Posted on 07/30/2009 6:36:02 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Recently, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) Committee on Domestic Justice and Human Development released a statement made to the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate stating that “health care is not a privilege but a right and a requirement to protect the life and dignity of each person.” They couldn’t be more wrong.
The Committee that composed the document obviously supports President Obama’s desire for national health care reform (with the caveat that taxpayers should not be forced to pay for abortions). National health care reform is a political issue. People of goodwill can be for it or against it as the recent congressional debates will readily attest. Yet, when the seeming weight of the bishops is attached to an issue affecting the commonweal, the words they use often connote a moral imperative which in the case of health care does not exist. The only right that one human being owes to another is “medical care.” This means care and treatment for an immediate need. For instance, a person has a right to expect that civil society would provide for an emergency appendectomy even if he is without sufficient means to pay for it. Biblical support for medical care can be found in the Golden Rule and the story of the Good Samaritan. On the other hand, while preventive medicine such as an annual check-up or the right to elective surgery may benefit some people no where is it found as binding in the natural law or the Christian tradition.
Failure to differentiate between what is a fundamental human right and an opinion of what is deemed to be good by some -- and the confusion over what is morally binding and what is not -- has had deleterious effects on America’s Catholics and on the country as a whole. This failure in such statements distorts the truth. Furthermore, they divide the faithful and affect the political process.
Since I do not wish to engage in an internecine polemic, I will speak solely to my final point.
The religious institutions of any nation have an obligation to inform civil society of proper ethical behavior. In a democracy, freedom of speech and the right to vote have a direct impact on the laws deemed good for structuring society. With over 60 million Catholics in the United States, the voice of the bishops can strongly influence elections and hence legislation. Moral authority and suasion therefore cannot be squandered on social preference. This is especially true for the Catholic bishops, since they are called to proclaim God’s law and not to promote a political agenda. To confuse what is morally right with a perceived social good, no matter how meritorious their intentions, is to abuse their office causing grave intra-Church and societal consequences.
Two examples will make my point. The bishops’ past lack of clarity with pro-choice Catholic politicians had given license for some prominent Catholics to endorse Barack Obama for the presidency and gave permission to 54% of Catholics to vote for him. Thus, the Catholic vote secured the election of the most pro-death politician to ever sit in the White House. Another failure caused by imprecise definition has led some people to believe that the Church’s opposition to capital punishment holds the same weight as its stance against abortion. The failure to declare the former as a prudential judgment and the latter to be intrinsically evil has given some Catholics the cover they needed to vote pro-choice on abortion and argue that they are pro-life because they oppose the death penalty. Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico, a Catholic, is a case in point. Some bishops went so far as to praise him as being pro-life for his rejection of capital punishment. I think not!
On July 7 of this year, Pope Benedict XVI issued his third encyclical entitled Caritas in Veritate -- “On Integral Human Development in Charity and Truth.” In it, he continually re-emphasized one of the foundational principles of Catholic social teaching -- the common good. To achieve a good and just society, the Pope emphasizes that charity is authentic only when it is seen through the lens of truth revealed in faith and reason. The political process therefore must be so guided in order to achieve this end.
To promote health care as a right under the aegis of Catholic morality by the USCCB is not the truth. As a matter of fact, it is not even charity because, as the Pope says, “Without truth, charity degenerates into sentimentality. Love becomes an empty shell, to be filled in an arbitrary way.”
Such carelessness with the truth, whether intentional or unintentional, by the USCCB undermines both the Catholic Church and American society.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rev. Orsi is a Research Fellow in Law and Religion at Ave Maria School of Law.
Note to U.S. Catholic bishops . . .
When the Good Samaritan came upon the injured traveler who had been waylaid by thieves and left for dead on the side of the road, he didn't call 911 and have an ambulance come take the guy to the King Herod Trauma Center at the Caesar Augustus Memorial Hospital. He picked the guy up himself, brought him to an inn to have him cared for, AND PAID THE INNKEEPER HIMSELF.
I agree. I’m getting tired of the petitions asking the congregation to pray “that our leaders will have the courage to ensure the needs and welfare of all God’s children are met.”
I’m raising a charitable family. But we want to give, we don’t want things taken from us.
ping
Sometimes the Bishops really drive me crazy.
Where is their statement declaring that enslaving doctors and nurses is OK?
This right bull$hit is the most annoying of terms since at some point care will not be a right. It is the biggest lie of all being perpetrated on the American public and the bishops most of all should be able to see that, but are blinded by the "goodness" of Obama.
....On July 7 of this year, Pope Benedict XVI issued his third encyclical entitled Caritas in Veritate -- “On Integral Human Development in Charity and Truth.” In it, he continually re-emphasized one of the foundational principles of Catholic social teaching -- the common good. To achieve a good and just society, the Pope emphasizes that charity is authentic only when it is seen through the lens of truth revealed in faith and reason. The political process therefore must be so guided in order to achieve this end.
Ping for later
You cannot have a right to something that someone else must provide.
It might be said that others have a moral obligation to provide to the poor, but to say health care is a “right” implies moral acceptability of slavery.
I still have issues with them over abortion loving politicians. When they show some leadership and common sense , I will listen to them.
I’ll tell you what people have a right to. They have a right not to covet their neighbors’ goods, their neighbors’ wealth. They have a right not to be envious. They have a right not to advocate stealing form some then giving the loot to others.
I am as much against abortion as anyone. But it is not the only sin, dear bishops. So is covetousness and envy and of course theft. You will have abortion in this country as long as you promote the politics and politicians of covetousness who also happen to be the politicians of abortion. Sin is sin.
Religious leaders of all denominations should stick to theology.
Huckabee AND the Pope need to shut up about economics.
In fact, I would make the case that economics is the best subject for understanding the sobering realities of the human condition since the fall of Adam and Eve.
When it comes to healthcare as a right, I doubt people in third-world countries can even dream about healthcare as a "right." People in Zimbabwe or Sudan take whatever is given to them in the form of "Doctors without Borders," and other goodwill missions. Healthcare in their country doesn't exist, so it can't possibly be a "right."
The concept of healthcare as a "right" only exists because our society is wealthy, and our current system can actually provide healthcare options. But we also have food, housing, clothing, entertainment, and vacation options; what's next on the radar to be demanded as a "right?"
So if the good bishops are going to demand healthcare as a right in this country, how can they possibly stop at our borders? Don't our Latin American children of God deserve the same healthcare as us? Don't all Africans, and Asians? Where will we draw the line? If we bankrupt our country, and diminish any incentive to develop world-class medical procedures, medicines, and personnel here--where will the rest of the world acquire this knowledge?
Been that way since its inception.
The USCCB is a collective bunch of navel gazing buffoons.
Well, I guess that is what makes a horse race.
Huckabee and the Pope are both economic idiots, just like most ministers, priests, rabbis, etc.
The Catholic Bishops are AGAINST the healthcare measure. And I trust my source more than I trust Human Events. I’ll link the thread for you.
Synchronized Stealth: Obama’s Department of ‘Death with Dignity’
July 29th, 2009 by Judie Brown
The current debate over health care is one of those scenarios that might play well in a science-fiction thriller, but must not be allowed to play out on the backs and over the dead bodies of the uninformed. The intent to create a nationalized health-care system appears more and more like a behind-the-scenes project based on government control over who lives and who dies. I might even suggest that nationalized health care’s real purpose is to keep feeding the vultures who prey off the culture of death, instead of keeping Americans healthy.
The problem is what is not occurring right now in the public debate. In other words, what remains unstated has many of us extremely concerned. Obama’s so-called health-care plan, if implemented, could be the most egregious assault on the dignity of the human person since the Supreme Court’s dreadful Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton decisions of 1973. Here are a few specifics.
Betsy McCaughey, former lieutenant governor of New York, is an adjunct senior fellow at the Hudson Institute. Dr. McCaughey has written extensively on the dangers of the Obama health-care proposal and its many ramifications. What she has found in the draft now circulating in the House of Representatives is alarming, but apparently interests only a few of those who should be warning the public about it. And their target audience should be those who approaching age 65 and, of course, those who are elderly and needing care. This target audience is going to become the walking target of Obama’s health-care “reform.”
Dr. McCaughey’s detailed research is available on the Defend Your Health Care web site. There you will find explanations of several chilling aspects of the various Obama health-care proposals floating around, including the following excerpt from “Assault on Seniors,” published in the Wall Street Journal:
The House bill shifts resources from specialty medicine to primary care based on the misconception that Americans overuse specialist care and drive up costs in the process (pp. 660-686). In fact, heart-disease patients treated by generalists instead of specialists are often misdiagnosed and treated incorrectly. They are readmitted to the hospital more frequently, and die sooner.
“Study after study shows that cardiologists adhere to guidelines better than primary care doctors,” according to Jeffrey Moses, a heart specialist at New York Presbyterian Hospital. Adds Jeffrey Borer, chairman of medicine at SUNY Downstate Medical Center: “Seldom do generalists have the knowledge to identify the symptoms of aortic valve disease, even though more than 10% of people over 75 have it. After valve surgery, patients who were too short of breath to walk can resume a normal life into their 80s or 90s.”
While the House bill being pushed by the president reduces access to such cures and specialists, it ensures that seniors are counseled on end-of-life options, including refusing nutrition where state law allows it (pp. 425-446). In Oregon, the state is denying some cancer patients care that could extend their lives and is offering them physician-assisted suicide instead.
What is perhaps most interesting about Dr. McCaughey, who earned her doctorate in constitutional history, is that those who favor Obama’s health-care reform are vilifying her right and left. Though we know that this is how advocates of death and disrespect for human dignity operate, it is nevertheless disturbing. She has been called a liar, a spinner of tall tales and other terms of endearment, but the information she is providing is readily available from unbiased sources, such as the text of the health-care “reform” bill itself.
Though many claim Obama’s massive bill is needed, few have actually read it. National Review blogger Jack Fowler actually took the time to present a portion of it in a post titled “Doctor Kevorkian, Call Your Office.” In the bill’s “Advance Care Planning Consultation” section, we read the following:
Such consultation shall include the following:
`(A) An explanation by the practitioner of advance care planning, including key questions and considerations, important steps, and suggested people to talk to.
`(B) An explanation by the practitioner of advance directives, including living wills and durable powers of attorney, and their uses.
`(C) An explanation by the practitioner of the role and responsibilities of a health care proxy.
`(D) The provision by the practitioner of a list of national and State-specific resources to assist consumers and their families with advance care planning, including the national toll-free hotline, the advance care planning clearinghouses, and State legal service organizations (including those funded through the Older Americans Act of 1965).
`(E) An explanation by the practitioner of the continuum of end-of-life services and supports available, including palliative care and hospice, and benefits for such services and supports that are available under this title.
I could quote much more of this very lengthy section, but the gist is already quite obvious. Why would the government’s health-“CARE” bill include such detailed guidelines for discussion of end-of-life matters, unless it aims to ensure that the elderly and infirm are ready to bite the bullet, even if God is not ready to call them home? It does not take a rocket scientist to question why a “health-care” plan should include such a strong emphasis on not preserving their lives.
The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and the National Committee for a Human Life Amendment, which works closely with the USCCB, have addressed health-care “reform” proposals without noting the gruesome specter of euthanasia that pervades the legislative proposals currently on the table. For example, a recent NCHLA alert makes the following statement:
On July 17, Bishop William Murphy, Chairman of the Bishops’ Committee on Domestic Justice and Human Development, sent a letter to Congress saying: “The USCCB looks forward to working with you to reform health care successfully in a manner that offers accessible, affordable and quality health care that protects and respects the life and dignity of all people from conception until natural death.” Abortion must not be included as part of a national health care benefit.
While it is laudable that the U.S. bishops and their collaborators are crying out for an elimination of abortion funding from the so-called health-care reform proposals, why are they not pointing out the potential for euthanasia as well? Is the plan’s emphasis on ending the lives of the elderly not just as abhorrent as its intent to require Americans to pay for an ever increasing number of abortions? If the answer is yes, then why aren’t the bishops educating Catholics nationwide on the threat these bills pose for people of all ages, from creation until death?
The USCCB stated the following in a document entitled “Making Health Care Reform ‘Abortion Neutral’: What is the Legal Status Quo on Abortion?”:
Health care reform whose goal is to advance health coverage, not advance an agenda on abortion, will take care to be abortion neutral. It will preserve current policies that bar use of taxpayer funds, respect conscience rights, and generally encourage childbirth over abortion; it will not mandate abortion as part of any “basic” or minimum benefit package.
This statement alone is mind-boggling! The USCCB sounds complacent about the fact that the nation is going to have abortion on demand, but by golly, it is upset about health-care “reform” requiring us to pay for it!
In addition, we have found that various diocesan “respect life” offices across America are taking their lead from the July 17 letter issued by Bishop William Murphy, chairman of the USCCB’s Committee on Domestic Justice and Human Development, which advocates four principles for health-care reform:
• a truly universal health policy with respect for human life and dignity;
• access for all with a special concern for the poor and inclusion of legal Immigrants;
• pursuing the common good and preserving pluralism including freedom of conscience and variety of options; and
• restraining costs and applying them equitably across the spectrum of payers.
Once again, there is no mention of the encouragement of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide that the Obama plan entails.
I find it laudable beyond words that the USCCB, the participants in the recent Stop the Abortion Mandate webcast and commentators such as Star Parker have articulated a huge number of Americans’ absolute disdain for considering the aborting of a child as “health care.” However, there must be equally strong opposition to prevent Obama’s “Department of Death with Dignity” from becoming a reality. Let’s restore respect for human dignity across the full spectrum of a person’s life!
You can encourage the USCCB, NCHLA, similar organizations, national news commentators and media outlets to focus on respect for human dignity at all stages of life, by expressing absolute rejection of all forms of euthanasia—and abortion—in any health-care bills.
News commentators and media outlets are easily located via the internet. The information below is provided to assist you in contacting pro-life organizations.
National Committee for a Human Life Amendment
1500 Massachusetts Ave. NW, Suite 24
Washington, D.C. 20005
202-393-0703
www.nchla.org
USCCB Secretariat of Pro-Life Activities
3211 4th St. NE
Washington, D.C. 20017
202-541-3000
www.usccb.org/prolife
prolife@usccb.org
Family Research Council
801 G St. NW
Washington, D.C. 20001
800-225-4008 (toll-free)
www.frc.org
National Right to Life Committee
512 10th St. NW
Washington, DC 20004
(202) 626-8800
www.nrlc.org
NRLC@nrlc.org
Priests for Life
P.O. Box 141172
Staten Island, NY 10314
888-735-3448 (toll-free) Box 141172 • Staten Island, NY 10314ox
www.priestsforlife.org
mail@priestsforlife.org
Please contact the pro life organizations in this link and let them know you support the pro-life part of overturning Obamacare!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2304384/posts?page=18#18
Additionally when the Congress critters come home during the recess — go to all their townhalls, offices, etc. and give them an earful.
This lady has credentials!
Betsy McCaughey Exposes Obama Healthcare Lies
___interview with Fred Thompson
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WmmiwHw8bNg
Betsy McCaughey, Health Care Plan Hidden in Stimulus Bill
___ inteview with Lou Dobbs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVfbvK56Ixw
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.