Just posted to our site: a memo to the bishops from Vincent Miller of the University of Dayton:
As the bishops meet in Baltimore this week, the political climate and economic crisis demand they consider the effectiveness of their teaching the full range of Catholic social doctrine.
Every Catholic and every American citizen knows the church’s teaching on abortion and marriage. The same cannot be said for the rest of Catholic social teaching. This has consequences for both American public life and for the church.
Few Americans citizens or politicians, including Catholics, are aware of the church’s teaching that government is necessary to serve the common good; the importance of solidarity with all of the vulnerable, not just the ones we consider innocent or worthy; and, most importantly at this hour, the fact that subsidiarity cuts both ways, limiting government intervention and demanding it when necessary.
These Catholic teachings are under fire: Glen Beck warns millions of faithful listeners to run from any church that preaches social justice. Anti-immigrant extremists like Sherriff Joseph Arpaio are folk heroes (a textbook case of the Catholic definition of causing “scandal”). Tea Party denunciations of socialism and tyranny form public opinion on the legitimacy and scope of government. A new Republican majority in the house, led by a Catholic Speaker, plans to respond to the economic crisis by extending tax cuts for the rich and defunding health care reform—which means those portions that subsidize insurance for the working poor. These profound rejections of Catholic teaching and corrosion of the common good demand an effective episcopal response, yet too often, no response at all is given.
Tim Reidy
The best science of the day said that the earth was the center. First Copernicus, then Kepler and finally Galileo challenged that. But none of these scientists could solve the parallax problem or the wind problem and many of Galileo's ideas turned out to be nonsense. And Tycho Brahe ideas were better predictors in the early 1600's. All was eventually resolved in the 1820's, two hundred years after Galileo but by that time most of the world had accepted the heliocentric theory though it had some difficulities. I do not believe the Church excommunicated Galileo. It did sentence him to house arrest but this had more to do with an attempt to remove the pope by the Habsburgs than with science or religion.
The recently passed health care bill has some desirable provisions and some undesirable provisions. I know both sides want to solve the pre existent condition difficulties. But to take this one piece and announce that the entire bill is ''socially just'' is not appropriate. One could argue that this piece of legislation along with other legislation that has passed has inhibited job creation. And that is socially unjust. If you were one of the now chronically unemployed, your story might be quite different.
Instead of eliminating the massive number of regulations in the recently passed legislation which would go a long way to job creation, the Fed is on a dangerous course that could inflate the economy and cause potential nightmares for businesses who employ people. But that is what they are resorting to since the extreme uncertainty of these legislations has paralyzed business and is keeping large number of people unemployed. So we have the charade of Bernake taking this very risky approach because the Democrats have made hiring of new employees very expensive for business. Business has responded by asking people to work longer, outsourcing jobs to independent contractors and exporting jobs over seas. They will not hire someone if that person is going to cost more than any potential profit it would make with that person.
So while some may celebrate the health care legislation as a noble achievement, others are being kept from working because of its ramifications. And it is not entirely sure if it will produce better health care let alone lower the cost which was the main concern going in.
Barbara, I hear you because my daughter is in the same boat. Unfortunately, the Pete Lakes of the world fully believe that it is better for my daughter to die uninsured so that I can save my soul. On a personal level, I'm not sure I find that notion either palatable or reasonable. On a policy level the USCCB is asking me to sacrifice a living child for the sake of potential harm to another class of human life. But I guess in the interests of following this absolute teaching authority I shouldn't be asking those kinds of questions.
- Again, how does this comply with the comments policy, America? I have seen others called on the carpet for such!
"You ignored my point that the USCCB has never called for people to drop their job related health insurance coverage if it includes abortion services."
- I would think the Bishops (and most reasonable people) recognize a moral distinction between what election individuals may CHOOSE to have versus a required provision in government mandated health insurance programs in the so-called exchanges. Apples and organes. One is being mandated by government and funded by government, the other is an individual's own choice.
"On a policy level the USCCB is asking me to sacrifice a living child for the sake of potential harm to another class of human life."
- can you point to a legal or theological document of either the US or the Catholic Church wherein the term "class of human life" is used in any acceptable manner? I thought the US Constitution prohibited discrimination based on "classes" and no moral theology text that I am aware of has ever classified human life into "classes".
I didn't think your point was unfair, and, in fact, is quite rational and would make perfect sense in world without God (i.e., a world without Love).
But we know that is not the case.
Certainly, I would not want to see your daughter die because she is uninsured. She is my (our) neighbor who I am (we are) commanded to love. We cannot say we truely love God, if we do not love our neighbor. See Deus Caritas Est.
Nonetheless, you are correct that if given a choice, it is always better to save our souls. [Please note, I do not think that is the choice Obamacare places before us, as the others commenting here have well noted.] I mean this in the Ignatian sense which, disappointingly you won't find in these parts.
St. Ignatius's Principle and Foundation states:
"Man is created to praise, reverence, and serve God our Lord, and by this means to save his soul. And the other things on the face of the earth are created for man and that they may help him in prosecuting the end for which he is created. From this it follows that man is to use them as much as they help him on to his end, and ought to rid himself of them so far as they hinder him as to it. For this it is necessary to make ourselves indifferent to all created things in all that is allowed to the choice of our free will and is not prohibited to it; so that, on our part, we want not health rather than sickness, riches rather than poverty, honor rather than dishonor, long rather than short life, and so in all the rest; desiring and choosing only what is most conducive for us to the end for which we are created."
So, I repeat, we should not put our souls at risk by conceding to what is being marketed as little evil for a greater good. That is not the Christian Way.
That is exactly the message many of our bishops seem to want to deliver, with themselves as little James Dobsons. They envy the sheeplike obedience of Dobson's followers.
How long before the USCCB starts to send a representative to join the NRA, tax-cutting groups, and others at Grover Norquist's weekly roundtable of conservative activists?
I believe Cardinal George has already indicated that defunding Obamacare, which does not pass moral muster, would be a good thing, and not a so-called "rejection of Catholic teaching," as you contend.
Also, let's please grow up a little here. To say that "young people who have come of age in the past two decades identify Christianity with the conservative side of the culture war and nothing more," is to say that such young people do not understand Christianity at all. To the extent any of those young people are serious (to even the slightest extent), they will know that Christianity is not that and nothing more.
Young people, like me and those even younger than me, know that Christianity is about encountering Christ, and anything that separates us from Christ must be eliminated. That is why these young people want practical healthcare for all, but they want none of it - zero - if it means the taking of even one innocent life in the womb - for what good does it do us if we gain the whole world but lose our souls?
- this is a joke, right? "Elder Americans' are the most (over)subsidized interest group in American politics today!
I would refer you to the post on Cardinal George's comments on this website for a more eloquent explanation, but no health care legislation which imposes, permits, or facilitates the procurement of abortions will ever pass moral muster. So I would say to you that no health care is better than health care which publicly funds the killing of innocent human life. If you are Christian, you must understand this. Lack of health care cannot harm your soul, but being complicit in a plan that furthers the procurement of abortion could cause you to lose your soul.
"And do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; rather, be afraid of the one who can destroy both soul and body in Gehenna. Are not two sparrows sold for a small coin? Yet not one of them falls to the ground without your Father's knowledge. Even all the hairs of your head are counted. So do not be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows."
Yes, we are called to be martyrs for the Truth. Of course, we are afraid to admit this, for our insecurity in being called hypocrites or out of fear that we may be unable to honor this calling. I mean, even St. Peter denied Jesus three times before being led where he did not want to go. But we need not be afraid, but rather speak the truth with conviction and turn to our Lord's Divine Mercy when we come up a bit short.
I'm pro-life and I would not have signed.. I would have resigned but I guwss that's why I'm a small r republican.
In a sense, it is nice, but not because of any claim to to know all, but because of the theological virtue of faith. It is not necessary to know all, though we can in fact know much.
"Faith is the theological virtue by which we believe in God and believe all that he has said and revealed to us, and that Holy Church proposes for our belief, because he is truth itself. By faith "man freely commits his entire self to God." For this reason the believer seeks to know and do God's will. "The righteous shall live by faith." Living faith "work[s] through charity." The disciple of Christ must not only keep the faith and live on it, but also profess it, confidently bear witness to it, and spread it: "All however must be prepared to confess Christ before men and to follow him along the way of the Cross, amidst the persecutions which the Church never lacks." Service of and witness to the faith are necessary for salvation: "So every one who acknowledges me before men, I also will acknowledge before my Father who is in heaven; but whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven."
See, I don't know all - not even close - but I believe in all that Holy Church teaches. Precisely because I don't know all, do I know it would be foolish to go it alone with my own ideas or some other individual's or group of individuals' ideas. See Lumen Gentium and Dei Verbum if you want authority on this.
Are the doctrines on abortion and marriage as murky as what is ''socially just?'' I realize that we can debate a lot of side issues in both abortion and marriage but there is a lot more definitive there than the ''social'' teachings which seems more like quicksand than hard ground. With a poor track record over the last 50 years, any government action has got to be questioned as to whether it achieves any social justice or not. One could argue very persuasively that the recent health care legislation is not socially just so the moral position is to oppose it in any way you can. That is, the House Republicans are acting in a socially just manner.
The debate that should be had is not occurring here so maybe others could point out where the social justice of the health care legislation or immigration policy or tax policy is being thoughtfully debated by Catholics. It all seems to be based on ones political views rather than on informed debate.
So where is the social justice in the Bishop's misguided and wrong position on this healh care bill? Where is Jesus in that? Have the our Bishops hearts become so hard that they have lost the eyes to see and the ears to hear?
This is completely irrational and slanderous.
The bishops are for health care reform that addresses issues of cost and coverage, but also advert the massive funding of abortion that was hidden in the fine print (attempts to bypass the Hyde Amendment).
Here is a quick, very informative video on the truth of Obama "care", lest we forget:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lW1DuhBRoUw
''How long before the USCCB starts to send a representative to join the NRA...''
I guess you've never seen this picture before:
http://www.bored.com/photos/nunswithguns.html
On the other hand, the Bishops have not been able to point to a single instance where this new health care bill funds abortion.
That is the reality of the health care law the Bishops fought hard to defeat.