By Russell Shaw
Does the bishops' conference know something about health care and abortion that the rest of us don't? Otherwise it's difficult to say what to make of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops' response to President Obama's speech to Congress last week. Even as the rest of the prolife community was continuing its criticism of abortion coverage in the plan, USCCB issued a news release welcoming Obama's claim that publicly funded abortion won't be part of it.
Particularly interesting from this point of view were remarks by Richard Doerflinger, associate director of the bishops' prolife office. Doerflinger, an old hand on these things, said: "We especially welcome the president's commitment to exclude federal funding of abortion, and to maintain existing federal laws protecting conscience rights in health care. ... We will work with Congress and the administration to ensure that these protections are clearly reflected in the new legislation, so no one is required to pay for or take part in abortion as a result of health care reform."
It's hard to say exactly what that means, but it could mean the bishops won't fight very hard to keep abortion out of the health care plan provided it includes some sort of conscience clause they can live with. It may also mean that the bishops have received private assurances from the White House that if they play ball on health care, that's what they'll get. If this is what's going on, however, it's a risky game at best.
Significantly, USCCB didn't roll out any bishops to react to Obama's remarks. Instead that job was given to staff — Doerflinger and Kathy Saile, director of the conference's domestic social development office. This suggests the organization is hopeful of getting what it considers a satisfactory deal on abortion from the White House but isn’t really sure. With good reason perhaps.
Posts
8 comments:
There is nothing wrong with supporting a bill with certain qualifications.
My fear is that the president is being calm and conciliatory in order to allow abortion supporters in Congress to add or preserve the controversial aspects of health care reform.
That way, he can claim to be a moderate who must regrettably defer to Congress on the abortion funding issue.
"No federal funds for abortion" is a shifty dodge.
Check out the following link:
http://www.rosariesforlife.com/wordpress/?p=162
I believe that they are trying to manufacture a commitment in the hope that Obama won't violate it. Big Pharma has already been rolled; I think we will be too.
As to the first post, there is nothing wrong with supporting a bill with qualifications unless as a matter of subsidiarity and solidarity the federal government shouldn't be doing this. If you agree that the government should be doing "something," the qualifications to bring the proposals in line with CST would be massive. I hope the Bishops do some additional teaching on this because I for one am somewhat lost when I compare their support, CST (especially as taught by the Holy Father), and the likely first order effects of this plan.
The end dose NOT justify the means! When will the bishops get this? Allow abortions at least we will have the concious clause. Making deals is not the way to defend the faith!!!
Theresa
Two questions:
1. A person/family cannot afford health care or they might have a pre-existing condition that their health care will not cover. They might have too little income to pay the premiums. Whose responsibility is it to help them? Should their neighbors, or the local Churches, the city, the county, the state, the federal government help them? They might need a physical, ongoing treatment for a chronic condition, one-time medicine, ongoing medicine, emergency room treatment, surgery, or have a bill for treatment for any of these. What should they have to do each time they have a need? Would their needs be better covered by "health insurance" that would cover them over a period of time or should they have to reequest help each time they need a service?
2. How does the principle of subsidiarity apply to this?
I'm not sure how long these posts are allowed to be so I'll answer the second question first while I think about the first.
Let's start with what "subsidiarity" is. CST, especially as discussed by the Holy Father and John Paul II, arises from the recognition of each person's dignity. One threat to human dignity comes from unrestrained individual choices in which one person harms (i.e., sins) another. Another principle is that threats to human dignity come from unrestrained government power (the bureaucratic imperative of having clear rules applied the same way every time or by overwhelming individuals with its commands). The Holy Father, of course, has spoken out strongly against both threats to human dignity. I will focus on the latter, though, because that is what this post is about.
The best statement from the Holy Father that I know of on this topic is from Deus Caritas Est: "The State which would provide everything, absorbing everything into
itself, would ultimately become a mere bureaucracy incapable of guaranteeing the very thing
which the suffering person—every person—needs: namely, loving personal concern. We do
not need a State which regulates and controls everything, but a State which, in accordance
with the principle of subsidiarity, generously acknowledges and supports initiatives arising
from the different social forces and combines spontaneity with closeness to those in need." Para 28. The Bishops' 1993 document refers to this value as "pluralism." Subsidiarity also promotes solidarity -- the sharing on a human level of the burdens and joys of all people. It guarantees that the old quip about it being easy to love "humanity," but it being difficult to love the annoying person next door who plays his music too loud is never true in a socially just program. It means that we can't fob off our duty to help to the federal government and be done with it.
The answer to the first question is: it is our responsibility. We have to remember, however, that no matter what solution we devise, it will fall short of its goal. It is also our responsibility to devise a response that respects life in all of its aspects, is fiscally sustainable, promotes subsidiarity and solidarity, and is otherwise consistent with Christ's teaching.
Post a Comment