Cardinal Dolan’s Paul Ryan Problem [Amy Sullivan rant]

The New Republic ^ | August 31, 2012 | Amy Sullivan

[Religion Moderator]

Reading the mind of another Freeper is a form of "making it personal."

Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.

[Alex Murphy]

The link you provided produces a "The requested page could not be found" error message.

Such is my luck this week. Thanks for the correction.

[NKP_Vet]

Cardinal Dolan has praised Paul Ryan’s plan. Move along. Nothing to see here.

[what's up]

Catholics of a generation ago would see medical missions, Catholic hospitals, and fraternal insurance (e.g. Knights of Columbus) --- in other words, voluntary, mutual, and charitable inititives --- as responses to the right to health care

Perhaps therein lies the problem. The only way to absolutely fulfill what they see as a universal "right" (as opposed to privilege) is to have Gov't step in.

The Pope says it is the moral responsibility of nations as opposed to the charity of individuals which implies that the State should step in.

The Vatican Sec'y of State (I assume he's a spokesperson for the Church's position) seems to imply so in this same story

the Secy of State says "Justice requires guaranteed universal access to health care,"

Then goes on to say:

Governments are obligated, therefore, to adopt the proper legislative, administrative and financial measures to provide such care along with other basic conditions that promote good health, such as food security, water and housing.

[Mrs. Don-o]

I think its' fair to say that some people read that in the contexdt of subsidiarity, and some do not. Neverthelessm, the statist position has never been the favored position, at least as far as the popes go.

As Pius XI said:

"We make this pronouncement: Whether considered as a doctrine, or an historical fact, or a movement, Socialism, if it remains truly Socialism, even after it has yielded to truth and justice on the points which we have mentioned, cannot be reconciled with the teachings of the Catholic Church because its concept of society itself is utterly foreign to Christian truth.”
(Encyclical Quadragesimo Anno, May 15, 1931, n. 117)

“[Socialism] is based nevertheless on a theory of human society peculiar to itself and irreconcilable with true Christianity. Religious socialism, Christian socialism, are contradictory terms; no one can be at the same time a good Catholic and a true socialist.” (Ibid. n. 120)

[what's up]

Neverthelessm, the statist position has never been the favored position

Perhaps...however, the current framing of a product/service as a "right" will inevitably result in statism.

Pius' position may have been correct on the issue, but these more current statements from the Vatican found in the cited article certainly seem to encourage rather than discourage the growth of the State.

[Mrs. Don-o]

What's most exasperating to me, is that there are certainly individuals, parties and factions in the Church which are strongly statist and which for my entire lifetime have never been corrected or reined in by the authentic teachers.

In the run-up to Obamacare (all of 2009) the USCCB staffers were putting out reams of ecclesiastical bafflegab which never (to my knowledge) even mentioned subsidiarity --- the "small and local" principle which is so essential to Christian responsiility and liberty.

The only good thing to come of this whole hellacious mess, I think, is that the most recent incoming prelates in the USCCB (Benedict appointees) finally see what's happened. They realize the warm snuggly robe of "universal healthcare" via the Federal govt has transformed before their eyes into a straitjacket of tyranny.

A painful experience. And it's going to get more painful. But it will teach them a lesson.

[Alex Murphy]

What's most exasperating to me, is that there are certainly individuals, parties and factions in the Church which are strongly statist and which for my entire lifetime have never been corrected or reined in by the authentic teachers.

In the run-up to Obamacare (all of 2009) the USCCB staffers were putting out reams of ecclesiastical bafflegab which never (to my knowledge) even mentioned subsidiarity --- the "small and local" principle which is so essential to Christian responsiility and liberty.

One either has to assume incompetence, culpability, or agreement on the part of the bishops. IMO the kinder option is to assume that the bishops agree with the staffers, up to and including Dolan. I just don't see another explanation.

[what's up]

which never (to my knowledge) even mentioned subsidiarity

And that's the problem. So many were seeing a service (healthcare) as a universal right.

I think, is that the most recent incoming prelates in the USCCB (Benedict appointees) finally see what's happened

I do hope so but I have to say I'll believe it when I see it. I think the only way I'll be convinced is if they push for FREE MARKET answers now (in addition to the charitable alternatives which they have always been in favor of for the poor). That would be very refreshing.

[Mrs. Don-o]

I honestly don't know what to make of it. I was corresponding with one of those staffers 3 years ago, one of the "should'a known better" guys, and couldn't believe he could be so naive. "Naive" seemed to be it.

He seemed to think that the choosing of different levels and nifferent "recipes" of insurance coverage would still be in the hands of individuals, employers, private insurers,church-related networks, for-profits, nonprofits, states, and that just a more equitable funding framwork was involved.

I argued that that couldn't possibly the the case. I could see as clear as daylight that government mandatory powers would minutely control the thing all the way through and from top to bottom.

I still can hardly beliueve he and his bishop-bosses didn't see that. Like Stupak --- inexplicable stupidity.

[Mrs. Don-o]

We’ll see what happens in the next 12 months.