The Independent News Source
NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
PDF versionWhy do the bishops continue to oppose health-care reform?
by Richard McBrien on Jul. 19, 2010
It is a mystery why the U.S. Catholic bishops continue to oppose the health-care reform legislation that has already passed both houses of Congress and been signed into law by the President.
The White House's and the nation's attention has long since moved to other matters, not least the tragic oil spill and loss of life in the Gulf of Mexico.
For a time, a handful of Democrats in the House of Representatives, led by Congressman Bart Stupak of Michigan, threatened to derail passage of the legislation because of language in the bill that they charged would pay for abortions. Mr. Stupak insisted that his position was the same as that taken by the Catholic bishops.
When President Obama issued an executive order making it clear that nothing in the bill would violate the Hyde Amendment, which prohibited the use of federal funds to pay for abortions, Congressman Stupak and his small band of allies relented and expressed support for the legislation.
The bishops, however, did not change their opposition to the bill, and some of them accused Congressman Stupak of caving in to political pressure, if not also to a form of treachery.
There is an article in the June 4 issue of Commonweal that argues that the bishops have misunderstood the health-care legislation and that their continued, if not also moot, opposition to the bill adds unnecessarily to the confusion surrounding the legislation.
The article, "Episcopal Oversight," is by Timothy Stoltzfus Jost, a professor at the Washington and Lee University School of Law.
Professor Jost finds the bishops to be in error on three counts.
First, the bishops repeat their earlier claims that under the new legislation federal funds will be used to subsidize health plans that cover abortions. But section 1303(b)(2) of the legislation, entitled "Prohibition of the use of federal funds," states clearly that the premium tax credits and cost-sharing reductions available under the legislation cannot be used by any health plan to pay for an abortion under the Hyde Amendment.
If there are private premiums, they must be kept in a separate account, and that account must be audited by the states. Given the added costs of administering these separate funds, Professor Jost points out, "it is likely that insurers will have little interest in offering such plans."
Second, the bishops claim that appropriations for community health centers (CHCs) under the new health-care reform legislation can be used to pay for elective abortions. This claim, Professor Jost argues, "ignores the plain facts that (1) regulations governing CHCs prohibit them from providing abortions not permitted by the Hyde Amendment ... and (2) the funds appropri-ated for CHCs under section 10503 are not paid directly and separately to CHCs."
NCR: February 3-16, 2012
Subscribe to NCR to get all the news and special features that aren't always available online. In this issue:
- US News: Bishops Host Conference on Immigration
Conference fields advocates' questions on law, policy
- Special Section: Deacons. Serving as parish administrator; roles of wives; and more
- Study: Black Catholics are more engaged
New study by Notre Dame researcher about parish involvement in America
On the contrary, these funds are covered by the Hyde Amendment, and the President's executive order reaffirms the force of that Amendment.
Moreover, although the bishops express concern that "a long line of federal court decisions" could be interpreted as allowing funding for abortions, they have not been able cite a single federal court decision that has ordered the funding of abortions prohibited by a federal regulation and an executive order.
Third, the bishops claim that the conscience provisions of the health-care reform legislation are inadequate. However, under the newly-passed and signed legislation, federal funds cannot be used to pay for abortions and the consciences of health-care providers are protected.
In a subsequent "clarifying statement," the bishops' conference acknowledged that the new legislation, which the conference continues to oppose, "expands health-care coverage, imple-ments many needed reforms, and provides welcome support to parenting women and adoptive families," and moves toward the Catholic Church's goal of universal access to health care.
The act extends coverage for dependents up to the age of twenty-six, provides tax credits for small businesses that insure their employees, and high-risk-pool coverage for uninsured Americans with pre-existing conditions.
In 2014, Medicaid expansion and health-insurance subsidies will go into effect, insuring millions more Americans, many of whom would die without care.
Professor Jost concludes: "Public polling repeatedly reveals that Americans are confused about what the health-reform legislation does. The legislation is long and complicated, and some misunderstanding of the bill is inevitable.
"It is unfortunate, however, that this confusion continues to be fed by mischaracterizations of the legislation by the USCCB" [the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops].
It is often said that the making of laws is similar to the making of sausage. Unlike the bishops, however, Congressman Bart Stupak viewed the process up close, as a direct legislative partici-pant.
He was satisfied with the changes; why aren't the bishops?
© 2010 Richard P. McBrien. All rights reserved. Fr. McBrien is the Crowley-O'Brien Professor of Theology at the University of Notre Dame.
Stories in this series
|
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Editor's Note: We can send you an e-mail alert every time Fr. McBrien's column, "Essays in Theology," is posted to NCRonline.org. Go to this page and follow direc-tions: E-mail alert sign-up. If you already receive e-mail alerts from us, click on the "update my profile" button to add "Essays in Theol-ogy" to your list.
It would be wrong to support
It would be wrong to support any heathcare bill which in any way, shape or form expands abortion coverage or the federal financing of same. This bill certainly appears to do so. That's the relevant issue here. No matter how good the bill may be (& it is not), the primary issue from the Catholic perspective is the life issue. After that, there is the question of subsidiarity to consider. This bill fails on that issue. Fining people in terms of health care coverage is clearly a federal abuse of power.
What part of "It can't
What part of "It can't support any form of abortion that is prohibited by the 'Hyde Amendent'" isn't understood?
but my dearest p., you saying
but my dearest p., you saying "this bill certainly appears to do so" doesn't make it so.
Appearances are deceiving. There are none so blind as those who will not see.
As the Reverend FAther Richard P. McBrien clearly and carefully delineates in this excellent and academic article, this bill in no way shape or form expands or even permits abortion coverage or federal financing of same.
Excuse me but just because
Excuse me but just because the Rev McBrien says so doesn't make it so! I've read differently elsewhere. Medicaid funding allows for certain types of abortions in the Hyde amendment. Taxpayers pay for these abortions already. Now, besides Medicaid, there will be forms of insurance with taxpayer's money that will ALSO pay for Hyde abortions. Abortion coverage will be expanded to insurance plans covered to some extent by taxpayer's money which did not exist before this Obama bill.
I provide a reliable and
I provide a reliable and respected and valid source, the Reverend Father Richard P. McBrien, who, as a great academic, provides his own reliable and valid sources.
You provide none, neither in this nor in your previous "appearance" here.
Which does the Hyde Amendment provide for again?
How does this match accepted Roman Catholic moral theology?
What should Sister McBride do?
What, again, are for you "Hyde abortions?"
What part of none, no provision, do you not understand?
Read this valid and reliable article again, please, before engaging your keyboard.
As I understand it the Hyde
As I understand it the Hyde amendment allows Medicaid to pay for the abortions of poor women with taxpayer's money (which is what Medicaid is) for the cases that are the usual exceptions (life & health of the mother, rape & incest). Obviously this is not the Catholic view but we are talking civil law here & it is a compromise.
My point is that Catholics should not support something which expands abortion coverage with federal funds beyond what already exists in the law. I can't provide chapter & verse on what I've read & there is the remote possibility that I could be wrong but this bill is so lengthy & complicated that it is hard to tell.
However, if you think about it, the govt getting involved in private insurance could mean that federal funds will be used to provide some coverage. If the coverage includes among other things elective abortion, then some portion of federal money will find its way to abortion coverage. The amount of tax payer money (federal funds) could be quite small BUT it does mean an expansion of federal involvement & funds (beyond Hyde).
This is the relevant question here. Prove me wrong if you can & I will back off from my claim.
What does the Hyde Amendment
What does the Hyde Amendment actually say?
Please do not give your personal "understanding" of what you have vaguely gathered; what does it actually say?
What does Roman Catholic Moral Theology actually say, again not your personal understanding without any study, but what does it actually say?
What does the Roman Catholic protocol applied by Sister McBride at a Roman Catholic hospital say about the life of the mother?
What does the highly respected Anglo American Roman Catholic Moral Theologian, the Reverend Father Charles Curran, write on this matter?
Where do the matters of rape, incest and the life of the mother come in making these painful moral decisions?
Reading actual Roman Catholic applied moral theology illuminates this matter.
Does not Hyde provide for these cases?
Was Rep. Hyde a Roman Catholic moral theologian?
He claimed to be Roman Catholic but certainly strenuously slaughtered tens of thousands of Roman Catholics in Central America through his tenure in office.
Did they not also have a Right to Life?
Paulte, you are correct!
Paulte, you are correct! Remember what Jesus said, do not cast your pearls before swine. Don't let the nuts get you down!
Palomas, think for yourself!
Palomas, think for yourself! Have you even read the bill? Father McBrien is no authority on legislative texts. He is first and foremost a Democratic operative. A sad excuse for a priest!
It does not appear to support
It does not appear to support abortion! Did you even read the explanations in this article? Or explanations by many other experts, several of whom are pro-life? You have no business in this discussion if you refuse to be intelligent.
I can't refuse to be what I
I can't refuse to be what I inherently am, namely intelligent & highly so at that!
Pride goeth before a fall.
Pride goeth before a fall. Happy landings!
The only little item that
The only little item that prevents abortion in the new Health Care system is an Executive Order that can be rescinded in minutes. Further the Language used in the drafting of the legislation is very pro-choice a permanent fixture that will be used in legal battles in the court system. Why else do you think Planned Parenthood desperately labored to get this Bill passed, and even commended the good Catholic Sisters for rebelling against the Bishops position
and helping to hurriedly ram the bill through Congress? Since you incorporate intelligence in your argument, please tell me how long the Catholic health care system will survive in a government run secular system hostile to Catholic Values? It is apparent the neither the good Sisters nor Father have yet figured this out
Cite where you find "the
Cite where you find "the language used in the DRAFTING of the legislation (which) is VERY PRO-CHOICE (and) A permanent fixture that will be used in legal battles in the court system" as NO ONE else can seem to find it, even with a fine tooth comb and microscope.
Was the draft the same as the final legislation which got passed?
hurriedly?
Will you please provide
Will you please provide information from the bill which would be contrary to the analysis of Professor Jost and the commentary of Father McBrien? The general statements are not helpful in clarifying confusion for me and possibly for others. Thank you.
MP Flinn, Since you asked so
MP Flinn,
Since you asked so nicely...I googled "Does Obamacare allow for Federal funding of abortion?" and 68,500 entries appeared. Here's one...
Obamacare Covers Abortion in Pennsylvania — and in New Mexico, Too [Kathryn Jean Lopez]
Yesterday, we visited the Pennsylvania high-risk health-care insurance program and its abortion funding.
In New Mexico, the new $37 million high-risk pool began enrolling individuals on July 1. They will start receiving benefits in August, including elective-abortion services, according to the state insurance department's website. Once a deductible is paid, 80 percent of the elective abortion is covered.
Douglas Johnson of the National Right to Life Committee tells me: "HHS has been hiding most of these high-risk plans, including the plan that HHS will administer directly in 21 states. Of the four state plans we've managed to ferret out, two provided coverage of all essentially all abortions — Pennsylvania and New Mexico. This is part of a pattern, under this administration, of making 'soft' rhetorical statements on abortion policy, but consistently promoting and expanding abortion through low-visibility administrative decisions. The administration's heavy funding of groups pushing a proposed new pro-abortion constitution in Kenya is another example."
(The Kenya campaign can be read about here and here.)
In a statement to The Corner, House minority leader John Boehner, who has continued to press the administration on the continuing story of Obamacare's abortion lies, says: "In just the past 24 hours, we've learned of two states in which the new federal high-risk insurance programs created under Obamacare and approved by the Obama administration will use federal funds to pay for abortion, despite promises by the White House and Democratic leaders that no such funding would occur under Obamacare. These developments provide stark confirmation that President Obama's executive order last spring was little more than a political ploy to ensure passage of Obamacare by circumventing the will of the American people, who are clearly opposed to taxpayer-funded abortion."
Boehner adds: "President Obama and Secretary Sebelius owe the American people an immediate explanation, as do Speaker Pelosi and the leaders of organizations such as the Catholic Health Association and NETWORK, who claimed the law and executive order would not allow federal funding of abortion, despite warnings by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and others to the contrary."
The Obama administration lied, and members of Congress who claim to be pro-life went along with the sham. There should, indeed, be electoral consequences.
your googling with the highly
your googling with the highly politicized parameter obamacare guaranteed you would yield results contrary to the President, convenient to your prejudice, yet contrary to fact.
palomas, Your previous
palomas,
Your previous post..."There are none so blind as those who will not see."...was especially self-revealing. Now in this post you refuse to acknowledge the truth set right in front of your eyes. OK, I'll play along...I just googled, "Does the new Health Care Reform Act allow for Federal funding of abortion?"
This time it returned 4.8 million results; here's just one saying the same thing(more truth for you to avoid)...
Obama Administration OKs First Tax-Funded Abortions Under Health Care Law
by Steven Ertelt
LifeNews.com Editor
July 13, 2010
Email RSS Print
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- The Obama administration has officially approved the first instance of taxpayer funded abortions under the new national government-run health care program. This is the kind of abortion funding the pro-life movement warned about when Congress considered the bill.
The Obama Administration will give Pennsylvania $160 million to set up a new "high-risk" insurance program under a provision of the federal health care legislation enacted in March.
It has quietly approved a plan submitted by an appointee of pro-abortion Governor Edward Rendell under which the new program will cover any abortion that is legal in Pennsylvania.
The high-risk pool program is one of the new programs created by the sweeping health care legislation, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, President Obama signed into law on March 23. The law authorizes $5 billion in federal funds for the program, which will cover as many as 400,000 people when it is implemented nationwide.
"The Obama Administration will give Pennsylvania $160 million in federal tax funds, which we've discovered will pay for insurance plans that cover any legal abortion," said Douglas Johnson, legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee.
Johnson told LifeNews.com: "This is just the first proof of the phoniness of President Obama's assurances that federal funds would not subsidize abortion -- but it will not be the last."
none so blind as those who
none so blind as those who will not see
consider the source
lifenews.com? National Right to Life Committee?
propaganda wings of the RNC
none so vile as those who abuse the abortion issue for their own political profit.
none so vile as those who lie to deceive the faithful
The entire point of the
The entire point of the article is that, support or not, the Patient Protection Act is law and that the assertions by Richard Doerflinger on abortion funding were incorrect regardless. You aren't entitled to your own facts.
No subsidiarity objection was raised by the bishops and indeed, such a claim is inappropriate because subsidiarity in absence of solidarity is not legitimate thinking for Catholics, especially Catholics who have read Caritas in Veritate. Indeed, his Holiness, Benedict XVI derides such a view in the encyclical.
As to the fine - it is more of a surtax - which is not only not inappropriate but falls within the scope of the legislation - which is essentially an expansion of the tax benefits enjoyed by some employees but not others due to the size of their firms. The fine is actually too low to accomplish its purposes, but have no fear - it will be replaced with single-payer health insurance once it becomes obvious that the pre-existing condition reforms defeat any mandate, causing private insurance to become untenable for anyone.
Paulte, please provide more
Paulte, please provide more specifics that help us understand why you maintain this bill certainly "appears to do so."
"He was satisfied with the
"He was satisfied with the changes; why aren't the bishops?"
Because the bishops know that as in other countries with this kind of socialized medicine, abortion and rationing abound. Obama stated during his campaign that he would provide pain killers to the elderly but not medical care, and that he would never burden a women with a child-hence he has done everything possible to ensure as much abortion at home and around the world. The bishops aren't buying into Obama's agenda, Obrien, why are you?
Uncas, you claim that "Obama
Uncas, you claim that "Obama stated during his campaign that he would provide painkillers to the elderly not medical care." Would you kindly give the factual source of this claim.
Second, related to your statement that, "...he would never burden a woman with a child," I believe you are taking that out of context. I believe he did say that if his daughter Malia, who IS A CHILD, were raped, he wouldn't want her to be burdened with a forced pregnancy that might result from that rape.
Which other
Which other countries?
Canada?
What kind of socialized medicine?
This is NOT socialized medicine?
ABOUND?
Where is your statistical data?
It is so easy to pull these things out of your hat when you refuse to indicate which other countries.
What euthanasia?
When did our fine new president state any such thing?
Can you provide an exact quote with time and place, something we can ALL see and hear, please, without the tin foil?
Also how has he done everything possible to bring these things about?
When did he ever say he would not ever burden a woman with a child? I hope Michelle heard this . . .
who's Obrien? The former Archbishop of Hartford?
Oh ye who reject without
Oh ye who reject without reading! Read this, at least:
The Reverend Father Richard P. McBrien notes well:
In a subsequent "clarifying statement," the bishops' conference acknowledged that the new legislation, which the conference continues to oppose, "expands health-care coverage, imple-ments many needed reforms, and provides welcome support to parenting women and adoptive families," and moves toward the Catholic Church's goal of universal access to health care.
==============================================
Something to read, all ye who scream Our Bishops, Right or Wrong!
Our bishops have clarified. And you?
So anyway, speaking of matters medical, what ever happened to our moral theologians' questions about genetic engineering?
Oh, yeah, we aren't supposed to read the Reverend Father Charles Curran anymore, either . . .
And there is too much material profit to be made by genetic engineering, like in creating nuclear bombs . . .
See you Saturday in Los Alamos.
What? This makes no sense.
What? This makes no sense. What are you trying to say?
merely my gentle yet awkward
merely my gentle yet awkward suggestion to read most carefully the Reverend Father Richard P. McBrien who in all these forty years consistently makes eminent sense, above all here, in so kindly patiently and carefully explaining for us this most complex issue.
It's simple; once Church
It's simple; once Church hierarchists proclaim a truth--however erroneous; they NEVER back off.
...exactly. The answer is
...exactly. The answer is 'intransigence'. Once the bishops proclaim anything, it seems an immediate two thousand year invocation of what has been always said and stated. The only acceptable response to the bishops is to 'recant', humbly ask their forgiveness and sin no more.
It is an unconscionable shame that anyone presently in the USA would be denied health care. Equally, shameful for those to obstruct and prevent access to health care. For those, and there are many who justify opposition introducing abortion (whether in the bill or not), illegal immigration, cost to national debt; who do so it is not a matter of cogent response or logic. Those who oppose stand on a position not on ideology. No where in the social gospel, stating I was a stranger and you welcomed me in, is there any mention of citizenship: I was sick and you took care of me, hungry and you gave me food, thirsty and you gave me drink...nor is there any mention of any of the other objections presented. The shame falls upon the 'heads' of the bishops, and all who wish to open their eyes see it clearly, save the bishops and those indoctrinated in their shame.
If the Church wishes to introduce 'self-excommunication' let it be to all who participate in the obstruction and denial of access to health care to anyone for any reason.... No these bishops maintain focus on 'serious crimes' against the Church; ordination of women, satan leading priests astray.
and for all who participate
and for all who participate in any way in war
Exactly. Even in light of
Exactly. Even in light of many facts and rational points that point to a "different truth."
Copernicus and Galileo stood for a different truth and it took these Church hierarchists 500 years to say, "Uh we were wrong."
The Bishops who continue to
The Bishops who continue to oppose the health care reform law seem to be missing somethng very fundamnetal. Consider that by bringing health care to currenlty uninsured people, many of those people, inclduing pregnant women with unborn children, may not only have more healthful lives but might actually find their lives are saved. This may be especially true for pregnant women and the unborn because adequate prenatal care is crtical to the growing fetus and access to health care might prevent some women from opting for an abortion knowing that they can at least take care of the baby's medical needs.
Thinking of this in terms of life, if the Bishop's choice is to save 100 babies instead of all of the babies, or save no babies at all, what should the Bishops choice be? And then consider that the negative choice (save none at all) is based, apparently on prejudical reasoning, and consider that the issue goes beyond just the unborn to the born as well, I think that the answer is to support health care and continue to work to make it better, rather than reject it and go back to square one. Think of the loaves and fishes - Jesus said have faith and what you think you don't have (enough food) may turn out to be what you need.
How can the bishops behavior
How can the bishops behavior be a mystery? Once their minds are made up what do facts have to do with it? They are obviously right because they say they are. And besides the benefactors of the legislation could be women, and if women want it it must be wrong, perverse, sinful, and probably an excomunicatable offense.
Why is anyone surprised at
Why is anyone surprised at the persistence of the bishops in this country to a point of view that is out-of-touch with reality. They have been backward for 20+ years in most things--healthcare reform legislation is just the latest.
The last question best
The last question best illustrates that the ecclesial problem here is that the USCCB and therefore the Bishops in the United States overstep the bounds of their own vocation. Better they had supported the laity, especially the ones in congress, in the decisions that the laity made that are consistent with the vocation of the laity in the world. As it stands the USCCB has yet to apologize to the way the laity were treated by them.
Congressman Bart Stupak...was
Congressman Bart Stupak...was satisfied with the changes; why aren't the bishops?
Because they're so filled with their false sense of authority and power, they fail to look for or at the facts. Then they wonder why no one is listening to them or finds them credible.
Being pro-life I sent
Being pro-life I sent Congressman Stupak a $100 check for his re-election. He sent it back with a nice note saying he wasn't running again. Never got a check back from a bishop and I'm 78.
Benedicts Boys in America
Benedicts Boys in America would garner cridibility for their cause by cleaning up the clerical rapists in their midst before seeking to impose their beliefs on others through manipulation of Obama's universal medical care bill. A universal medical care bill based on Vatican ideology and its contempt for condoms should be paid for by the Vatican and not the American taxpayers.
Too stubborn to admit they
Too stubborn to admit they are wrong ? sore Losers? Joining the - just ay NO Republicans/?
Are these men Leaders of the faithful?
Perhaps too many of the
Perhaps too many of the bishops are, like too many Republicans, obstructionists whose primary goal is to gain power in the next election. Social justice and God's suffering poor are off their radar screens.
JR
Amen. Amen. Amen.
Amen. Amen. Amen.
Anonymous, I can't tell you
Anonymous, I can't tell you how much I wish I could disagree.
The bishops are not happy
The bishops are not happy with the bill since their Republican friends are not. Their first allegiance is to the Republican party. Like with the protection of children and the new translations of the mass, the bishops are here to please Rome, not Jesus and they certainly are not shepherds of the poor who so desparately need healthcare. Then they wonder why people are walking or looking to other sources of leadership (LCWR)for guidance. It is because these men were selected to be bishop for the wrong reasons, and they can only speak and act for the wrong reasons.
As a retired priest, the
As a retired priest, the position of the US Bishops is an embarrassament! No wonder they lose more and more credibility.
Who can explain anything the
Who can explain anything the bishops do?
They've lost credibility so often it's become a question of, "Why bother?"
Q. Why do the bishops
Q. Why do the bishops continue to oppose health-care reform?
A. In much the same way that the Catholic Health Association and the Leadership Conference of Women Religious have entered into an alliance with the Obama White House and the Democratic Party, the USCCB has formed its own strategic alliance with the Republican Party. All three groups (the CHA, LCWR, and USCCB) as well as a number of other Catholic organizations are being gradually transformed, by choice, into partisan political organizations in order to extend their spheres of power and influence.
S.J. I reject your unfounded
S.J.
I reject your unfounded polemic out of hand. It is partisan in the extreme.
Partisan to which party might
Partisan to which party might I ask?
I would appreciate it if you
I would appreciate it if you would provide information from the bill which would be contrary to the analysis of Professor Jost and the commentary of Father McBrien. The general statements are not helpful in clarifying confusion for me and possibly for others. Thank you.
Is my comment really that
Is my comment really that complicated? I never said, nor even indicated, that I reject Professor Jost or Fr. McBrien's arguments. Instead, I suggest that the USCCB leadership (not me) ignores those arguments because, like various other anti-abortion organizations such an the NRLC, they have joined a kind of united front against abortion under the leadership of the Republican National Committee. I personally do not support the decision of Cardinal George and co. to take their cues on anti-abortion strategy from the GOP, I merely recognize that they have indeed made this decision. Perhaps Fr. Mcbrien does as well?
SJ: I agree. See my other
SJ: I agree. See my other comment in reply to Anonymous Scranton.
We needn't pretend that the
We needn't pretend that the present cabal of bishops has the intellectual gifts that enlightened and directed past episcopal leaders--Cardinal Bernardin Cardinal William H. Keeler, Cardinal Koenig are the past. None of our present bishops would pretend to be a periti for any future Vatican council. They are political rather that intellectual or spiritual leaders--and the test of a political success is pushing one's agenda and convering one's derriere; these bishops have show themselves past masters of those skills. The intricacies of Timothy Stoltzfus Jost's or Richard McBrien's subtle arguments would be lost on these tragically limited men.
The tragedy of the episcopal appointments of 'yes' men rather than true shepherds over the past 32 years has been the disconnection of bishops from their people---they protect their own from rightful prosecution for crime while preventing the needy from the health and financial aid they so desperately need. We need leaders and have acquired todies. What else can we expect from them?
The answer to Fr. McBrien's
The answer to Fr. McBrien's question: why aren't the bishops satisfied is simple and he probably knows it.......
The bishops never admit to being wrong.... that is proven by the sex abuse scandals.
If they admitted their mistakes, several of them would be in jail, where they belong.
Despite every thing that has
Despite every thing that has been revealed about the hierarchy's duplicity when it comes to the sex abuse of children by priests and its coverup, only a handful of Cardinals, Bishops and priests have had the courage to confront the power structure. Fr. McBrien, who still
teaches at Notre Dame and has a broad following of concerned Catholics is part of that
handful. The truth is far more important than titles and regal garb..
Abortion is not the only moral issue..let the Church speak out more forcefully about genocide
spouse abuse and child neglect..as a starter!!!
Who doesn't know that it is
Who doesn't know that it is politics and not religion that fosters the bishops' continuing campaign against the Democratic administration?
Unfortunately, quite a few.
Unfortunately, quite a few.
A major reason for the
A major reason for the secularisim and anti Church feeling in Europe is that the Church was always allied with the nobility, the rich and powerful. Now that democracies have embraced the rule of the people, the Church is seen as antithetical to its values. The Bishops of the United States wish to support the Republican party, the party of the rich and powerful; however they do not wish to admit this so they have latched on to this trumped up health care issue. Americans are increasingly following Europe in rejecting these wolves who wish to masquerade as shepherds.
Father McBrien is possibly
Father McBrien is possibly asking a retorical question but I offer a few reasons anyway:
Many bishops lean and some even list to the more politically conservative posture and they have mixed up Health Care Reform and the War on Drugs repeating the mantra, "Just say, 'No.'"
Or could it just be that the Bishops are not mature enough to acknowledge the Nuns knew what they were talking about when many Nuns supported health care reform because it did not advance support for abortion.
But maybe the real reason is Episcopal Authority. They could never admit to error after they made such a big show of demanding 'Obedience.'
PAX.
You ask a good question. Our
You ask a good question. Our bishops appear to be locked in some terrible malaise: chanting old and dead-wrong slogans. A form of episcopal impotence that prevents them from creatively handling the immediate problems: the ever-swelling American Catholic exodus, decreasing numbers of priests and seminarians, lingering sexual abuse issues, escalating financial problems and general loss of credibility for the Catholic Church in general and the American Catholic Church in particular. Instead our bishops have jumped onto the Christian Right’s sloganeering bandwagon and use President Obama as their bad-man scapegoat. With self-righteous piety they repeat the old falsehoods: Obama is anti-life, anti-marriage and undermining the very fabric of the American way of life. I hope our bishops still have fides but they certainly display very little ratio.
Isn't it clear? They are the
Isn't it clear? They are the titual Bishops of No. The Republicans are against health insurance reform. so our Tea Party hierarchy must also be. It's a wonderful smoke screen so that they can prtetend to be moral leaders. Protect the unborn and let the sick fend for themselves. Goolly gee, what leadership!
It should be fairly obvious.
It should be fairly obvious. A whole generation of "John Paul II" Bishops have arisen in the U.S. who believe that being a "good Catholic" and a "good Republican" are identical. Thus, anything that a Democratic President does must be "evil"-don't bother me with facts.
When an explanation of the
When an explanation of the legislation is this clear-cut and available, one wonders why the bishops continue to flail about in opposition. It is almost as if they want to disagree and not be confused by the facts. I agree with Father McBrien that this does not help things. In fact, many Catholics, who don't think things through for themselves but rely on the bishops to tell them what to think and how to act, are being poorly served by this attitude on the bishops' part. Accidenally on purpose?
Excellent article Professor
Excellent article Professor McBride which ask an important question. Why does the USBBC still oppose the Health Care Legislation? One reason that the bishops continue to try to derail the bill is becasue they hate everything that President Obama stands for and they are supported by the extreme conservative catholic laity who also are still fighting the Health Care Bill. A second reason is that they have gotten into bed with the republican party who gave them very little change in the years they controlled the White House and Congress. A third reason is that they appear to listen to only right wing conservative catholic groups such as: the National Right-to-Life Committee and other conservative political groups, as well and reading only conservative news sites like "LifeSiteNews, Catholic News Agency or Fox News.
I hope that the Holy Spirit will enlighten some of the bishops to the fact that they are not the government of the United States. They have enough problems with the scandal that has been going on within the Church. They might try to clean their own house.
The bishops continue to
The bishops continue to complain because otherwise they would appear to be admitting that they were wrong.
They WERE wrong and probably at least some of them recognize that now.
But they can't stand to admit their fallibility.
I am sure you know the answer
I am sure you know the answer to your own question - because they would have to actually admit that they were all wrong, that they are asses, that apparantly they can't read!! That's why!
Ah, Bart Stupak as measure of
Ah, Bart Stupak as measure of pro-life legislation. Maybe Senator Ben Nelson, too? Makes about as much sense as Richard McBrien as exponent of truly Catholic theology.
JMGrondelski on Jul. 20,
JMGrondelski on Jul. 20, 2010.
You stated:
"Ah, Bart Stupak as measure of pro-life legislation. Maybe Senator Ben Nelson, too? Makes about as much sense as Richard McBrien as exponent of truly Catholic theology."
-------------------------------------------------------
Theology can only be called Christian (Catholic) if it complies with the message and life-style of Jesus Christ. Otherwise it is just a hierarchial spin. In its 2000 year history, Catholic theology has changed. Why? Because theology is humankind's study of God. Theology is not God speaking to humankind. Theology is largely shaped and formed by the life and times of the theologians formulating theology.
We have also seen papal teachings developed and changed also over the centuries. For example---do you use any appliance in your home that utilizes steam (like an iron?) Do you use the telephone/cell phone? Do you know that these items were condemned as evil inventions by Pope Pius IX? (He's the same Pope who had himself and all successive popes invested with infallibility when speaking of matters of faith).
Today, most people (even the Vatican) would laugh at Pius IX's blustering---but this was HIS ideas in his time. Fr. McBrien doesn't write with his eyes closed as to the true landscape of Catholicism today---our American bishops would do well to open their eyes as well.
Little Bear, most bishops do
Little Bear, most bishops do have their eyes open to the Obama administration's promotion of a culture of death and therefore opposed the legislation without any specific language prohibiting abortion funding. Unlike Fr. McBrien and the ladies of the LCWR, they are not courting favor with the liberal media and the Democratic Party. Really, now, Pope Pius IX said the cell phone was evil???? When will your church be up and running?
Read, for one, page 98 of Asa
Read, for one, page 98 of Asa Briggs and Peter Burke's Social History of the Media which reports both Pio Nono and Cardinal Neumann found it "morally wrong to equate either gas or steam with civilization."
Now please source your spurious allegation regarding "the Obama administration's promotion of a culture of death" which demands the bishops' blanket condemnation of this administration's struggle for life, and for health, for all. Even though this bill promotes life (and please see the USCCB's clarification within this excellent article, if you have bothered to read it at all), the bishops, for you, must condemn it, because, for you, it is really all about death, no matter what it really says?
Peace, dude.
Milbo 1 on Jul. 20, 2010. You
Milbo 1 on Jul. 20, 2010.
You stated:
"Little Bear, most bishops do have their eyes open to the Obama administration's promotion of a culture of death and therefore opposed the legislation without any specific language prohibiting abortion funding. Unlike Fr. McBrien and the ladies of the LCWR, they are not courting favor with the liberal media and the Democratic Party. Really, now, Pope Pius IX said the cell phone was evil???? When will your church be up and running?"
-----------------------------------
Many of the bishops of America practically campaigned against Obama when he was running for the presidency. But is was amazing that the Vatican did not have problems with him or with his platform.
As so many of the other folks have stated quite well---the bishops proclaim something to be so---and even if it is wrong---they claim that it is right.
Pius IX, in his condemnation against modernism (and all the inventions of the modern world), declared that telephones are evil. No, there were not cell phones back then---but there were telephones and the beginnings of many modern appliances that we use today. Poor Pius IX would be up to his ears in condemnations.
Finally, Milbo 1, go back to your stodgy law office or go to comfort some lonely bishop. You both deserve each other.
Post new comment