherd who should be concerned for his flock, and takes “FULL” responsibility for all his decisions. Yet, after all, with just a short conversation with me, by reason, I could’ve, easily, convinced him of the merits of my arguments that will in fact raise the level of religious freedom for all in the U.S.A., not just for those in the RCC! If that is not fulfilling what Pope John Paul II directed us to do on his visit to the U.S.A. - namely, that we are missionaries for the propagation of the Faith - then, what is?
In short, the entire Prolife Movement is a WINDBAG! On the other hand, I am not the only one who says this: I enclosed a September, 2009 issue of Culture Wars magazine, which carried a cover article by David A. Wemoff who characterized the Prolife Movement as a Catch-22 or fiasco. In addition, on pages 4 & 5, therein, Mr. Wemoff wrote text applicable to this letter:
"The Catechism of the Catholic Church defines and explains the concept of scandal in Section 2284: 'Scandal is an attitude or behavior which leads another to do evil. The person (here, the USCCB, added) who gives scandal becomes his neighbors’ tempter. He damages virtue and integrity, he may even draw his brother into spiritual death. Scandal is a grave offense if by deed or omission another is deliberately led into a grave offense.' Those who cause others to stumble are guilty of great sin. Catechism Section 2287 clearly states 'Anyone who uses the power at his disposal in such a way that it leads others to do wrong becomes guilty of scandal and responsible for the evil that he has directly or indirectly encouraged (emphasis, added).' ... (page 5) Jesus Christ taught that 'Temptations to sin are sure to come; but woe to him by whom they come!' Luke 17:1."
I understood from your office last week that it was necessary to write you my reasons to request the meeting with you. It is my intention to discuss in detail the remedy - which I have proposed in my enclosed 6-page article and ultimately in my book - and, of course, answer, personally, any questions that you may have for me .
Respectfully yours,
ENCL
- One page definition of a burden
on the free exercise of religion [also, below]
- My 6-page updated-summary of my book.
- Culture Wars magazine, September, 2009 issue.
- N. Y. Times International, p. A6, Sat. Dec. 13, 2008.
______________________________
Lawrence R Rosano
cc.
Cardinal Raymond Burke
Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura
Palazzo Della Cancelleria
00120 Vatican City State
Europe
(Two (2) pages of endnotes, and enclosures, mentioned, sent upon request, together with the text, above)
