Showing posts with label health care. Show all posts
Showing posts with label health care. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
USCCB Rebuts Obama Administration
You can find the article HERE.
We're in a nasty battle for the freedom to do as we ought to do, with the propagandists for the government seeking to mislead people into thinking we're mindless bigots.
This is the time for all people to do what they can depending on their talents. We're now in a battle over the souls in our nation.
USCCB Rebuts Obama Administration
You can find the article HERE.
We're in a nasty battle for the freedom to do as we ought to do, with the propagandists for the government seeking to mislead people into thinking we're mindless bigots.
This is the time for all people to do what they can depending on their talents. We're now in a battle over the souls in our nation.
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Recommended Article: Bishop Martino on Authority
Untangling the confusion about the Church
There's been a lot of nonsense about certain people claiming that Obama Care was compatible with Church teaching. Here we have Bishop Martino on the issue.
Most notable is his comments on those who claim to speak in the name of the Church:
I cannot pass over the actions of the Catholic Health Association and an organization called Network, a lobby of American religious Sisters, who said, quite publicly, that what the bishops have taught is false. They said that the legislation does provide an adequate framework for a Catholic to follow his or her conscience about abortion. So, we had a trade organization — the Catholic Health Association — which calls itself “Catholic” and we had religious Sisters who call themselves Catholic, saying, “Sorry, bishops, you got it wrong, here is the teaching of the Church.”
The Lord Jesus Christ, unworthy though the bishops are, called the bishops to lead the people in faith; He did not call anybody in the Catholic Health Association and he did not call any of the Sisters in Network. To boot, those Sisters who signed the Network document said that they speak for 59,000 American Sisters — that would be every last Sister in the U.S. Yet, another grouping of Sisters came out publicly expressing their disagreement with Network. Unfortunately, the claim that these Sisters in Network represent all Sisters is actually what is false, not the teaching of the bishops.
And, of course, people like Speaker Pelosi could not do enough to wave the letter from the Catholic Health Association and the letter from Network to provide cover for Democratic legislators who wanted to waffle in protecting innocent human life. Speaker Pelosi is not called by Jesus Christ to lead the Catholic faithful, any more than the religious Sisters in Network are, any more than the leadership of the Catholic Health Association is.
The bishops are called to teach, sanctify, and govern. But, as I said before, with regard to the Holy Father, if people will not recognize authority, then they cannot lay responsibility at the feet of those to whom they are disobedient. The pope and the bishops are only responsible when their authority is accepted. The then-Cardinal Ratzinger himself has said, in our contemporary world, the word “obedience” has disappeared from our vocabulary and the reality of obedience has been anathematized.
The CHA, the Sisters in Network, Pelosi, Stupak and others who claim their actions are in accord with Church teaching while the Bishops are not are in gross error. Whether or not one believes in the claims of the Catholic Church, it is reasonable to expect one to understand that the one who has authority to teach in the Church is the Bishop, as successor to the Apostles, and not to whatever politician or dissenting Catholic comes across.
Sure, Pelosi, Stupak and others have the ability to disagree if they choose. However, they don't have the right to call their opinions Catholic Teaching.
Recommended Article: Bishop Martino on Authority
Untangling the confusion about the Church
There's been a lot of nonsense about certain people claiming that Obama Care was compatible with Church teaching. Here we have Bishop Martino on the issue.
Most notable is his comments on those who claim to speak in the name of the Church:
I cannot pass over the actions of the Catholic Health Association and an organization called Network, a lobby of American religious Sisters, who said, quite publicly, that what the bishops have taught is false. They said that the legislation does provide an adequate framework for a Catholic to follow his or her conscience about abortion. So, we had a trade organization — the Catholic Health Association — which calls itself “Catholic” and we had religious Sisters who call themselves Catholic, saying, “Sorry, bishops, you got it wrong, here is the teaching of the Church.”
The Lord Jesus Christ, unworthy though the bishops are, called the bishops to lead the people in faith; He did not call anybody in the Catholic Health Association and he did not call any of the Sisters in Network. To boot, those Sisters who signed the Network document said that they speak for 59,000 American Sisters — that would be every last Sister in the U.S. Yet, another grouping of Sisters came out publicly expressing their disagreement with Network. Unfortunately, the claim that these Sisters in Network represent all Sisters is actually what is false, not the teaching of the bishops.
And, of course, people like Speaker Pelosi could not do enough to wave the letter from the Catholic Health Association and the letter from Network to provide cover for Democratic legislators who wanted to waffle in protecting innocent human life. Speaker Pelosi is not called by Jesus Christ to lead the Catholic faithful, any more than the religious Sisters in Network are, any more than the leadership of the Catholic Health Association is.
The bishops are called to teach, sanctify, and govern. But, as I said before, with regard to the Holy Father, if people will not recognize authority, then they cannot lay responsibility at the feet of those to whom they are disobedient. The pope and the bishops are only responsible when their authority is accepted. The then-Cardinal Ratzinger himself has said, in our contemporary world, the word “obedience” has disappeared from our vocabulary and the reality of obedience has been anathematized.
The CHA, the Sisters in Network, Pelosi, Stupak and others who claim their actions are in accord with Church teaching while the Bishops are not are in gross error. Whether or not one believes in the claims of the Catholic Church, it is reasonable to expect one to understand that the one who has authority to teach in the Church is the Bishop, as successor to the Apostles, and not to whatever politician or dissenting Catholic comes across.
Sure, Pelosi, Stupak and others have the ability to disagree if they choose. However, they don't have the right to call their opinions Catholic Teaching.
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Stupak de facto Rejects Church Authority and Accuses Bishops of Hypocrisy
Sources: Stupak: Pope doesn't control Catholic lawmakers - Water Cooler - Washington Times,
Stupak Calls Pro-Lifers Hypocrites | Blogs | NCRegister.com,
Stupak had a chance to choose between his faith and his party alliances. His comments in the post vote fallout show he has made his choice… in favor of his party. To defend his vote for Health Care against the teachings of the Bishops and the Pope, he has in effect denied their authority to teach what sort of behavior is moral.
Stupak on the Pope's Authority
Let's start with Stupak and his answering of questions on the authority of the Pope. When questioned in an interview, Stupak demonstrated a gross misunderstanding of things:
PICKET: Do you believe in the primacy of the Pope over in Rome?
STUPAK: Do I believe in the primacy…can you explain that to me?
PICKET: Well considering the Vatican have in terms of the Catholic religion…
STUPAK: The Pope and the Catholic faith does not control Catholic legislators. We must vote reflective of our districts and our beliefs. When I vote pro-life, it happens to be my own personal belief, also my district’s beliefs and the nation's. As the polls show 61 percent of the American people believe we should not use public funds to pay for abortion. I agree with that.
Stupak displays the logical error of equivocation here. Now it is true that the Pope does not dictate to the politician how to vote. However, Stupak is bound to carry out his task as a political leader by applying Church teaching to how he views the issue. If abortion is wrong, then one is not allowed to enable this wrong. This includes not only the direct voting for abortion rights (formal cooperation) but also making the act of evil possible (material cooperation).
Given the Bishops of the United States had condemned the Senate Bill as being unacceptable, and denounced the option for the "Executive Order" as being inadequate, Stupak cannot claim he did not know that the magisterium of the Church had spoken out against the action he did set out to do.
Stupak on the Bishops
They say the first step to getting out of a hole you have put yourself into is to stop digging. Stupak, however, seems to have increased the vigor of his shovel based trip to China by attacking the Bishops for hypocrisy. He has said:
“The [National] Right to Life and the bishops, in 2007 when George Bush signed the executive order on embryonic stem cell research, they all applauded the executive order,” Stupak said in an interview with The Daily Caller.
“The Democratic Congress passed [a bill] saying we’ll do embryonic stem cell research. Bush vetoed it in 2007. That same day he issued an executive order saying we will not do it, and all these groups applauded that he protected life,” Stupak said.
“So now President Obama’s going to sign an executive order protecting life and everyone’s condemning it. The hypocrisy is great,” he said.
Stupak is guilty of the fallacy of the false analogy here [In that the conditions are not the same] and of a Straw Man [the opposition is not to an Executive Order in general, but is based on the lack of protections it will provide compared to law in this situation].
In 2007, Bush not only vetoed the embryonic stem cell research, but he also deepened those protections with an executive order. In contrast, the health care bill does not protect life or conscience, but depends on an executive order which can be overturned (if Obama decides to do so. Remember Obama's overturning of the Bush Conscience protection and his promise to create a "better" one? It's been almost a year since he said that…) at any time or ruled unconstitutional, to supposedly do what the Bill will not.
Jimmy Atkin points out:
To my mind, the addle-headedness of his [Stupak's] comments is great.
President Bush, for all his flaws, vetoed a Bad Bill and then issued an executive order to further protect unborn life.
What Stupak did was vote for a Bad Bill with only a hope that the next pro-abort president (or even Obama himself, or the courts) won’t void the executive order he got in exchange for his vote.
Whatever else, Mr. Stupak does not seem gifted in finding good analogies to back up his charges of hypocrisy.
(emphasis in original)
There is no hypocrisy on the part of the Bishops here. The Bishops opposed the bill which Bush vetoed. Bush also created an executive order to prevent evasions. Stupak voted for a bill the Bishops condemned as contrary to Catholic moral teachings, and relied on the promise of Obama to pass an executive order, when his record on keeping such promises are poor.
Conclusion
Stupak, in denying the Church can judge his actions as immoral, has in effect denied Magisterial authority over his actions. He may oppose abortion of course. However, in his responsibility in passing the bill (which passed 219-212. If he and his bloc had voted against it, it seems this bill would have failed 215-216) he does have to answer for his defiance of casting a vote which enabled policies.
Stupak may have been guilty of a deliberate sell out, or he may have merely been misguided in his trust of Obama (now that the Bill is passed, will Obama keep his promise, and if so in what form?). However, he is wrong in his accusing the bishops and pro-life groups of hypocrisy.
The whole things smells of excuses on the part of Stupak. Whether to justify it to his constituents or to justify it to his own conscience, he has done wrong, setting his religious beliefs aside in favor of a party platform.
We will now have to see what Obama does with this. It is not impossible he will keep his promise to issue an executive order, but his track record is not good. If Obama fails to keep his promise or passes an executive order which falls short of what is needed to protect life, Stupak will have to share the blame.
Stupak de facto Rejects Church Authority and Accuses Bishops of Hypocrisy
Sources: Stupak: Pope doesn't control Catholic lawmakers - Water Cooler - Washington Times,
Stupak Calls Pro-Lifers Hypocrites | Blogs | NCRegister.com,
Stupak had a chance to choose between his faith and his party alliances. His comments in the post vote fallout show he has made his choice… in favor of his party. To defend his vote for Health Care against the teachings of the Bishops and the Pope, he has in effect denied their authority to teach what sort of behavior is moral.
Stupak on the Pope's Authority
Let's start with Stupak and his answering of questions on the authority of the Pope. When questioned in an interview, Stupak demonstrated a gross misunderstanding of things:
PICKET: Do you believe in the primacy of the Pope over in Rome?
STUPAK: Do I believe in the primacy…can you explain that to me?
PICKET: Well considering the Vatican have in terms of the Catholic religion…
STUPAK: The Pope and the Catholic faith does not control Catholic legislators. We must vote reflective of our districts and our beliefs. When I vote pro-life, it happens to be my own personal belief, also my district’s beliefs and the nation's. As the polls show 61 percent of the American people believe we should not use public funds to pay for abortion. I agree with that.
Stupak displays the logical error of equivocation here. Now it is true that the Pope does not dictate to the politician how to vote. However, Stupak is bound to carry out his task as a political leader by applying Church teaching to how he views the issue. If abortion is wrong, then one is not allowed to enable this wrong. This includes not only the direct voting for abortion rights (formal cooperation) but also making the act of evil possible (material cooperation).
Given the Bishops of the United States had condemned the Senate Bill as being unacceptable, and denounced the option for the "Executive Order" as being inadequate, Stupak cannot claim he did not know that the magisterium of the Church had spoken out against the action he did set out to do.
Stupak on the Bishops
They say the first step to getting out of a hole you have put yourself into is to stop digging. Stupak, however, seems to have increased the vigor of his shovel based trip to China by attacking the Bishops for hypocrisy. He has said:
“The [National] Right to Life and the bishops, in 2007 when George Bush signed the executive order on embryonic stem cell research, they all applauded the executive order,” Stupak said in an interview with The Daily Caller.
“The Democratic Congress passed [a bill] saying we’ll do embryonic stem cell research. Bush vetoed it in 2007. That same day he issued an executive order saying we will not do it, and all these groups applauded that he protected life,” Stupak said.
“So now President Obama’s going to sign an executive order protecting life and everyone’s condemning it. The hypocrisy is great,” he said.
Stupak is guilty of the fallacy of the false analogy here [In that the conditions are not the same] and of a Straw Man [the opposition is not to an Executive Order in general, but is based on the lack of protections it will provide compared to law in this situation].
In 2007, Bush not only vetoed the embryonic stem cell research, but he also deepened those protections with an executive order. In contrast, the health care bill does not protect life or conscience, but depends on an executive order which can be overturned (if Obama decides to do so. Remember Obama's overturning of the Bush Conscience protection and his promise to create a "better" one? It's been almost a year since he said that…) at any time or ruled unconstitutional, to supposedly do what the Bill will not.
Jimmy Atkin points out:
To my mind, the addle-headedness of his [Stupak's] comments is great.
President Bush, for all his flaws, vetoed a Bad Bill and then issued an executive order to further protect unborn life.
What Stupak did was vote for a Bad Bill with only a hope that the next pro-abort president (or even Obama himself, or the courts) won’t void the executive order he got in exchange for his vote.
Whatever else, Mr. Stupak does not seem gifted in finding good analogies to back up his charges of hypocrisy.
(emphasis in original)
There is no hypocrisy on the part of the Bishops here. The Bishops opposed the bill which Bush vetoed. Bush also created an executive order to prevent evasions. Stupak voted for a bill the Bishops condemned as contrary to Catholic moral teachings, and relied on the promise of Obama to pass an executive order, when his record on keeping such promises are poor.
Conclusion
Stupak, in denying the Church can judge his actions as immoral, has in effect denied Magisterial authority over his actions. He may oppose abortion of course. However, in his responsibility in passing the bill (which passed 219-212. If he and his bloc had voted against it, it seems this bill would have failed 215-216) he does have to answer for his defiance of casting a vote which enabled policies.
Stupak may have been guilty of a deliberate sell out, or he may have merely been misguided in his trust of Obama (now that the Bill is passed, will Obama keep his promise, and if so in what form?). However, he is wrong in his accusing the bishops and pro-life groups of hypocrisy.
The whole things smells of excuses on the part of Stupak. Whether to justify it to his constituents or to justify it to his own conscience, he has done wrong, setting his religious beliefs aside in favor of a party platform.
We will now have to see what Obama does with this. It is not impossible he will keep his promise to issue an executive order, but his track record is not good. If Obama fails to keep his promise or passes an executive order which falls short of what is needed to protect life, Stupak will have to share the blame.
Monday, March 22, 2010
All For The Want of a Horseshoe Nail: The Scapegoating Begins
Source: Bishops Share The Blame | Blogs | NCRegister.com
[Disclosure: This article is an expansion of a response I wrote on another blog]
Let the Blames Begin…
For better or worse, health care has passed. I believe it is for the worse of course. Not because I oppose a reform of the system we have, but because it is a "reform" which makes legal things which must be condemned and opposed as evil. What I find tragic however is to see that instead of a unified front to challenge the evils, we are now seeing infighting among the Christians, pointing fingers. Among Catholics, this is shown as pointing fingers at "The Bishops."
The problem I have with the Register's assessment, in saying…
Again, while the Bishops have acquitted themselves well through this process recently, they cannot ignore the past.
The hard truth is that for years the Bishops have allied themselves with the pro-abort party in matters related to health-care, and now they claim 11th hour betrayal.
When you hang out with thieves, you shouldn’t be surprised when you get robbed.
Moreover, the Bishops silence for years in the face of pro-abortion Catholic politicians has given aid and comfort to those who seek the death of children. The Bishop’s unwillingness, with some obvious exceptions, to effectively address or discipline pro-abort Catholic politicians allowed for the Democrats to portray the Church as divided on the issue. They have also allowed a culture of dissent to flourish for decades that culminated in the shameful last minute endorsement by a group of radical nuns that seriously hurt the cause of life.
The bishops’ decades long collective silence on these issues allowed for this culture to develop and has resulted in the USCCB being understandably criticized as an extension of the Democrat party (the Democrat party at prayer they say). This is the horrible result of that ungodly alliance.
…is that while many bishops may not have saw the danger at the time, they certainly stood strong during this Health Care debate. I was never in any doubt that the USCCB opposed the Senate Bill from the time it was originally created, so I disagree with the "11th hour" claim.
Reflections on the American Bishops
Yes, American bishops had been weak for decades. For that matter, German Bishops prior to 1517 were also weak in enforcing discipline in the Church, leading to the abuses that Luther opposed. Does that mean the bishops after this time were to blame as they sought to repair the damage done? Whatever happened in the past is past. As Catholics, we believe that people can repent and begin working for the truth. Many of those bishops responsible for the silence of the 80s and 90s are retired or deceased. Many of those who remain seem to have been strongly encouraged when Pope Benedict XVI visited America and began speaking out.
Remote Cause vs. Immediate Cause
This is the confusing a remote cause with an immediate cause, like the old poem:
For want of a nail the shoe was lost.
For want of a shoe the horse was lost.
For want of a horse the rider was lost.
For want of a rider the battle was lost.
For want of a battle the kingdom was lost.
And all for the want of a horseshoe nail
Often (mis)interpreted as saying small things lead to big losses. However, one has to assess how far back one can reasonably assign blame. Is it reasonable to say because one nail was missing, the kingdom was lost? Or is it more reasonable to assign blame to a failure to prepare for contingencies?
Did certain bishops back in the 1980s and 1990s often behave ineffectually? Yes. Did they sometimes identify Democratic policies with Catholic teaching? Yes, tragically. Did some bishops think Obama would be a good president? Yes, it sadly seems to be so.
Is it correct to say that because bishops in the past failed to act as they ought, that this is the cause of the situation we face today? I think not. I am inclined to think the direct cause of this is too many placed all their trust in Stupak and failing to consider other contingencies. The bishops who spoke out did not rely on Stupak. They kept speaking out to the members of Congress, seeking to convince as many as they could of their moral duties.
Who Failed to do Their Job Now (As Opposed to the Past)?
Some failed in their duty and some did not. This is why I must disagree with the Register article when it says:
Blame may be cathartic for some but that is not the reason I bring this sorry history up now. Like the Republicans, the Bishops too must learn from their mistakes. If they continue to ally themselves with the Democrat party and continue their cowardly and ineffective “pastoral” approach to pro-death Catholic politicians things will only get worse, and yes they can get worse.
So it is time for all of us to admit our mistakes and learn from them. Lives depend on it. We failed them before, let’s not do it again.
The problem I have is that it is clear from the actions of Bishops being increasingly vocal since the beginning of the Obama administration that they already have learned from their mistakes. Yes, we now need to do more still. Some may still do less than they ought, but this article seems to negate the strong witness bishops have given.
If We Wish to Judge, Let Us Begin With Ourselves
1 † “Stop judging, that you may not be judged.
2 For as you judge, so will you be judged, and the measure with which you measure will be measured out to you.
† [Commentary from NAB] This is not a prohibition against recognizing the faults of others, which would be hardly compatible with Mat 7:5,6 but against passing judgment in a spirit of arrogance, forgetful of one’s own faults.
People want someone to blame. If so, perhaps we should begin with ourselves, on our own failure to do enough at our level. Did we do our best to oppose the bill, or did we decide to let Stupak do it for us, failing to consider he might be turned?
I believe that, if we examine our actions, most of us will have to say the latter. Perhaps I should have written more on the subject than I did, for example. I believed the statements of the bishops were quite strong, but perhaps I ought to have made them available on this site to inform the (admittedly small) number of followers of this site. I could have looked for links to put on the site banner. I couldn't have forced people to change their minds, but I could have perhaps let others know of other views. For that, I can only say mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.
Yes it is easy to point fingers. Yes, Archbishop Niederauer (for example) should have imposed discipline on Pelosi long before. Yes other bishops have been lax. Yes, the USCCB can use a better system of vetting when people try to use their name to promote a political agenda. Yes, the visitation of the American nuns should immediately be ratcheted up a few notches in intensity.
Indicting the Whole For the Acts of Some
However, there is a large difference between being disappointed in saying certain bishops should have done more and indicting "the bishops" as a whole.
The USCCB did make their voice known through the proceedings, urging changes and once it became clear that the final senate bill was set, shifted to outright opposition. When the CHA made their 11th hour deceits, when certain nuns misrepresented themselves as speaking for 60,000, when the Stupak compromise was announced, the USCCB made clear that these things were unacceptable, and urged members of Congress to vote against this law.
Certain Catholics in Congress may have used the words of dissenters to justify their wrong actions, but they would be guilty of vincible ignorance in the face of what the Bishops spoke out about.
We cannot control what others do of course. We can control what we do. We can only make our voice be heard and pray.
What If They Opposed Obamacare and Nobody Came?
I believe this comic, from DBD.com makes clear our duty now. If we know this bill will impose injustices on us, it is up to us to fight, and not expect others to. I think Berthold Brecht said it well:
What if they gave a war and nobody came?
Why, then, the war would come to you!
He who stays home when the fight begins
And lets another fight for his cause
Should take care:
He who does not take part
In the battle will share in the defeat.
Even avoiding battle will not avoid battle.
Since not to fight for your own cause
Really means
Fighting on behalf of your enemy's cause.
Let's avoid pointless recriminations now. We have this to deal with now, and we need to face it united as Christians, not infighting among ourselves. The infighting, the blame seeking and the scapegoating only aids those we must oppose.
Now, for better or for worse we have this system of Health care. Now, it is our duty to challenge those aspects of it which are contrary to what we believe to be right and just.
Now is not the time to blame and scapegoat.
All For The Want of a Horseshoe Nail: The Scapegoating Begins
Source: Bishops Share The Blame | Blogs | NCRegister.com
[Disclosure: This article is an expansion of a response I wrote on another blog]
Let the Blames Begin…
For better or worse, health care has passed. I believe it is for the worse of course. Not because I oppose a reform of the system we have, but because it is a "reform" which makes legal things which must be condemned and opposed as evil. What I find tragic however is to see that instead of a unified front to challenge the evils, we are now seeing infighting among the Christians, pointing fingers. Among Catholics, this is shown as pointing fingers at "The Bishops."
The problem I have with the Register's assessment, in saying…
Again, while the Bishops have acquitted themselves well through this process recently, they cannot ignore the past.
The hard truth is that for years the Bishops have allied themselves with the pro-abort party in matters related to health-care, and now they claim 11th hour betrayal.
When you hang out with thieves, you shouldn’t be surprised when you get robbed.
Moreover, the Bishops silence for years in the face of pro-abortion Catholic politicians has given aid and comfort to those who seek the death of children. The Bishop’s unwillingness, with some obvious exceptions, to effectively address or discipline pro-abort Catholic politicians allowed for the Democrats to portray the Church as divided on the issue. They have also allowed a culture of dissent to flourish for decades that culminated in the shameful last minute endorsement by a group of radical nuns that seriously hurt the cause of life.
The bishops’ decades long collective silence on these issues allowed for this culture to develop and has resulted in the USCCB being understandably criticized as an extension of the Democrat party (the Democrat party at prayer they say). This is the horrible result of that ungodly alliance.
…is that while many bishops may not have saw the danger at the time, they certainly stood strong during this Health Care debate. I was never in any doubt that the USCCB opposed the Senate Bill from the time it was originally created, so I disagree with the "11th hour" claim.
Reflections on the American Bishops
Yes, American bishops had been weak for decades. For that matter, German Bishops prior to 1517 were also weak in enforcing discipline in the Church, leading to the abuses that Luther opposed. Does that mean the bishops after this time were to blame as they sought to repair the damage done? Whatever happened in the past is past. As Catholics, we believe that people can repent and begin working for the truth. Many of those bishops responsible for the silence of the 80s and 90s are retired or deceased. Many of those who remain seem to have been strongly encouraged when Pope Benedict XVI visited America and began speaking out.
Remote Cause vs. Immediate Cause
This is the confusing a remote cause with an immediate cause, like the old poem:
For want of a nail the shoe was lost.
For want of a shoe the horse was lost.
For want of a horse the rider was lost.
For want of a rider the battle was lost.
For want of a battle the kingdom was lost.
And all for the want of a horseshoe nail
Often (mis)interpreted as saying small things lead to big losses. However, one has to assess how far back one can reasonably assign blame. Is it reasonable to say because one nail was missing, the kingdom was lost? Or is it more reasonable to assign blame to a failure to prepare for contingencies?
Did certain bishops back in the 1980s and 1990s often behave ineffectually? Yes. Did they sometimes identify Democratic policies with Catholic teaching? Yes, tragically. Did some bishops think Obama would be a good president? Yes, it sadly seems to be so.
Is it correct to say that because bishops in the past failed to act as they ought, that this is the cause of the situation we face today? I think not. I am inclined to think the direct cause of this is too many placed all their trust in Stupak and failing to consider other contingencies. The bishops who spoke out did not rely on Stupak. They kept speaking out to the members of Congress, seeking to convince as many as they could of their moral duties.
Who Failed to do Their Job Now (As Opposed to the Past)?
Some failed in their duty and some did not. This is why I must disagree with the Register article when it says:
Blame may be cathartic for some but that is not the reason I bring this sorry history up now. Like the Republicans, the Bishops too must learn from their mistakes. If they continue to ally themselves with the Democrat party and continue their cowardly and ineffective “pastoral” approach to pro-death Catholic politicians things will only get worse, and yes they can get worse.
So it is time for all of us to admit our mistakes and learn from them. Lives depend on it. We failed them before, let’s not do it again.
The problem I have is that it is clear from the actions of Bishops being increasingly vocal since the beginning of the Obama administration that they already have learned from their mistakes. Yes, we now need to do more still. Some may still do less than they ought, but this article seems to negate the strong witness bishops have given.
If We Wish to Judge, Let Us Begin With Ourselves
1 † “Stop judging, that you may not be judged.
2 For as you judge, so will you be judged, and the measure with which you measure will be measured out to you.
† [Commentary from NAB] This is not a prohibition against recognizing the faults of others, which would be hardly compatible with Mat 7:5,6 but against passing judgment in a spirit of arrogance, forgetful of one’s own faults.
People want someone to blame. If so, perhaps we should begin with ourselves, on our own failure to do enough at our level. Did we do our best to oppose the bill, or did we decide to let Stupak do it for us, failing to consider he might be turned?
I believe that, if we examine our actions, most of us will have to say the latter. Perhaps I should have written more on the subject than I did, for example. I believed the statements of the bishops were quite strong, but perhaps I ought to have made them available on this site to inform the (admittedly small) number of followers of this site. I could have looked for links to put on the site banner. I couldn't have forced people to change their minds, but I could have perhaps let others know of other views. For that, I can only say mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.
Yes it is easy to point fingers. Yes, Archbishop Niederauer (for example) should have imposed discipline on Pelosi long before. Yes other bishops have been lax. Yes, the USCCB can use a better system of vetting when people try to use their name to promote a political agenda. Yes, the visitation of the American nuns should immediately be ratcheted up a few notches in intensity.
Indicting the Whole For the Acts of Some
However, there is a large difference between being disappointed in saying certain bishops should have done more and indicting "the bishops" as a whole.
The USCCB did make their voice known through the proceedings, urging changes and once it became clear that the final senate bill was set, shifted to outright opposition. When the CHA made their 11th hour deceits, when certain nuns misrepresented themselves as speaking for 60,000, when the Stupak compromise was announced, the USCCB made clear that these things were unacceptable, and urged members of Congress to vote against this law.
Certain Catholics in Congress may have used the words of dissenters to justify their wrong actions, but they would be guilty of vincible ignorance in the face of what the Bishops spoke out about.
We cannot control what others do of course. We can control what we do. We can only make our voice be heard and pray.
What If They Opposed Obamacare and Nobody Came?
I believe this comic, from DBD.com makes clear our duty now. If we know this bill will impose injustices on us, it is up to us to fight, and not expect others to. I think Berthold Brecht said it well:
What if they gave a war and nobody came?
Why, then, the war would come to you!
He who stays home when the fight begins
And lets another fight for his cause
Should take care:
He who does not take part
In the battle will share in the defeat.
Even avoiding battle will not avoid battle.
Since not to fight for your own cause
Really means
Fighting on behalf of your enemy's cause.
Let's avoid pointless recriminations now. We have this to deal with now, and we need to face it united as Christians, not infighting among ourselves. The infighting, the blame seeking and the scapegoating only aids those we must oppose.
Now, for better or for worse we have this system of Health care. Now, it is our duty to challenge those aspects of it which are contrary to what we believe to be right and just.
Now is not the time to blame and scapegoat.
Monday, December 21, 2009
The Importance of Remembering the Sequence of Events
Source: The Catholic Key Blog: USCCB Reaffirms Opposition to Senate Bill, Commends Senator Nelson
I'm sure certain Catholics will treat the actions of Senator Nelson, and the USCCB praising his efforts as a certain cause-effect, in order to paint it as Catholics supporting abortion. However this would be dishonest.
The Catholic document showing Cardinal DiNardo praising Nelson, shows the cardinal's statement, was dated 12/18/09, and seems to be based on facts listed in the Cardinal's 12/14/09 letter. Nelson's sell-out happened late on 12/19/09. So in terms of sequence, the praising of Nelson took place before his unacceptable compromise… a compromise Cardinal DiNardo and the USCCB could not know it happened.
The USCCB has stated that the Health Care bill is unacceptable as it exists now. So both liberals who want to argue that it is ok to be pro-abortion and Catholic, as well as the conservatives who wish to argue the Bishops are "heretical", would be misrepresenting the position of the Church.
One hopes the USCCB does come out with a strong statement now… it is certainly needed. However, let us not blame them for something which they did not do.
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Analysis of Cardinal Rigali and the Health Care Bill
I know some people are going to miss the point and accuse Cardinal Rigali of waffling on the issue, so I thought I'd link this article here because of the great clarifications it makes.
Cardinal Rigali was asked if it was mortal or venial sin to vote for a pro-abortion bill.
Rigali replied:
“People have to follow their conscience, but their conscience has to be well-formed,” said Rigali. “And you have to make sure that when it is a question of doing something that has a provision, if it has a provision in it for abortion, then this is absolutely wrong by every standard and not by the standards of the Catholic Church as you see here today. It’s the standards of Christian, standards of the natural law.
“Everyone is called. Yes, no, any bill, any bill that has abortion in it is in our opinion to be rejected,” Rigali continued. “But keep in mind that health reform as such is a wonderful, wonderful thing. But a bill that includes it, there’s no way in the world that it can be supported and if it comes down to that. Once again we have the coming down as we examined in other questions. If it comes down to that, then we would urge, urge, a rejection because health reform is necessary, it has to be reformed, and it can’t be killing.”
Some people will claim he is not giving a straight answer on the question, but the truth is, he is giving us the information we need.
- Conscience must be well formed
- Abortion is absolutely wrong, and can never be supported
- Health Care Reform is good
- However, Health Care Reform which supports abortion can never be supported, and must be rejected.
From this, we can reason:
- A person with a well formed conscience knows abortion can never be supported
- The Senate Bill has abortion support
- Therefore a person with a well formed conscience can never support the Senate abortion bill.
Fr. Sirico, in this article offers an excellent commentary on this, which is well in keeping with the teaching of the Magisterium:
“When you ask if something is a mortal sin or a venial sin, you’re asking a question with regard to the individual act,”
“When we’re talking about the broad morality of the thing, we’re talking about as it exists in natural law,” he said. Abortion and funding abortion violate the natural law and are gravely immoral. But for a person to commit a mortal sin, Sirico said, three conditions must be met: the act must be gravely wrong, the person must know it is gravely wrong, and the person must deliberately choose to do it.
“So, the reason the cardinal seemed like he wasn’t answering the question directly is because you can’t judge this along every congressperson, because it depends on their individual knowledge and their individual act of free will,” Sirico said.
“And so, it is grave, and if a person knows that it’s grave, and acts upon it freely, they may have committed a mortal sin,” he said.
Of course with the Church giving strong notice of the grave evil of abortion, the claims of not knowing it is gravely wrong is shrinking drastically. Vatican II has taught, in Gaudium et spes #16:
Conscience frequently errs from invincible ignorance without losing its dignity. The same cannot be said for a man who cares but little for truth and goodness, or for a conscience which by degrees grows practically sightless as a result of habitual sin.
If one claims to be a Catholic, then it stands to reason that one must follow what the Church teaches with authority. On the issue of abortion, the Catholic Church is quite clear:
Furthermore, whatever is opposed to life itself, such as any type of murder, genocide, abortion, euthanasia or willful self-destruction, whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, torments inflicted on body or mind, attempts to coerce the will itself; whatever insults human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution, the selling of women and children; as well as disgraceful working conditions, where men are treated as mere tools for profit, rather than as free and responsible persons; all these things and others of their like are infamies indeed. They poison human society, but they do more harm to those who practice them than those who suffer from the injury. Moreover, they are supreme dishonor to the Creator. (Gaudium et spes #27)
and
For God, the Lord of life, has conferred on men the surpassing ministry of safeguarding life in a manner which is worthy of man. Therefore from the moment of its conception life must be guarded with the greatest care while abortion and infanticide are unspeakable crimes. (Gaudium et spes #51)
A Catholic who would claim invincible ignorance to the teaching of the Church must confess gross ignorance not only to the teaching of the Church, but also gross ignorance to the knowledge of the authority of the magisterium, if they would ignore the teaching of the bishops speaking out on abortion in America.
A Catholic Politician knowing that the Church teaches abortion is gravely evil, and knowing this freely chooses to vote in favor of laws protecting or expanding abortion rights does indeed seem to be guilty of mortal sin.
So Rigali is pointing out that a Catholic who believes abortion is acceptable to vote for does not have a well formed conscience, and if he knows that abortion is condemned as evil and supports it all the same with this full knowledge, they are knowingly cooperating with a grave evil.
That's mortal sin.
So what are we obligated to know, and what is invincible ignorance?
Thomas Aquinas makes this distinction:
Now it is evident that whoever neglects to have or do what he ought to have or do, commits a sin of omission. Wherefore through negligence, ignorance of what one is bound to know, is a sin; whereas it is not imputed as a sin to man, if he fails to know what he is unable to know. Consequently ignorance of such like things is called invincible, because it cannot be overcome by study. For this reason such like ignorance, not being voluntary, since it is not in our power to be rid of it, is not a sin: wherefore it is evident that no invincible ignorance is a sin. On the other hand, vincible ignorance is a sin, if it be about matters one is bound to know; but not, if it be about things one is not bound to know. (ST I-II, Q76, A2)
So, to be invincible ignorance, it would have to be something which a man is unable to know, even through the study which was available to him. If he could have found out, if he had bothered to look, it is not invincible, but vincible ignorance.
Could a Catholic Pro-abortion politician find out about the grave evil of abortion? Certainly. He only needs consult the magisterium. Is he bound to know it? He is, if he would be an informed Catholic in relation to his task of making laws.
So by failing to learn what he is bound to learn, the Catholic pro-abortion politician is committing a sin of omission, and by acting in a way contrary to how he is required to act, he is performing a sin of commission.
Now, not knowing (As Fr. Sirico pointed out) just how responsible each politician is for his or her own ignorance, we cannot say definitively who is guilty of mortal sin. All we can do is to instruct and to remove ignorance, so that those who do not know the truth might choose truth over error.
If the person is instructed, and chooses to remain in their error to do evil, then they will answer to God for it.
Friday, October 9, 2009
Reflections on the Bishops' Letter to Congress
Source: http://www.usccb.org/sdwp/national/2009-10-08-healthcare-letter-congress.pdf
The USCCB has been speaking out on the issues of the right to life, and why the current health care proposals are unacceptable. The text of the letter is as follows:
Dear Member of Congress:
On behalf of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), we are writing to express our disappointment that progress has not been made on the three priority criteria for health care reform that we have conveyed previously to Congress. In fact, the Senate Finance Committee rejected a conscience rights amendment accepted earlier by the House Energy and Commerce Committee. If final legislation does not meet our principles, we will have no choice but to oppose the bill. We remain committed to working with the Administration, Congressional leadership, and our allies to produce final health reform legislation that will reflect our principles.
We continue to urge you to
1. Exclude mandated coverage for abortion, and incorporate longstanding policies against abortion funding and in favor of conscience rights. No one should be required to pay for or participate in abortion. It is essential that the legislation clearly apply to this new program longstanding and widely supported federal restrictions on abortion funding and mandates, and protections for rights of conscience. No current bill meets this test.
2. Adopt measures that protect and improve people’s health care. Reform should make quality health care affordable and accessible to everyone, particularly those who are vulnerable and those who live at or near the poverty level.
3. Include effective measures to safeguard the health of immigrants, their children and all of society. Ensure that legal immigrants and their family members have comprehensive, affordable, and timely access to health care coverage. Maintain an adequate safety net for those who remain uncovered.
We sincerely hope that the legislation will not fall short of our criteria. However, we remain apprehensive when amendments protecting freedom of conscience and ensuring no taxpayer money for abortion are defeated in committee votes. If acceptable language in these areas cannot be found, we will have to oppose the health care bill vigorously. Catholic moral tradition teaches that health care is a basic human right, essential to protecting human life and dignity. Much-needed reform of our health care system must be pursued in ways that serve the life and dignity of all, never in ways that undermine or violate these fundamental values. We will work tirelessly to remedy these central problems and help pass real reform that clearly protects the life, dignity and health of all.
Bishop William F. Murphy Diocese of Rockville Centre Chairman
Committee on Domestic Justice & Human Development
Cardinal Justin Rigali Archdiocese of Philadelphia Chairman
Committee on Pro-Life Activities
Bishop John Wester Diocese of Salt Lake City Chairman
Committee on Migration
Some will doubtlessly accuse these bishops as "meddling" in politics. However this is not the case. When a political process or policy does not run afoul of the obligation of Christians, generally they will not speak out.
However, when a law is contrary to the teaching of the Church… particularly if it compels the Christian to act in a way contrary to the faith, it must be opposed.
The common counter-claim is that Christians are "pushing their beliefs on others." However, if one thinks it through, it is not a valid claim to make. Consider the civil rights movement of the 1960s. Consider the opposition to Nazism and World War II. Were these things standing up against injustices or were they "pushing beliefs on others?"
The "pushing beliefs" argument is essentially made by the individual who disagrees with the stance taken. The irony is that this individual, in seeking to silence the opposition is in fact pushing their own beliefs on others.
The bishops of the Catholic Church indeed are reminding the members of congress that as individuals and as representatives of a nation they stand before God, and that their searching for reformed health care (which is not an intrinsic wrong) must have this understanding in mind.
The unbeliever or the non-Christian may disagree with the Christian view of human rights or of morality, but the question is on what basis they promote their own view. If they would insist on imposing their view on us [no conscience protections on abortion etc.] the question must be asked "On what basis do you impose this on us?"
Unless the question is answered satisfactorily, we cannot give this mentality free reign. And, dare I say it, if we Christians know we possess the truth, we are not to hide our light under a bushel but are to share it with the world
Reflections on the Bishops' Letter to Congress
Source: http://www.usccb.org/sdwp/national/2009-10-08-healthcare-letter-congress.pdf
The USCCB has been speaking out on the issues of the right to life, and why the current health care proposals are unacceptable. The text of the letter is as follows:
Dear Member of Congress:
On behalf of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), we are writing to express our disappointment that progress has not been made on the three priority criteria for health care reform that we have conveyed previously to Congress. In fact, the Senate Finance Committee rejected a conscience rights amendment accepted earlier by the House Energy and Commerce Committee. If final legislation does not meet our principles, we will have no choice but to oppose the bill. We remain committed to working with the Administration, Congressional leadership, and our allies to produce final health reform legislation that will reflect our principles.
We continue to urge you to
1. Exclude mandated coverage for abortion, and incorporate longstanding policies against abortion funding and in favor of conscience rights. No one should be required to pay for or participate in abortion. It is essential that the legislation clearly apply to this new program longstanding and widely supported federal restrictions on abortion funding and mandates, and protections for rights of conscience. No current bill meets this test.
2. Adopt measures that protect and improve people’s health care. Reform should make quality health care affordable and accessible to everyone, particularly those who are vulnerable and those who live at or near the poverty level.
3. Include effective measures to safeguard the health of immigrants, their children and all of society. Ensure that legal immigrants and their family members have comprehensive, affordable, and timely access to health care coverage. Maintain an adequate safety net for those who remain uncovered.
We sincerely hope that the legislation will not fall short of our criteria. However, we remain apprehensive when amendments protecting freedom of conscience and ensuring no taxpayer money for abortion are defeated in committee votes. If acceptable language in these areas cannot be found, we will have to oppose the health care bill vigorously. Catholic moral tradition teaches that health care is a basic human right, essential to protecting human life and dignity. Much-needed reform of our health care system must be pursued in ways that serve the life and dignity of all, never in ways that undermine or violate these fundamental values. We will work tirelessly to remedy these central problems and help pass real reform that clearly protects the life, dignity and health of all.
Bishop William F. Murphy Diocese of Rockville Centre Chairman
Committee on Domestic Justice & Human Development
Cardinal Justin Rigali Archdiocese of Philadelphia Chairman
Committee on Pro-Life Activities
Bishop John Wester Diocese of Salt Lake City Chairman
Committee on Migration
Some will doubtlessly accuse these bishops as "meddling" in politics. However this is not the case. When a political process or policy does not run afoul of the obligation of Christians, generally they will not speak out.
However, when a law is contrary to the teaching of the Church… particularly if it compels the Christian to act in a way contrary to the faith, it must be opposed.
The common counter-claim is that Christians are "pushing their beliefs on others." However, if one thinks it through, it is not a valid claim to make. Consider the civil rights movement of the 1960s. Consider the opposition to Nazism and World War II. Were these things standing up against injustices or were they "pushing beliefs on others?"
The "pushing beliefs" argument is essentially made by the individual who disagrees with the stance taken. The irony is that this individual, in seeking to silence the opposition is in fact pushing their own beliefs on others.
The bishops of the Catholic Church indeed are reminding the members of congress that as individuals and as representatives of a nation they stand before God, and that their searching for reformed health care (which is not an intrinsic wrong) must have this understanding in mind.
The unbeliever or the non-Christian may disagree with the Christian view of human rights or of morality, but the question is on what basis they promote their own view. If they would insist on imposing their view on us [no conscience protections on abortion etc.] the question must be asked "On what basis do you impose this on us?"
Unless the question is answered satisfactorily, we cannot give this mentality free reign. And, dare I say it, if we Christians know we possess the truth, we are not to hide our light under a bushel but are to share it with the world
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)