Skip to comments.Socialized Medicine: Blame the Bishops
Posted on 12/23/2009 7:53:08 PM PST by Brian Kopp DPM
The only real chance of defeating the health care legislation came when the bill was lacking a majority of votes for passage in the House.
A lot is being said and written about why national health care legislation is becoming a reality. The simple fact, available for all to see, is that the U.S. Catholic Bishops ensured passage of the bill in the House, enabling the Senate to move forward with its version.
(Excerpt) Read more at aim.org ...
They got in bed with pigs. Probably can’t figure out how they got covered in sh*t.
The USCCB is rotten and Dem to the core, but I think the problem was primarily that they went for one objection (abortion) that they were sure they could get all the bishops to sign onto and backed away from dealing with all the other important issues where there may have been more dissent.
This left it wide open for the House to simply approve something that would meet the bishops’ very minimal demands and then move ahead with the rest of it.
More than anything else, the bishops are cowards, or at any rate, those acting in the context of the USCCB. There were many individual bishops who were excellent, but unfortunately, the institutional presence of the USCCB makes it the focus of the media and the individual bishops are ignored.
It’s what I’ve been saying for years now. You can’t change the politics until you change the culture.
If one believes that healthcare is a right and no one has challenged that belief what do you expect? Of course, the Bishops are going to promote it because they don’t know the other side.
Meanwhile, the conservatives are outfunded by the liberals. You put the two together and it equals conservative thought and ideas are going to be considered outdated, outmoded and out of touch.
The sad part is that most Americans are conservative.
Also this: "For three quarters of a century, the Catholic bishops of the United States have called for national action to assure decent health care for all Americans."
The only real chance of defeating the health care legislation came when the bill was lacking a majority of votes for passage in the House. That's when the first deal was made. This was the deal that made all other deals possible. Acting at the behest of Catholic Cardinal Theodore McCarrick and the Catholic Bishops, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi agreed to a vote on the pro-life amendment introduced by Rep. Bart Stupak. It passed and then the bill itself was approved.
But why did Republicans vote for the Stupak amendment if they opposed the basic premise of the bill? House Republican Leader Rep. John Boehner got his marching orders as well. He was told by Cardinal Francis George, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, that the Republicans shouldn't scuttle the Stupak amendment.
The Senate then proceeded to pass its own version of the legislation, without the Stupak language. Predictably, Stupak is complaining about that. But he-and the Democrats and Republicans who voted for his amendment-only have themselves to blame. At least five lobbyists for the Bishops worked with Pelosi and Stupak on the deal that is now also predictably falling apart. Clearly, the pro-life deal was a ploy designed to keep the legislation alive.
The USCCB is guilty of gross malfeasance in pushing socialized medicine in the context of the current Democrat controlled WH, House, and Senate.
When the current health care reform precipitates hundreds of thousands of cases of passive euthanasia every year (there are already 1.5 million hospice and palliative care patients yearly, and less than a third of them are terminal cancer patients) will the bishops take responsibility for their role in facilitating these deaths?
The USCCB is still dominated by compromise, when so many bishops get together.
But another problem is the lay staff. I think they are almost all leftist dissidents. The USCCB won’t really straighten out until they broom out all those dissenters in their chanceries and in the central organization.
Unfortunately they don’t seem to have the guts to take such a step. No, it’s not nice to fire a bunch of people in a lousy job market. But it’s worse to keep a lot of aging heretics in place, constantly undermining the Church.
Which should have the priority, the jobs of dissident staff or the souls of their flock?
As we saw in the House, when the bill was in trouble, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi agreed to a demand from Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, who was in Rome, to hold a vote on an anti-abortion amendment introduced by Rep. Bart Stupak, a Catholic pro-life Democrat. At the same time, Cardinal Francis George, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), told House Republican Leader John Boehner, a faithful Catholic, not to undermine the amendment. Boehner complied. As a result, the amendment passed, 240-194, with 64 Democrats and 176 Republicans in favor. This provided conservative Democrats enough cover to ignore the other objectionable aspects and vote for the final bill.
Washington Times religion reporter Julia Duin confirmed all of this, but noted in a story filed from the recent USCCB meeting in Baltimore that "Cardinal McCarrick walked away when I approached him about his call from the Vatican..."
Pelosi and many "progressives" acquiesced in the anti-abortion ploy, realizing that the provision could eventually be nullified through subsequent legislation.
Nevertheless, the Bishops are pursuing the same strategy in the Senate. Their chosen vehicle for anti-abortion language in this version of the bill appears to be Democratic Senator Robert Casey, a so-called "conservative" and "pro-life" Catholic Democrat from Pennsylvania. Casey says, however, that if his effort to water down the pro-abortion tone of the legislation fails, he may still vote for the bill.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
They are. There are also a lot of nuns who work for the USCCB who are outright raving Marxists (well, when they can take time off from campaigning for womyn priests).
As a practicing Catholic I feel there’s a large degree of truth to this- of course they took the rats at their word and are now paying a price...
there is still recourse- I remember the US Catholic Bishops threatening to shut down all the hospitals run by Catholics (I believe like 17% in the country) if the health care bill funds abortion....
This is a low blow, assuming to know the minds of the Bishops, ascribing ulterior motives even clairvoyant abilities, as if they could possibly have foretold all the votes, amendments, twists and turns this legislation took after Stupak.
The Bishops did the only thing they could, namely to help ensure no abortion funding via the only vehicle available, Stupak. The church is not an anti-government entity, and life is the most serious moral question of public policy it’s charged with addressing.
Its activism has to hold life as the highest priority, and it’s not reasonable to expect Stupak and other supposedly pro-life Dems to buck party politics to uphold pro-life principles, then expect the church to abandon principle and embrace politics.
When a local Catholic woman went into the parking lot at the USCCB and took pictures of bumper after bumper sporting Kerry stickers, the bishops took bold action to fix the problem: They instructed the security guards to keep people with cameras out of the parking lot.
Catholic Bishops should also be thanked for any taxpayer funded abortions in the modern bill. Catholic Bishops have been running interference for Democrats at least since I was a student at a Catholic Seminary 40+ years ago.
I have always been convinced that Catholic bishops opposed abortion (wink, wink) when they have supported Democrats every way possible. I'd say they are getting what they have always wanted.
Kincaid is absolutely dead on.
How many Catholics have paid any attention to the fact that “the bishops” have been calling for national socialism for 75 years? How many thought the silly positions taken by “the bishops” would ever have any effect in the real world?
Well, they do.
More Catholics need to start screaming bloody murder about the National Socialists in the USCCB. “The bishops” have been the LAST to do anything pro-life. The pro-life movement is the biggest, most energetic movement for ACTUAL Christian social values in the history of the Church—and it has been, since the mid-sixties until today, almost 100% a LAY MOVEMENT. You could count on the fingers of one hand the bishops AND priests who have ever contributed an original thought or strategy to the movement. The vast majority of bishops AND priests have been obstructionists, lallygaggers, and turncoats—from pro-abortion Bernardin to pro-abortion McCarrick, on down through the ranks.
but I think the problem was primarily...
It is primarily due to breaking the First Commandment to worship God.
Far too many leaders in the Catholic Church and among its members worship Karl Marx instead of God.
“As if” they could have predicted???
Every major talk show host predicted it. Rush, Levin, Beck—all of them said that the bishops were being naive and shortsighted, like babes in the woods, in dealing with Pelosi.
Innumerable posters here on FR and elsewhere said that the “anti-abortion” language would be yanked as soon as “the bishops’” help was no longer needed to gain a few votes.
So, the bishops COULD HAVE predicted what would happen—IF they had listened to ACTUAL PRO-LIFERS rather than Pelosi and other “Catholics” on Capitol Hill.
“The Bishops”—i.e., the USCCB, is NOT PRO-LIFE. It is a tool of the Democratic Party. Its words and actions have nothing to do with Catholicism.
What you are describing is absolute moral corruption. As a Protestant I respectfully ask, “Why do people still belong to this church?”
They could, and should, have opposed this socialist expansion of government control over the lives of the Faithful.
The bishops had a moral obligation to oppose it, on grounds of subsidiarity. They have also ignored the loss of conscience clause protections, and abandoned any pretense of opposing the passive euthanasia agenda that is inherent in every bill that has been debated under this Democrat controlled process.
A Guiding Principle to the Debate on Health: The Principle of Subsidiarity
August 22nd, 2009 by Charles J. Gernazian
As a Catholic-American, the most frustrating thing about watching our Catholic public officials in action is that they undoubtedly fail to capture, much less present, Catholic insights that might be helpful to our American society at large. A prime example of a missed opportunity is that Catholic members of Congress have utterly failed to raise an aspect of Catholic Social Teaching that is particularly instructive in the current healthcare debate the Principle of Subsidiarity.
Given the anti-Catholic bias in many circles, I must point out that the Catholic Church has no desire to gain power over the State, or even impose its teachings on those who do not share our Faith. Nevertheless, the Church offers her various social teachings, such as the Principle of Subsidiarity, as guiding principles in order to do Her part to promote reasonable dialogue and to make the Churchs own contribution toward the common goal of a just solution to social issues such as healthcare.
We do not need a State which regulates and controls everything, but a State which, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, generously acknowledges and supports initiatives arising from the different social forces and combines spontaneity with closeness to those in need (Pope Benedict XVI, Deus Caritas Est , 28).
The Principle of Subsidiarity, which has been an integral part of Catholic Social teaching for over a century, states that only things that need to be done at the national or federal level should be done by a federal government; and allows for things that can be done at the local or smaller level to be done at the more local and smaller units of society. Where individuals, intermediary groups, or small private groups of persons can address the particular exigencies and realities of a given situation, it is best to defer to such smaller groups because human beings need some flexibility and autonomy in order to effectively address their particular circumstances.
As with all things Catholic, Pope Benedict XVI describes it best when he summarizes the Principle of Subsidiarity as the coordination of societys activities in a way that supports the internal life of the local communities. As if he were acutely aware of the genius of our American system (i.e., a system which has successfully balanced federal, state and private initiatives for over two hundred years) the Holy Father observes that the principle of subsidiarity helps governments at the national level attune themselves to the natural human desire for self-governance. The Holy Father most recently pointed out that the principle of Subsidiary prevents a completely dehumanizing and all encompassing welfare state, which inevitably leads to a form of paternalist social assistance that is demeaning to those in need (Caritas In Veritate , 57, 58).
Thus, the Principle of Subsidiarity can serve as a guiding principle in the Healthcare debate because it comports with our American history of governance and provides a means by which we can somehow find a middle ground between an all encompassing welfare state and a laissez fare system with no safety net for its citizens.
Moreover, the Principle of Subsidiarity provides a refreshingly non-partisan principle, as it is rooted in the common good and thus ultimately transcends political affiliations. If nothing else, the Principle of Subsidiarity offers a means of discussing healthcare in a non-caustic and principled manner. Whether we are really in a cultural war or not, we could use a guiding, non-politicized criterion upon which we can ground true dialogue and reasonable discussion about healthcare. Because it is a guiding principle rooted in natural law and the common good it necessarily eschews simplistic slogans and avoids the temptation of prioritizing votes and reelections over principles and justice.
Furthermore, applying the Principle of Subsidiarity to healthcare can help local communities and smaller governments better coordinate their healthcare issues with other societal issues such as generating sufficient revenue for other societal and human needs. Some local communities might coordinate their approach to healthcare with their approach to immigrant workers who not only thankfully provide value and enrich their communities but obviously greatly increase societal costs such as healthcare.
Although I do not have a prediction as to where the dialogue will end, I believe that if we apply the Principle of Subsidiarity to healthcare issues, we will most fully ensure that competition in the marketplace, human and charitable initiatives and creativity can all flourish. As Pope Benedict XVI reminds us, when those responsible for the common good allow people to govern themselves and address their own problems, those public officials leave space for individual responsibility and achievement.
The Principle of Subsidiarity should serve as our national GPS in the healthcare debate, pointing the way for countless groups of Americans. Through their genius and hard work, attuned to their own local and unique realities, they will yield true and genuine reform of our healthcare system. It is only in this way that we can meaningfully address the healthcare needs of persons of all ages and illnesses and yield surprising and innovative solutions that an all-encompassing welfare state simply cant produce.
Charles J. Gernazian is an attorney in Atlanta, Georgia and is the Director of Catholic American Center on Law and Religion - www.Catholic-American.org.
Thank you for telling it like it is. The Catholic Church needs more priests like you (and bishops too, of course).
church bureaucrat ping
Oh, I see. A groups of CATHOLIC BISHOPS working to insure pro-abortion language is stripped are “not pro life.” I hope you realize how absurd that sounds.
They are clergy, they are not political or legislative strategists. They can’t deal in hypotheticals about what will eventually pass or is likely to pass. Their job was to oppose abortion funding at the stage of the process where it was important.
Call them shortsighted, naïve, whatever, I might even agree. But they don’t deserve to be accused of bad faith just because we don’t like the outcome.
“”As Pope Benedict XVI reminds us, when those responsible for the common good allow people to govern themselves and address their own problems, those public officials leave space for individual responsibility and achievement”””
The common good is a right when it’s understood through the Church because it’s something not forced on man, but what mankind is called by God to participate in freely along with the State that is supposed to understand that power is given to only follow God’s laws,not its own selfish laws of greed of state.
Some Catholic teaching of true common good...
The responsibility for attaining the common good, besides falling to individual persons, belongs also to the State, since the common good is the reason that the political authority exists. (Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 1910.) The State, in fact, must guarantee the coherency, unity and organization of the civil society of which it is an expression, in order that the common good may be attained with the contribution of every citizen. The individual person, the family or intermediate groups are not able to achieve their full development by themselves for living a truly human life. Hence the necessity of political institutions, the purpose of which is to make available to persons the necessary material, cultural, moral and spiritual goods. The goal of life in society is in fact the historically attainable common good.
The principle of the common good, to which every aspect of social life must be related if it is to attain its fullest meaning, stems from the dignity, unity and equality of all people. According to its primary and broadly accepted sense, the common good indicates “the sum total of social conditions which allow people, either as groups or as individuals, to reach their fulfilment more fully and more easily.” (Gaudium et Spes, 26.)
The common good therefore involves all members of society; no one is exempt from cooperating, according to each ones possibilities, in attaining it and developing it. Everyone also has the right to enjoy the conditions of social life that are brought about by the quest for the common good. The teaching of Pope Pius XI is still relevant: “The distribution of created goods, which, as every discerning person knows, is labouring today under the gravest evils due to the huge disparity between the few exceedingly rich and the unnumbered propertyless, must be effectively called back to, and brought into conformity with, the norms of the common good, that is, social justice.” (Encyclical Letter Quadragesimo Anno, 197.)
The common good of society is not an end in itself; it has value only in reference to attaining the ultimate ends of the person and the universal common good of the whole of creation. God is the ultimate end of His creatures, and for no reason may the common good be deprived of its transcendent dimension, which moves beyond the historical dimension while at the same time fulfilling it.
“They are clergy, they are not political or legislative strategists. They can’t deal in hypotheticals about what will eventually pass or is likely to pass. Their job was to oppose abortion funding at the stage of the process where it was important.”
US citizens should know how US politics is played. These aren’t isolated African clergy straight out of the bush, although if they were I bet we might be in better shape.
“Call them shortsighted, naïve, whatever, I might even agree. But they don’t deserve to be accused of bad faith just because we don’t like the outcome.”
If you had to guess, what % of bishops would vote dem if it wasn’t for abortion? What % would vote dem anyway?
“Raymond Arroyo: ...The bishops I spoke to say that maybe half of their brother bishops if not more voted for Obama. Because they thought the symbol of Obama would overcome racism and be a great healer and unity.”
I wouldn’t be suprised if that was true at all.
It truly is all about MONEY; MONEY for abortions (murder); MONEY to fund embryonic destruction (murder): MONEY to pay "non-profits" for Illegal Aliens (many of whom are murders!)
There is nothing that the corrupt Bishops care more about than $$$$$$!
This is why I have occasionally posted that Catholics are caught in a cult.
Cults teach that they alone have the true priesthood, and it is **only** through **their** priesthood that they can have true saving sacraments ( in this case Holy Communion) and fullest connection with God. Worse,... they teach that if they leave the cult they are cut off from the true priesthood, true sacraments, and God,...and even risk eternal damnation in hell.
Protestants believe differently. If their ministers or church organization is corrupt, then that organized church is corrupt and does not in any way represent the body of Christ nor does it hold any authority. Members are completely free to form another more perfect union of the saints.
Another characteristic of a cult is that there is no mechanism or process for the common member to join together to reform the hierarchy.
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.