Over at First Things, Peter Leithart offers a diagnosis of why Barack Obama promises a larger-minded politics and comes up with nothing newer or more radical than improving the health-care system:
In his bracing little book on Secularization
, Edward Norman, chancellor of York Minster, describes the conflict between Christianity and what he calls Secular Humanism by contrasting their attitudes toward suffering. Christianity “was founded in an act of expiatory pain, has regarded human suffering as not only inseparable from the nature of life on earth, as a matter of observable fact, but also as a necessary condition in spiritual formation.” Christians seek, of course, to alleviate suffering, but God, not human suffering, is the center of the moral universe.
Secular Humanism, by contrast, does not believe in sin and cannot see how any good could emerge from human suffering. Humanity is perfectible, and if we will only work together we will be able to remove “anything that can be represented as an affront or an impediment to the painless existence of men and women.” . . .
This is a box outside of which Senator Obama cannot think, and this is why his agenda looks so thoroughly Clintonesque. Here’s a suggestion: If he wants to transform American politics, perhaps his next fund-raising letter should say something along the lines of “Pain may be good for you.”
There's a salutary reminder in this post about suffering and the human condition before God. However, I find the one-sided political jibes off-putting --though they're surely inadvertent -- since I don't see the other side ever saying "Pain may be good for you" either. Health saving accounts and medical-malpractice reforms are still an effort to do something about health-care costs. More, I assume that Rev. Leithart would equally condemn the administration's failure to call for any economic sacrifice from Americans, especially the wealthiest, during the last few years of war? That kind of sacrifice might be even more deeply grounded in Christian theology because it would be sacrifice for the purpose of service (solidifying the next generation's financial future), rather than suffering merely from the circumstances that fall down upon one's life. I agree that the latter is something all of us need to be more willing to accept --as training in accepting God's will -- but a significant part of that is training for accepting God's command, when it comes, that we sacrifice or suffer in the service of others.
I also don't know where Rev. Leithart draws the line between proper Christian efforts "to alleviate suffering," which he acknowledges, and "secular humanist" efforts to escape pain altogether. (I don't think that saying "God is the moral center" is quite enough.) Without that line, it's hard to evaluate his argument about efforts to reform health care. All this focus on health care may indeed reflect an idolatry of the body to some extent. But it also reflects to a significant extent a recognition of the costs that untreated or poorly-treated sickness can impose on mind, spirit, and vocation as well as body. Concerning the uninsured, consider John Paul II's focus on "those who do not succeed in realizing their basic human vocation because they are deprived of essential goods" including health care, Sollicitudo rei Socialis para. 28. And concerning even the middle class, consider Elizabeth Warren's findings about the contribution of medical costs to bankruptcies, with all the personal and family stresses and dislocations (including divorces) that financial catastrophes cause.
Tom