Divorced from Catholic Teaching?
Color me puzzled. Why is the American Life League demonizing Catholic Charities, the Catholic Health Association, and the St. Vincent de Paul Society?
A few weeks ago, ALL’s Katie Walker wrote a news release stating that Catholic Charities, the Catholic Health Association, and the Society of St. Vincent de Paul had “divorced themselves from Catholic teaching.” How did this “divorce” happen? Walker charged that these Catholic organizations were guilty of “supporting the Obama health care plan, which would foster a culture of mandatory abortion coverage, contraceptive services, and permissive sex education, euthanasia and eugenics.”
In actual fact, these organizations had called for urgent healthcare reform; they had not issued support for any particular healthcare reform bill. Yes, they had asked members to call Congress urging urgent reform and they had shown a video in which Obama argues for immediate healthcare reform, but these do not rationally translate into support for any reform whatsoever or even the reform bills currently under congressional consideration. It would have been reasonable for the American Life League to express concern that these organizations’ campaign might be interpreted as supporting bills under consideration, but ALL didn’t just express such concern or call on these organizations to clarify what exactly they were supporting. It assumed their support for the current plan and asserted as fact that these organizations had divorced themselves from Catholic teaching. “Divorce” is a significant and strong metaphor. It expresses much more than a potential conflict, a spousal fight, or a separation into different rooms or even different homes. It denotes a final and complete separation.
Today I received a press release stating that American Life League president Judie Brown and Catholic Health Association president Sr. Carol Keehan would appear on EWTN’s The World Over with Raymond Arroyo. The release mentions how ALL exposed the scandal of these organizations’ support for Obama’s healthcare plan, as if their campaign was a secret in need of an exposé. Even though Catholic Charities, the St. Vincent de Paul Society, and the Catholic Health Association have clarified their position on healthcare reform, Brown refuses to back down. She wrote, “These Catholic organizations are contending that they are simply supporting health ‘reform,’ but that line is disingenuous at best when the only health reform on the table is Obama’s abortion and euthanasia mandate. These organizations are putting human lives at the mercy of misguided justice.”
On Arroyo’s show, Sr. Carol Keehan explained once again her organization’s dedication to the dignity of the human person, its opposition to abortion, even its opposition to particular segments in the current legislation. She talked about how her organization was working with the bishops, not at cross-purpose with them, and that it might compromise its preferences, but never its principles. Arroyo kept returning to the notion that it might seem from the video that Keehan’s organization supported the current bills. Hardly sufficient evidence for asserting that Keehan and her organization have divorced themselves from Catholic teaching!
Both Brown and Arroyo were very clear that they don’t trust the government involvement in healthcare. Trusting it is unthinkable, Brown remarked. Okay, fine, they disagree with healthcare reform that involves greater government intervention. Let’s talk about that. Why in the world over does ALL try to make enemies out of these well-respected Catholic organizations that do so much to promote life? The pro-life movement has enough on its plate trying to convince the opposing side; what good does alienating its own people do? The members of Catholic Charities, the Society of St. Vincent de Paul, and the Catholic Health Association are living out justice and charity to the poor, the oppressed, and the forgotten. They are ministers who give life to the pro-life ideals. Why demonize them? Surely doing so doesn’t advance the agenda of the American Life League.
MJAndrew
Katerina Ivanovna
Kyle R. Cupp
Joshua B
Ashley Marie
Good post.
ALL’s claim is a typical logical fallacy of hysterical and irrational politics.
Does it really even need to be said at all that acknowledging that there is a problem does not necessitate or even imply that one is bound to a particular solution? That it is not logically impossible to propose alternatives to what is currently “on the table”?
It is the ALL’s argument that is disingenuous, and disappointing. You are absolutely right to point out as well that this will actually accomplish nothing but further divisions among Catholics who fundamentally agree. It isn’t as if we are talking about “Catholics for a Free Choice” or some other rouge leftist group that rejects Church teaching.
I have had my own experience with people who create problems for their own sake. It is senseless and idiotic.
Does it really even need to be said at all that acknowledging that there is a problem does not necessitate or even imply that one is bound to a particular solution? That it is not logically impossible to propose alternatives to what is currently “on the table”?
Apparently it does. ALL’s assumption that CC, SVDP, and CHA must support “the Obama plan” doesn’t follow logically from these organizations’ support for healthcare reform. Besides, if they supported the bills as they are, why would they be working to make them compatible with Catholic teaching? Yet, even after these organizations have publically clarified their position on healthcare reform, ALL continues to hold on to its fallacious assumption. It dismisses the clarification as disingenuous. It pretends there is still a scandal. In truth, the scandal is a fiction ALL made up. What I don’t get is why.
Starting a fire in one’s own house is hardly smart for any organization.
However, I wonder at the attempts to navigate the swamp of politics. It doesn’t seem to me that the Bishops have accomplished terribly much with their meddling in political questions.
When the Church opposes particular legislation, She can have a profound effect because it is a specific target and there remain many Catholics who will listen. However, when the Church seeks to influence the writing of legislation or to harness support for general propositions, She seems to invariably fall victim to the manipulations of those whose interests are not in tune with Church teaching.
Such is the case here.
Attempts to push support for health care overhaul necessitates accepting the proposals on the table, with all of their attendant faults. Since all of the proposals on the table will extend abortion, Church support for those proposals, just like the support of Catholics for the Obama Revolution as a whole, makes a mockery of Her teachings.
Opposition to particular legislation might prove easier and exhibit a clearer position of where one stands than wading in the political swamps to influence the writing of that legislation, but I don’t see those as reasons to stick with doing the former and avoid doing the latter. One can also fall victim to the manipulations of those whose interests conflict with the Church’s mission in opposing particular legislation. A politician could, for example, call for the reversal of Roe v. Wade in order to win votes or stay in power but without the genuine desire to help overturn the court decision. Politics is messy business, period.
I also don’t see how pushing for healthcare reform and working to make that reform just necessitates accepting the proposals on the table. One can offer a conditional acceptance of reform while being clear that one will not, at the end of the day, accept a reform bill that violates one’s principles.
I am sure the Bishops share your optimism.
The problem is one shared by every special interest in Washington – and to politics, virtue is merely a special interest.
How to influence legislation without being “used.”
Seeking temporal control is a dangerous game – one that the Church has had great success and great failure in. Manipulating politics, the process and the power, is a full-time occupation and not one that, in my opinion, Bishops should seek to engage in.
In the instant case, the Bishops are pushing for healthcare reform. Many agencies of the Mother Church are following their lead. Those who favor abortion and euthanasia are only too happy to draw on the influence of the Church and to legitimize the cause of “healthcare reform” right up until the point that passing it is assured. Make no mistake, they will not hold back a win on FOCA merely because it took Catholic votes to get there.
Again, look at the Obama Revolution as a model – a fair thing to do since the players are essentially the same.
Senator Obama was elected President with no small contribution from Catholics. Even the Knights suffered a split in their normally cohesive ranks over the issue. Our brothers and sisters handed the election to a man who promised that he would pass the Freedom of Choice Act as soon as it crossed his desk. This optimistic support paid no dividends that I can see.
We were just “used.”
And here we are again… another abused partner being promised that it will be different this time.
One makes deals with Satan at one’s own peril
Interest in the welfare of those who need the help of others is an essential Christian characteristic. Obama seems to be genuine in trying to help those who need help. Why is he then seen to be “using” Catholic voters drawn to admire this aspect of his politics ?
The abortion/life debate seems to blind some to everything except the “with me / against me” framing of that issue. Those who fall into that trap, and they appear to be many, do not realize the damage to their integrity as Christians caused by their willingness to sacrifice all other Christian values in the service of their aparently infallible medico-legal pronouncements on abortion.
For the purpose of this post, I did not address whether or not ALL’s characterization of the healthcare plan on the table was accurate, but I welcome comments which explore that question, in particular, the question of whether or not the plan, if passed, will “foster a culture of mandatory abortion coverage, contraceptive services, and permissive sex education, euthanasia and eugenics.” Sr. Carol Keehan addressed some of those alleged possibilities during her appearance on The World Over.
Mr. Cupp and Co.,
I find myself agreeing with G-Veg on the general practical principles, but want to leave aside the specific question of yours on the “divorce.” Here is the situation:
There is a need for reform of healthcare. If we decide that the direction of this reform is to set up a government-run alternative to private insurance then several consequences appear virtually assured based on similar events in the recent past.
1) The government-run alternative will push out the current system due to funding from taxpayers. With this funding most people and employers will stop using the current system since that would involve double costs to them – similar to the way I currently pay for my kids to go to school at both the public schools and their Catholic school.
2) The government-run program will reflect reality as seen by those with political and institutional power. That is, there will be fully funded abortion. However, the higher costs of care for the ‘less useful” members of our society will be squeezed. Gently at first and then harder as time goes on.
3) Quality of care in general will suffer since the profit motive (provide a good service or loose your job) will be lost. The more hands the money goes through, the poorer the service.
The healthcare reform we need is for the church to provide more healthcare that is paid for by the church. When we have taken the easy way out on charitable work (asked for government help) we have seen significant distortions of the goals and methods to provide the service.
Any Catholic organization that promotes agreement with the President on healthcare reform risks being co-opted into the overall scheme – essentially complete control of all funding, thus most decision making, in the hands of those who see pleasure as the highest goal of human life, babies as burdens on the earth and older Americans as burdens on the backs of those who just want to have fun.
We have seen this numerous times in numerous countries. Catholic institutions need to draw a bright line and stay on the right side. No support for the government plan. At all.
John
John,
Are you saying that all or most of those who would be in control of healthcare funding and decision making have a hedonistic perspective? If so, how do you know this to be the case?
Sr. Keehan bravely walked into the Lion’s Den. I thought Arroyo was going to moderate a discussion between Sr. Carol and Judy Brown. Instead, it was Arroyo and Brown opposing Sr. Carol. Two against one is not exactly fair odds.
Arroyo has a deep right wing political bias that was evident throughout the evening. He started off by showing an edited version of the Catholic Health Association’s video on health care refrom that left out scenes showiong several bishops supporting health care reform. Only when Sr. Carol called him out did he include the scenes.
He also kept insisting that end-of-life counselling would “incentivizze” physicians and ominously and ludicrously suggested that would lead to patients being denied care. This canard about end of life care has been disproven numerous times. Both http://www.factcheck.org and the AARP have weighed in on. It only pays doctors (not bureaucrats) to do what many now for free. Now, it will indeed “incentivize” doctors but only to counsel their patients about their end-of-life wishes. Doctors not only have a legal, ethical and professional duty to keep their patients alive and healthy, but they also have a FINANCIAL incentive. To be blunt, dead patients don’t bring in any money!
Further, end-of-life counselling for Medicare and Medicaid patients has already been mandated since 1990. The Patient Self Determination Act was signed into law by President George H.W. Bush in 1990. “The PDSA encourges everyone to decide now about the types and extent of medical care they want to accept or refuse if they become unable to make those decisions due to illness.” “Under the PDSA, health care agencies MUST ask you whether you have an advance directive. They must also give you your rights under state law.” You can Google “Patient Self-Determination Act Amrican Cancer Society” to go to the site for more information.
Judy Brown kept saying that we shouldn’t trust the government with our health care, but those over 65 on Medicare have been doing just that for 45 years and according to a survey, 80 percent are satisfied with their care. Google “Commonwealth Fund Medicare satisfied” for more information. Indeed, the majority of the people at those town
hall meetings protesting “government health care” are elderly people on Medicare.
As for abortion, I am certain the CHA will not support any bill that funds abortion. But abortion and end-of-life care are not the real targets of Arroyo’s concern. He is simply opposed to any comprehensive health care reform.
He started off by showing an edited version of the Catholic Health Association’s video on health care reform that left out scenes showing several bishops supporting health care reform. Only when Sr. Carol called him out did he include the scenes.
Yes, I noticed that as well. And Sr. Keehan also noted that the sign the clergy held promoted healthcare that protects life! The video itself made it clear that the CHA supports healthcare reform protective of life. Arroyo asked questions to which he already had the answers, but he acted as though he didn’t really know what the answers were, that there was some confusion still about where CHA stood, that it could seem from the video that CHA supported the destruction of life. Sr. Keehan blamed his reporting for the confusion. I haven’t seen his other shows that reported on the CHA and healthcare reform, but his exclusion of the segment most relevant to the discussion leads me to suspect that Sr. Keenhan was right.
Arroyo and Brown are disgruntled rightwing Republicans who will be miserable until another George W. Bush occupies the White House and congress is dominated by Rick Santorum clones. With that unlikely to happen anytime soon, they occupy themselves making lemonade on the fundraising scene with manufactured outrage, pitting Catholic against Catholic, distorting the truth, deciding who is insuffuciently orthodox, stoking paranoia, twisting church teaching into line with rightwing political ideology, and fighting among themselves. Always fighting among themselves. If people only knew the infighting and jealousy that goes on behind the scenes.
Judie Brown has a lot of nerve suggesting other organization have divorced themselves from Catholic teaching. She took it upon herself to loudly affirm her support of torture when challenged on the matter.
they occupy themselves making lemonade on the fundraising scene with manufactured outrage, pitting Catholic against Catholic, distorting the truth, deciding who is insuffuciently orthodox, stoking paranoia, twisting church teaching into line with rightwing political ideology, and fighting among themselves. Always fighting among themselves. If people only knew the infighting and jealousy that goes on behind the scenes.
Which is, indeed, not an in-apt description of how many left-leaning Catholics spent the previous eight years — nor have they entirely stopped. Now that Obama is in office, Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good and Catholics United each send me roughly one email informing me that their leaders “denounce” someone (up to and including “politicized bishops”) for being “divisive”. Both sides are evidently still pursuing a “war room” strategy (if that can be called a strategy) even though there are no elections immanent.
It strikes me that part of the problem in this whole dynamic is Catholics of various perspectives allowing them to be too much drawn into the tactical, daily political brawl. While I agree with Kyle it’s unfair to portray SVdP, CHA and such as being “divorced” from Catholic teaching, it does strike me as somewhat naive of them to send out broadblast emails to Catholics saying, “Call your congressman and say you support health care reform,” without thinking they will then find people tying them to the specific health care reform package that’s on the table at the time. If I call my congressman right now and say, “I want you to support health care reform” without providing further details, he’s clearly going to think I support the Democratic bill currently on the table.
I don’t think this means that Catholics need to step back from the issues of the moment, but people do need to be a bit more careful of the implications of their actions. After all, there certainly are those Catholics out there who are going around saying, “I don’t support putting abortion funding in the health care bill — but if abortion funding is in there I will certainly not withhold my support because of that.” One doesn’t want to blend in with that type of attitude — unless one actually ascribes to it.
It seems like there’s a need both for Catholics on all side of the political spectrum to act in a way which is more substantive and less likely to be taken as blind support for the policies of one party or the other — and also for more presumption of good will to go with that.
Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good and Catholics United are barely a grain of sand on the beach compared to the likes of EWTN, Relevant Radio, ALL, Priests for Life, the K of C leadership, the Monahan empire, and hundreds of other self described “Catholic” organizations and media outlets, all of whom together have a huge presence within the Catholic community and are on the same rightwing Republican page. They all operate tax-free and come election time are not the least bit shy telling (even from the pulpit) the flock how to vote. It’s ludicrous to imply that a few e-mails from Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good or Catholics United are in any way a counter balance to this Republicanization of the American Catholic Church.
Brendan,
Setting aside that the IRS rules limit political activity by religious organizations, doesn’t it annoy you at all to have the Church put a muzzle on when it comes to political questions? Doesn’t it strike you as antithetical for a nation to support Freedom of Speech so strongly and then to deny it to religious organizations? Doesn’t it concern you when organizations like Voices of the Faithful sp0nsor legislation to take over parishes by lay councils?
And, if it does, why does it surprise or alarm you to see religious organizations of all stripes work through intermediaries.
It sure sounds to me like you are splitting hairs: It is OK for the Bishops to make it little more than a solemn duty to swallow President Obama’s healthcare bill – like a carp on the end of a line – but it is unacceptable for the K of C to tell their members that no faithful Catholic – which you must be to be a Knight – should support a bill that expands abortion.
Just a Follow-up…
It has been suggested that there is something fundamentally wrong about loudly opposing healthcare bills that promote abortion because Catholic groups like the Knights and even the Church herself are non-profits. I think President Obama’s specific request that ministers ADVOCATE for his bills “from the pulpit” (to steal Brendan’s phrase) closes up that casket quite nicely…
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/20/army-lord-obama-seeks-health-care-push-pulpit/