The Independent News Source
Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
Who Speaks for the Bishops on Health Care?
Sep. 02, 2009
Printer-friendly version
Send to friend
PDF version
(CNS photo)
Printer-friendly versionSend to friendPDF versionWhat is the first principle Catholics should consider when thinking about the current health care reform debate? Three Midwestern bishops recently offered two conflicting responses to this question.
In a joint pastoral statement issued Sept. 1, Kansas City, Kansas Archbishop Joseph F. Naumann and Kansas City–St. Joseph Bishop Robert W. Finn point first to the concept of “subsidiarity” – which they define as the “principle by which we respect the inherent dignity and freedom of the individual by never doing for others what they can do for themselves and thus enabling individuals to have the most possible discretion in the affairs of their lives.” (See NCR’s coverage of the pastoral statement here.)
Meanwhile, Rapid City Bishop Blaise Cupich in a statement released last week says “reform efforts must begin with the principle that decent health care is not a privilege, but a right and a requirement to protect the life and dignity of every person.” He continues, “All people need and should have access to comprehensive, quality health care, the costs of which must be controlled so that all can afford it. All should be able to receive health care irrespective of their stage of life, where or whether they or their parents work, how much they earn, where they live, or where they were born.”
Finn and Naumann believe that centralized government healthcare is a greater threat to human dignity than the current US health system, which leaves nearly 50 million of our neighbors without health insurance. (Several other bishops, as The New York Times reported Aug. 27 , seem to share this view). “Our country, in some ways, is the envy of people from countries with socialized systems of medical care,” write Naumann and Finn.
To what countries are the two bishops referring? As T.R. Reid noted in the Washington Post recently (“5 Myths About Health Care Around the World” ) there isn’t a whole lot of “socialized medicine” in the world – at least outside the US.
Wrote Reid: “Some countries, such as Britain, New Zealand and Cuba, do provide health care in government hospitals, with the government paying the bills. Others -- for instance, Canada and Taiwan -- rely on private-sector providers, paid for by government-run insurance. But many wealthy countries -- including Germany, the Netherlands, Japan and Switzerland -- provide universal coverage using private doctors, private hospitals and private insurance plans.
“In some ways, health care is less ‘socialized’ overseas than in the United States. Almost all Americans sign up for government insurance (Medicare) at age 65. In Germany, Switzerland and the Netherlands, seniors stick with private insurance plans for life. Meanwhile, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs is one of the planet's purest examples of government-run health care.”
It seems there is something larger at play here.
Says Cupich: “Our healing apostolate is rooted in a belief in the dignity of each human person, realizing, as did Jesus, that one’s ability to live a fully human life is greatly affected by health. In a word, we consider health care a basic human right [emphasis added]. For this reason, the Catholic bishops have consistently advocated for comprehensive health care reform that leads to health care for all, including the weakest and most vulnerable.”
Do Naumann and Finn believe, as the American bishops and the universal church have taught for many decades, that health care is a right?
Rather than embrace the language of “rights,” the two bishops narrow the scope, turning a quite practical teaching – everyone should receive quality health care regardless of their station in life or ability to pay – into a theoretical discussion.
“The right of every individual to access health care does not necessarily suppose an obligation on the part of the government to provide it,” they write. “Yet in our American culture, Catholic teaching about the ‘right’ to healthcare is sometimes confused with the structures of ‘entitlement.’ The teaching of the Universal Church has never been to suggest a government socialization of medical services.”
Now, in the current debate, only those interested in scuttling universal access to health care talk about “government socialization of medical services.” All of the proposals under consideration envision a robust private sector insurance system which can be transformed – through oversight, regulation and expanded public competition – into a provider of universal coverage.
Meanwhile, Naumann and Finn imply that the concept of subsidiarity not only prefers a local solution to societal problems, but requires it. Nothing, of course, could be further from the truth. The principle, rather, requires that societal programs that address legitimate needs be conducted at the level where they will be effective. So, for example, only a national Social Security system can provide income support to the elderly (For more on this, click here ). Likewise, national defense requires national efforts, lest we all be walking about with M-16s or joining local militias.
It seems Naumann and Finn are not at all comfortable with Catholic teaching on the “right” to health care. Instead, in their statement, they make five references to “safety nets” – a bare bones system under which the poor and uninsured would not be allowed to fall below. That is very different from a “right” to quality health coverage.
In a strange non-sequitur, the two bishops note that “some system of vouchers – at least on a theoretical level – is worthy of consideration.” Would these be vouchers the uninsured could use to purchase insurance? Or like Food Stamps or housing vouchers, a program where the government would subsidize individual procedures – everything from antibiotics for a kid’s ear infection to chemotherapy. The bishops don’t say.
There is, it seems, one group of people who have an absolute right to health coverage and for whom the principle of subsidiarity is trumped by universal care. “Pre-natal and neo-natal care are particularly crucial and should be given priority in any reform,” Bishops Naumann and Finn write. “Because of the unique vulnerability of the unborn and newly born child, such services ought to be provided regardless of ability to pay.” (At what point we wonder – a six-month-old-baby, a one-year-old toddler – should “such services” be subject to an ability to pay?)
In a July 17 letter to members of Congress, Bishop William Murphy, chair of the bishops committee concerned with health care, offered a different point of view: “Reform efforts must begin with the principle that decent health care is not a privilege, but a right and a requirement to protect the life and dignity of every person. All people need and should have access to comprehensive, quality health care that they can afford, and it should not depend on their stage of life, where or whether they or their parents work, how much they earn, where they live, or where they were born. The Bishops’ Conference believes health care reform should be truly universal and it should be genuinely affordable [emphasis in original].”
So, who speaks for the U.S. church at this critical hour in the health care debate? Cupich and Murphy, who forcefully present the traditional teaching of the universal church, or Naumann and Finn, who offer their idiosyncratic observations as pastoral advice?
The answer to this question may yet prove decisive as Congress returns from its recess and considers whether there is public support for revamping our broken health care system.
The Sioux City, Iowa Bishop
The Sioux City, Iowa Bishop has also issued a statement about health care. I think he is saying that there should not be a "government option." I also think he says that money should not be taken by the government from one group to subsidize health care for another group.
Of course there should not be
Of course there should not be a public option, nor should money be stolen, not taken, stolen from one group to fund the health care of another group. The United States was NOT founded on the principle that socialism, but rather on the principle of self determination and individual freedom, the dignity of each individual to choose for him or herself.
This is what the bishops are trying to remind us of. Subsidiarity, long a founding principle in Catholic Social Teaching, reminds us that people or groups at the lowest level, the level closest to the problem, has first right to solve the problem. Family and friends know FAR better than big government what members of their family or their friends need. They know best hot to help to meet those needs. If family or friends cannot, then we turn to local charities or churches, then to local government, then statewide charities, then state government, then national charities, and, as the absolute last resort, national government.
National government solves problems by treating everyone as if they were exactly the same. National government treats people as numbers, not individuals. National government is not, is never, the answer to anything.
The bishops who are speaking out in opposition to Obama Care are doing so because they recognize that nationalized healthcare means less respect for the individual, loss of choice, loss of patient rights, increased costs and inefficiency and the legalization of immorality, namely theft of money from one group and the transfer of that stolen money to another group.
There is nothing moral, ethical or right about national healthcare. Nothing.
Read the Bible - something in
Read the Bible - something in there about caring for others.
Which version of the Bible do
Which version of the Bible do you have? Mine does not say anything about letting government do the caring for me. It says I should do it myself...I am supposed to care for my neighbors in need, not some all-powerful governmental body.
Please, where did Jesus say "Let the government tax you in a confiscatory manner so that it might be the means of compassion, charity and mercy to those in need"?
Haven't found that passage in mine. Must be my translation.
Thou shalt no defraud is a
Thou shalt no defraud is a sin in my Bible, and fraud is exactly what one could call what current health insurers do minus a public option and restrictions which prohibit denial of coverage for those who are or who get sick.
The health insurance industry is only possible because of the action of the state allowing insurance company stockholders to not be personally responsible for the care of policy holders. You can't hide behind a small government agenda on this issue, since you need big government to even have third party insurance.
It is estimated that over 60%
It is estimated that over 60% of people filing for personal bankruptcies in this country do so because of unpaid medical bills. Many have prior medical conditions that their insurance will not cover. Many had insurance but could not continue to pay the premiums after losing their jobs due to illness. Many of these people contact their private and public agencies for help that they might not be eligible for. Read an excellent article in the 9/3/09 edition of the Detroit News (detnews.com) by a Wayne State University Professor/Medical Doctor.
Really? Then would you be
Really? Then would you be wiling to pay off my student loans for the PhD I did at a Catholic institution in Scripture? Come on! It would really help... I mean... I am your neighbor and I am in need...
David
I can see you paying for one
I can see you paying for one neighbor's mastectomy, and maybe a couple of hip replacements for the guy across the street, but when the lady you work with needs a heart transplant don't you think you'll be almost out of cash? Will a casserole help her out? I think what's needed is some power. You're gummin' up the works,- the corporal works of Mercy. It's only confiscatory if you can't see the Light with your little tiny stingy pea brain...and stop being so afraid, UIJITU.
So, the care of how many of
So, the care of how many of the sick can I put you down for? You make it sound as if you have some foundation that is caring for them. Post office box, please. And the poor all say thanks, Clint.
Clint, this is not about
Clint, this is not about NATIONALIZED health care. No one is talking about making health care providers government employees. Stop spreading lies. This is about access to insurance.
Whether or not one has insurance, or whether it's any good, is more about luck than it is self effort. For an intelligent guy, you seem to have some pretty big blind spots.
Actually, it is supposed to
Actually, it is supposed to be about providing coverage for a mythical "47 million" people. Obama could have done that easily in the stimulus for about $30 billion if he had chosen to do so. He chose not to, so there must be something more here.
Meanwhile, look at the people he has chosen to surround himself with. These are individuals who are self-proclaimed communists, who are racists blaming rich white people for all the ills of the world, who support mandatory abortion and/or sterilization in some circumstances as the answer to overpopulation, etc. These are the most radical people that we have ever had in government and we would either be foolish or incredibly naive to believe that their end goal is anything less than the government owning everything in this nation. Obama himself is on record during his campaign as being in favor of a health system modeled on Britain, France and Canada -- in other words, nationalized health care.
There are lots of intelligent people out there who have a blind spot where this man is concerned. I am not certain why. These same people believed that every word that came out of the mouth of George W. Bush was a bald-faced lie and that every word that comes out of the mouth of Barack H. Obama is the absolute truth. Talk about blindness.
I have no blind spot when it
I have no blind spot when it comes to President Obama. President Bush may have been working hand in hand with the wealthy who are very close to owning or controlling most of the wealth in this country, but Obama is showing that these interests also own the democratic party as part of their portfolio.
That's why I find all the fear on the right so laughable. All this internecine screaming and ranting is only a show to keep the sheep entertained with each other while the fleecing goes on behind the scenes.
It's true in Catholicism as well. Keep the sheep fighting over incidentals. The truth will win out Clint, and neither you or I are going to pleased.
This is not China. No woman
This is not China. No woman is forced to have an abortion.
Why do you call pro-choice by the lie, "pro-abortion"?
I will not force someone who does not share our ethos to bear a child
she does not want.I want abortion kept legal though I am Catholic. I would
not chose abortion myself.
Nasty to call this population control!
If lying us into Iraq was not a bald-faced lie, what is it? And no-bid contracts for subpar work. Three troops died in showers via electrocution.
If covering the friendly fire death of Pat Tillman was not a bald-faced lie,
what is it? Halliburton sp? got no-bid contracts. Though VP Cheney's assets
are supposedly hidden from view, I have serious doubts about this.
Straw man issue here: Every word from Barack Obama is called absolute truth, while every word from W. Bush was a lie. Look at the record: Helluva
job, Brownie (regarding New Orleans) Lie of blind selection of judges etc. when everyone was vetted for political affiliation. No wonder he's considered worst president ever. And not because every word was a lie. I think he did
say that "Mission Accomplished" was not his doing.
Clint, you don't know the
Clint, you don't know the meaning of socialism. And there is no reason that people should no longer be citizens paying taxes for all the benefits they decide to have. That is our form of government.
Your perspective is only one loud but limited perspective on government.
Subsidiarity, indeed a valued
Subsidiarity, indeed a valued principle of the social teaching of the church is not absolute. Subsidiarity is only as legitimate, useful and effective as the principle is oriented towards the common good, not the good of the few.
Consider some of its more fundamental principles:
> Solidarity with and for the poor urgently needed today, that "firm and persevering determination to commit oneself to the common good; that is to the good of all and of each individual because we are really responsible for all" (JPII,' Solicitudo Rei Socialis' 38.
> All human beings and not just a few are "the source, the center, and the purpose of all socio-economic life" ('Gaudium et Spes' 63).
> "God destined the earth and all it contains for all men and all peoples so that all created things would be shared fairly by all mankind under the guidance of justice tempered by charity" ('GS' 69).
> Christian tradition has always understood the right to private property within the broader context of the right common to all to use the goods of the whole creation; the right to private property is subordinated to the right to common use, to the fact that good are meant for everyone" (JPII, 'Laborem et Exercens' 14.
> The common good dictates that more attention must be given to the less fortunate members of society (JohnXXIII, 'Pacem in Terris' 56).
Are these more Republican or more Democratic?
In the social teachings of
In the social teachings of the Church individual freedom is accountable to the principle of the common good, to be exercised in such a way that it enhances the freedom of the entire community.
Clint, your view of the
Clint, your view of the Constitution puts Christians, and particularly Catholics, who look to the Gospel for guidance at odds with the nation's founders. Fortunately, it's a false dichotomy. You misread the Constitution as well as scripture and the Church's traditional position on social justice.
Apparently, you have yours.
Apparently, you have yours. The heck with those who don't...we'll find something socialistic about taking care of others. Sad...Jesus, apparently, wasn't trying to tell you a thing when he healed the sick.
You're an idiot. You have no
You're an idiot. You have no clue what you're talking about.
"The national government never has the answer".
Yeah, tell that to minorities and women who can now vote and attend the school's of their choice because of policies forced down the racist/sexist Southern states' throat.
There are many examples where the Federal government has stepped in when the states wouldn't do the right thing. And stop acting as if you know what this nation was 'founded' on. Your talking points come straight from the mouth of the insurance lobby. You, sir, are a sheep, in lock-step with the Republican Party and the insurance industry they serve.
Health Care coverage is a RIGHT, not a Privilege.
I love bishops Naumann and
I love bishops Naumann and Finn! And let's not forget bishop Nickless of Sioux City who warns that healthcare reform could undermine the vitality of (((drumroll))) THE PRIVATE SECTOR, a frightening prospect that should be added to the Death Panel/Euthanasia litany of SCARY THINGS. Way to go, bishops! Keep Speaking Out!
Why should I or anyone else
Why should I or anyone else care what the Bishops think or say on Health care?
As a group and as individuals they have dropped the ball so many times that they it will take 100 years for them to regain any kind of credibility
I think I have to agree with
I think I have to agree with this one.
"...anyone else care what the
"...anyone else care what the Bishops think...." Not if anyone is of right mind, right conscience; not sure whether "100 years for them to regain any kind of crediblity" is sufficient time. It is a shame and unconscionable what these bishops state. Rather they should be on their kness praying for enlightenment and forgiveness for deceit and wrongfully leading their flock away from the Xtian principles the Church professes.
It is also a shame that the NCR has removed and hidden off to the archives, the Kansas bishops article on health care. These bishops only prove that the Church's counter-enlightenment lives through them...has pressure been put upon NCR?
The Bishops bring up valid
The Bishops bring up valid point - whether you agree or not.
NCR has become too vitriolic.....
How do all the other
How do all the other countries that take care of all manage to do so without big objections from the Catholic Church? Canada, France, Britain? Amazing, that only in America is it somehow a BAD thing to care for others....
Because citizens in those
Because citizens in those countries have sold out their Christian/Catholic values to human secularism.
I guess my basic human
I guess my basic human dignity is enhanced by the premiums I pay to Blue Cross and darned if I don't feel a little more dignified with every co-pay. When they turn down a claim altogether - I just "king of the world". Or at least King of Kansas city.
"Who speaks for the US church
"Who speaks for the US church at this critical hour?" is a most relevant question. The NCR Editorial presents the question well. Still further, the prophetic mandate of our Faith leads us to the most central question, "For whom does the church speak at this critical hour?" As the church of Jesus, the Christ, we must speak for the voiceless and marginalized, in this case, for the uninsured and sick. This leads me to join with Bishops Cupich and Murphy in their sense of health care being a right for all persons.
1 The USA Bishops Conference
1 The USA Bishops Conference should discern and come out with collective clear statement of a pastoral and guided ethics, based on Deontological and Distributive Justice moral principles of Catholic Tradition.
RAL
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The answer may prove decisive
The answer may prove decisive for the credibility of bishops.
The KC bishops position stems
The KC bishops position stems from the fact their area is dominated by Limbaugh Republicans. Since the organization of the Church is deeply embedded into money and power, these two bishops have cast their lot with people who have money rather than the poor. Matthew 25 has been forgotten here in order to benefit the personal purses of these men.
Because of that, the institutional church no longer get a dime from me.
Ignorance is BLISS for
Ignorance is BLISS for Bishops Naumann and Finn..
So, who speaks for the U.S. church on the health care debate?
USCCB and DEFINITELY NOT (REPEAT NOT) a FEW INDIVIDUAL "UNINFORMED", "IGNORANT","ROGUE" BISHOPS who are doing all they can to get involved in "PARTISAN" POLITICS, solely for satisfying their EGOS by seeking "PERSONAL" FAME AND GLORY and as much "media attention" that they can get......
Apparently, Naumann and Finn have yet to grasp the meaning of:
Paul's letter to the Philippians 2:1-4
If there is any encouragement in Christ, any solace in love, any participation in the Spirit, any compassion and mercy, complete my joy by being of the same mind, with the same love, united in heart, thinking one thing. Do nothing out of selfishness or out of vainglory; rather, humbly regard others as more important than yourselves, each looking out not for his own interests, but (also) everyone for those of others.
Apparently, Naumann and Finn have yet to read and understand:
Statement for the Record
Bishop William F. Murphy, Chairman
USCCB Committee on Domestic Justice and Human Development
United States Senate Committee on Finance
Roundtable Discussion on “Expanding Health Care Coverage”
May 20, 2009
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
3211 Fourth Street, NE
Washington, DC 20017
"On behalf of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), I want to express hope that the serious dialogue on health care now underway will bring true reform to the nation’s health care system. The Catholic bishops of the United States have been and continue to be consistent advocates for comprehensive health care reform leading to accessible and affordable health care for all (Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship, USCCB, 2007). In a nation with the resources we have, health care should be such that all our citizens receive the kind of health care that provides for the needs of all in a coherent and consistent way."
For more, please read:
http://www.usccb.org/sdwp/national/2009-05-usccb-health-care-statement.pdf
I don't see any conflict at
I don't see any conflict at all between the bishops' statements. Why are you trying to pit one bishop agains another one?
Don't be too hard on our
Don't be too hard on our brothers in KC, since they must pander to their donors and likely have some pretty rabid Republicans writing for them in the Chancery. Heaven help their flocks, however, if this represents their personal opinion. It certainly does not represent the Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church.
You know what the Magisterium
You know what the Magisterium thinks? God help us if the Magisterium gets involved in the health care debate in the United States. Too much mingling of church and state, if you ask me.
Try reading Caritas in
Try reading Caritas in Veritate and the other social encyclicals.
So where is the president of
So where is the president of the US Bishops Conference? Speaking out?
No no no. Can't criticize a fellow bishop on health care, allowing pedophile clergy to thrive for many years, or ANYTHING. They need to review Jesus' reaction to the money peddlers in the temple. Matt 21:12-13 and John 2:13-17
Seems a little righteous anger is in order. But heaven forbid that anyone embarrass a bishop or cause "scandal" to the ignorant unthinking simple-minded faithful.
also:
"He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did NOT do for one of the least of these, you did NOT do for ME.' Matthew 25:44-46
Where is the moral courage? Where are the TV ads from the bishops emphasizing health care as a human right? What media would Jesus use today in 2009?
So sad, so sad.
.
.
Amen and again I say, AMEN!
Amen and again I say, AMEN! Where are those who should be speaking out and putting their money where their morality and Christianity is with respect to being sure that those who are uninsured or underinsured will be able to be "treated" with dignity.
How many of the Bishops are
How many of the Bishops are familiar with the economics of health care? They present quasi-ethical stances speaking of human dinity and the other sound bites. Do they ever approach the major economic concerns of the lawmakers, do they even understand the economic issues. The bishops for the most part gained their positions in the Church by virtue of Church politics. Few of them sound that well versed in matters medical and financial.
I personally do not derive any insight from their input as they speak now.
They seem not to have expertise on these matters.
Actually, the bishops do not
Actually, the bishops do not need a spokesman. St. James speaks well on the subject in the second reading for next Sunday. The poor should not be treated differently. If we let Congress answer to special interests instead of the common good for all, then WE become the "...judges who hand down corrupt decisions..." We must not be complicit in the crime of discriminating against the poor.
_________________
James 2:1-5
My sisters and brothers, your faith in our glorious Savior Jesus Christ must not allow favoritism. Suppose there should come into your assembly a person wearing gold rings and fine clothes, and at the same time a poor person dressed in shabby clothes. Suppose further you were to take notice of the well-dressed one and say, “Sit right here, in the seat of honor”; and say to the poor one, “You can stand!” or “Sit over there by my footrest.” Have you not in a case like this discriminated in your hearts? Have you not set yourselves up as judges who hand down corrupt decisions?
Listen, dear sisters and brothers. Did not God choose those who are poor in the eyes of the world to be rich in faith, and heirs of the kindom promised to those who love God?
Why is it so difficult to
Why is it so difficult to understand that saying we are endowed with certain rights but then preventing the exercise of those very rights is a contradiction? In America's founding document, we declare that each of us "is endowed by [our] Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." The pursuit of happiness for Jeffereson reflected Aristotle's understanding, which Thomas Aquinas adopted, that the 'good life' or happiness is rooted in the ability to become all that we are able to become, to actualize our potential in a full way.
Amercans understand this and thus have made education not only a right but a duty for every person in a democracy. However, the right to health, which underlies the ability to actualize any potentials in our life, has become a contentious issue--and it would not be disputed outside of a system which has made health a commodity which has a price and, therefore, is available primarily to those who can afford it. If 'happiness' is a right, the means to achieve that are also part of that right, or the right itself has been voided.
So, Catholic bishops in particular have a duty to support the 'right to life' and the 'right to happiness' in its fullest manifestation--the right to health is an essential element of any 'pro-life' position. Either the right to life extends from conception to the grave, or that right is illusory--consistency demands the support of every dimension of the defense of life, whether physical, emotional, social, or spiritual.
We can differ what constitutes proper health and on the manner that a universal health plan is implented. To deny the right to that health care is to contradict the very principles that undergird the ethic in Catholic Social Teaching and in Catholic morality.
Naumann and Finn are Right
Naumann and Finn are Right Wing ideologues posing as pastors of the Catholic Church. Shame on them. They should be roundly rebuked by the USCCB. And shame on the leaders of health care reform. The current debate is muddled. The twisted logic and lies perpetrated in the past two months about health care reform have been poorly addressed by the Democrats and the Obama Administration. Consequently there is more than enough fear among the elderly alone to scuttle the program.
"To hell with the 47 million uninsured, Give me more. Dare not reduce what I already have." This is what I hear from seniors. Fear. And a lack of charity.
Obama and the Democrats need to kick some butt,to speak clearly and forcefuly, repeating the advantages and the safeguards of the Reform over and over again in a mantra easily understood by those who fear their oxen will be gored.
Our measure as a nation is on the line on health care, our treatment of immigrants, how we declare and conduct war, and how we treat other nations. We have a lot of work to do. Let's begin here. Pass Health Care Reform.
Wow! The time has come for
Wow! The time has come for thinking Catholics to find their voices and speak up against the loud voice of conservative thinking. The Church is made up of many diverse groups and not one political voice. The conservative voices speak only for the unborn, but neglect concern for life after birth.
Where in their view is the compassion, inclusiveness and concern for the poor that Jesus demonstrated? This conservative movement is harmful to the church and to our country. Politicians think they represent the whole Catholic community, and might be persuaded to vote accordingly. Let us remember that while Catholics heard from their pulpits that they should not vote for Obama, a majority of Catholics did in fact vote for Obama. Some were even told it would be a sin to do so. God forgive those false shepherds whom Jesus said to beware of.
This is another example of
This is another example of the church putting form before substance. We need to re-invent health care in this country. We have stalled long enough. If all those who like their own insurance would suddenly lose it -- as millions have, I wonder what they would say. I guess those who suggest that Congress should have to pay the same as normal people for their insurance-- with comparable coverage should add at least certain bishops to that list. If nobody had insurance, maybe no one is "entitled" to what none have, but as long as disparity is based largely on income, then we are not treating all equally.
Tom
With the exception of a few
With the exception of a few enlightened bishops such as Bishop Murphy, THE PEOPLE OG GOD (the lay people) speak for the US Church. Who trusts the majority of American bishops? Very few. Millions of Catholics see them as criminals in light of their strategy with the sexual abuse of children. They covered up. They participated in criminal behavior by re-circulating the abusive priests. Evil.
Chris Smith--well said. The
Chris Smith--well said. The cover-up goes on. Just look at the Bridgeport Diocese going all the way to the Supreme
Court, if they can, to block the opening up of the files. Is there just one American bishop who will break ranks and name this expensive law suit for what it is? The cover-up goes on
"So, who speaks for the U.S.
"So, who speaks for the U.S. church"? Please, Almighty God, let it be Naumann and Finn!
... NOT!
... NOT!
Thank you for setting the
Thank you for setting the record (and Naumann and Finn) straight. Their wild assertions ignore the facts and defy anything approaching sound or compassionate resoning.
On another front: Oh, that they wouyld apply the principle of subsidiarity to other issues. No such luck, I'm afraid.
Who Speaks for the Bishops on
Who Speaks for the Bishops on Health Care?
Rush Limbaugh.
Let them eat cake.
Let them eat cake.
If I remember correctly, the
If I remember correctly, the Hyde Amendment specifies that tax payer money cannot be used for abortions. The bishops who oppose health care reform need to keep themselves updated on the facts. Counseling families is not euthanasia. It has been practiced by physicians for many years. I believe that loved ones want to know the prognosis of a loved one.
High praise for Bishop
High praise for Bishop Cupich's statement that health care is a right for every human being. I think we are seeing the true test of Christian love when we see people condemn the right to health care for all. It is the most vulnerable among us who are the under insured. Why wouldn't a Christian want to pay a bit more so that all could have coverage? I am deeply saddened that the Bishop's cannot come together to make a statement in support of the right to health care for all. The Catholic Health Association has done so. But once again the Republican party stronghold on some bishops will prevent them from taking a stand for this. For me it is as simple as "What would Jesus do?" It doesn't have to be any more complicated than that.
When Finn and Naumann see fit
When Finn and Naumann see fit to give up their privileged status and join the roulette of health care faced by the laity, I might consider listening to their ignorant opinions. They are part of a privileged class who dare to tell the rest of us what we can and can not have. How quickly they confuse their elitist Republican leanings with the Gospel. They need to refresh their memories about what you do to the least of your brethren that you do unto Jesus. If I were so unfortunate to live where these men reign, I would cut all donation to them and their ilk and give it instead to the poor. With men like these two around, they will surely need all of the donations that they can get! Bad cess to them!
The statement by Naumann and
The statement by Naumann and Finn, both auxilaries under our recently moved Burke, framed as it is by abundant ignorance and a total lack of realism, brings further discredit to the American hierarchy, a hierarchy which needs no further discrediting. Where are the other bishops, the pastors who know and see the suffering our lack of health care causes for millions of our people and leaves the US near the bottom in measures of public health among developed nations? If they can't speak for justice, they are just as bad as these two. And who needs them?
I find the bishops from
I find the bishops from Kansas City using logic that is severely twisted.
When I am confused by complicated items like health care, I always ask myself how Jesus would have handled this question.
I sincerely doubt that Jesus would have applied “subsidiarity.” Frankly I find it to be an improper argument in these days of tremendous premium payments, huge deductibles and insurance companies deciding whether people will get treatment. When a family of 4 with 2 working adults is making less than $60,000 per year, sometimes health insurance premiums of $1400 per month are simply out of reach. I wonder whether either of these bishops has had to struggle to pay their own health insurance premiums?
I can't count the number of people who told me they have not been able to afford policies for their families. A lot of people have to change careers, or work at jobs they can't stand to keep health insurance.
I just don't think that this is how Jesus would have wanted them to have to spend their lives.
There are a number of
There are a number of un-churched individuals of all ages in America. Any national policy needs to recognize their humanity. I want all to have access to medical services. I do not want anyone walking among us with a communicable disease when that condition is remediable. I can not imagine a scenario wherein the un-churched would have about them a large red "U" to designate their status. There will be more with U than C. That is a scary notion, to know how many of them care nothing about our principles.
Apparently not everything is
Apparently not everything is up to date in Kansas City.
Archbishop Naumann and Bishop
Archbishop Naumann and Bishop Finn thoughtfully provided information that I had not considered before. Before I rush to judgment, I intend to think about the concepts that they have presented in this letter and perhaps learn something. I do not agree with those who have written and apparently believe that "political" not "pastoral" was the intention of their letter.
And, while you are thinking
And, while you are thinking it over, along with these two, if another person dies for want of health insurance, I'm certain that you will all be able to find some reason that lets you all off the hook. While my husband was recently being treated for lymphoma, I asked those who worked in the oncologist's office, what, if anything, people without decent insurance and little money did in similar circumstances to my fanily. They told me, in hushed tones, that those people were in serious trouble. There is very little money and very many sick. So, keep on thinking. I, for one, am after some action for those who can't take care of themselves. These Bishops should relinquish their very fine, organization paid health care, just as those in Congress should, who don't think this is an important issue for all. Then, and only then, will I listen to them.
The Bishop in our diocese
The Bishop in our diocese just gutted the group health policy for workers of the diocese. If I were to listen to the bishops on health care it would only be to support the opposite of what they proclaim.
Who speaks for the bishops on
Who speaks for the bishops on healthcare? Apparently the Republican Party, with Archbishop Naumann and Bishop Finn playing the part of ventriloquist's dummies!
The two of them, Finn and
The two of them, Finn and Naumann, are just what they seem to be...big friends with the rich of their dioceses. They see life in black and white, and have risen to the top of the American Church by being yes men. I'm sure they live quite the comfortable lives....while many in their flock lose all due to grave illnesses in their families. Nice.
What would happen if those in
What would happen if those in the hierarchy who are essentially guaranteed job, food, shelter, health care for a lifetime had to compete in the private insurance market with the rest of us? Would the responses, personal as well as corporate, be the same? What would happen if Congresspersons (and sports heroes, entertainment figures, etc.) had the same insurance as the rest of us?
It seems humerous to me that any bishop would invoke subsidiarity. They have certainly never understood the term to mean anything below the bishop level in anything related to the church. With the continued re-centralization in Rome, even bishops have their governnance ability weakened. Should we try Acts of the Apostles again? Love one another as I have loved you.
Having contributed to all the governmental withholdings throughout my 50+ working years, taking care of my parent's and grandparent's generations, is it just to now deny my needs, when I am no longer employable? If "contracts" protect those who have money, what about the social contract between the people of the United States and me when I paid taxes, and all the witholdings throughout those 50+ year. And yes, I was continuously employed?
Over 70
"Rather than embrace the
"Rather than embrace the language of 'rights,' the two bishops narrow the scope, turning a quite practical teaching – everyone should receive quality health care regardless of their station in life or ability to pay – into a theoretical discussion."
Sadly, many of the bishops appointed during the decades of my adult life have been clergy on the 'fast-trac career path' to the episcopal office they hold, and thus have few (or none) pastoral skills and real life experience from which to draw. Their main area of expertise consists of self-absorbed navel-gazing and theorizing about remote application of their book knowledge. When they do have meaningful association with anyone outside of their collegial clique, it isn't likely to be ordinary folks in the pew, or any of the marginalized within the Church and society at large. Their preference is association with political high-rollers and people of affluence within their dioceses.
.
Some go so far as to speak as if they were credentialed theologians though they have no competence to do so — causing more confusion than clarity with regard to Catholic teaching in complex life situations. These same men are often the most harshly vocal, often stridently mixing their personal opinion with official pronouncements, and being shamelessly partisan in secular politics. Their loud voices paint the entire bench of bishops as a group of clueless elitists who have more concern for protecting their privileged brotherhood than shepherding the faithful. As a group, they have lost credibility with the majority of Catholic faithful, and they did it to themselves.
.
It was hard to imagine that these men could possibly dig a deeper hole for themselves after their handling of the sexual predation scandal that broke loose earlier in this decade, and their ham-handed self-protecting approach in dealing with it. Their "plan": investigate everyone except themselves. But they have continued to shovel away as the hole grows larger. Now, in the matter of health care reform, once again a few loud vocal bishops have set the agenda while the majority cower in the shadows, and imply their consent by their silence. One has to wonder when they read Ezekiel 34 and the word of God to the shepherds of Israel, if they construe it as merely ancient history having no relevance to the shepherds of our time.
.
The question isn't WHO speaks for the bishops; we already know that — blustery, loud and clear. The questions should be: Do the majority of Catholic faithful now actually believe their words to be trustworthy? ...Do the majority of faithful really have any confidence remaining in their "pastoral care"? Are most Catholic faithful now exhausted with the situation and tuning them out? We are obliged to respect the office of chief shepherd and bishop, but for some of the men holding the office, ...regretfully, not so much anymore.
I know one of these bishops
I know one of these bishops and I am suprized by their anti health care stand. Others like Cardinal Justine Regali are for the health care bill but stress it should not cover abortions or the helping someone end their life. It seems like the "Swift Boaters" and "Tea Party" gang is alive and well, while people are dying because they lack health care. How do justify people dying while many of us live fairly well?
The bishops and priests of
The bishops and priests of this country have excellent health care coverage. They are receiving it at the cost of contributions made to their dioceses by the faithful, many of whom do not have health care coverage. Who are they to comment on the need for reform? Let everyone have the health care they receive. Let the dioceses chip in on the premiums for those they serve.
Wonderful idea!
Wonderful idea!
Meanwhile, in the Archdiocese
Meanwhile, in the Archdiocese I work for, Catholic school teachers are paying $900+ per month out of pocket for a family insurance policy--for some teachers in my parish, this is over half of their take home pay. Clearly, the bishops have a better deal than their employees enabling them to dismiss the need for reform.
Nauman and Finn are poster
Nauman and Finn are poster children for many Catholics, believers who no longer look to the bishops for guidance, moral guidance or guidance in understanding the faith of the Church. There are no doubt competent moral leaders in the U.S. hierarchy, unfortunately the competent ones get stigmatized by egocentric members of the hierarchy like these two, men who seem to be more interested in enhancing their egos ("WE have something to say that is much more important and more profound than what you will find in Bishop Murphy's letter to Congress!") than caring for the people in the pews, especially the most in need of medical care, which is definitely a pro-life issue that is of as much importance as opposition to abortion.
Why have confidence in people who clearly do not know what they are talking about? These guys are theological quacks, in my opinion, who portray themselves as competent leaders regarding moral issues. By their fruits you shall know them!
Post new comment