Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Allen on Subsidiarity and Health Care Reform
Sunday, September 13, 2009
Kristof on the Debate Over Health Care
"After Al-Qaeda killed nearly 3,000 Americans, eight years ago on Friday, we went to war and spent hundreds of billions of dollars ensuring that this would not happen again. Yet every two months, that many people die becaue of our failure to provide universal insurance."
Read Kristof's op-ed here. Among the anamolies of our system Kristof points out is that those without insurance who are sick would do better if they were in prison, because courts have ruled that prisoners are entitled to health care. He gives an example of one 20-year old who refused parole because staying in prison was the only way she could get treatment for her cervical cancer.
We can debate methods, but Kristof is right that the central issue is a moral one. "The first question is simply this: Do we wish to be the only rich nation in the world that lets a 32-year-old woman die because she can't get health insurance. Is that really us?"
Doing nothing is not an option.
Saturday, September 12, 2009
A Market-Based Alternative for Health Care Reform
Michael Scaperlanda directs us to a recent WSJ op-ed and asks what problems there might be to the author's suggestion of a market-based approach and whether such an approach is inherently at odds with Catholic Social Teaching.
I think the short answer is that if we could obtain a fully competitive private market and provide some back-up for those persons still unable to afford to purchase insurance in the now-more-competitive (and therefore presumably less expensive) insurance market, there would be no reason to complain from the standpoint of Catholic Social Teaching. Let me say a few words about both pieces of that suggestion.
First, I think any hope of achieving a fully competitive market requires doing away with the tax-favored status of employer plans. I suspect the author of the op-ed knows this and waffles on the issue because he knows how politically unacceptable such an idea would be. As we all know from the debates on health care reform, significant numbers of those who are now covered under employer plans don't want to see health care reform that requires them to change their coverage. Changing the tax provisions to put individual purchasers and employer puchasers on the same footing would mean changes in existing plans. I think that is a good thing...in fact I'd like to see employers out of the business of providing medical coverage alltogether, but I don't think that is feasible politically.
Second, I'm far less confident that innovations such as guaranteed renewable contracts "would catch on quickly in a vibrant, deregulated individual insurance market," making it likely that even in a competitive market, some of what the author wants would likely require changes in state insurance laws. That means relying on 50 states having to change their insurance laws. So the change would not be quick in coming.
Third, even in a fully competitive market, there will be some people who can't afford insurance. I'm guessing that many of the same people opposed to government involvement in health care reform would balk at a substantial increase in Medicaid eligibility to cover the working poor who will not be able to afford coverage. Relying on a private market and leaving substantial numbers of people unable to obtain medical care because they can't afford it is not acceptable.
The bottom line is that I don't think one can say that a market-based approach supplemented by some means of providing coverage for those who still can't afford insurance on the private market, is at odds with Catholic Social Teaching. I'm just not convinced we can get there.
Friday, September 11, 2009
Remembering 9/11
Thanks to Rick for posting Pope Benedict's prayer during his visit to Ground Zero. I'm drawn particularly to the request for wisdom and courage to work for a world of peace. In my Creo en Dios! post this morning (which you can read in its entirety here), I quote Martin Luther King, Jr.'s admonition that "returning violence for violence multiplies violence" and that only love can drive out hate. King urged that we “must evolve for all human conflict a method which rejects revenge, aggression and retaliation. The foundation of such a method is love."
On this day on which so many of us still mourn the loss of loved ones, let us pray that we may find ways to spread Christ's love to the hearts of all.
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
KC Bishops and Health Care Reform
I've become so depressed about the prospects of passing meaningful health care reform that I've refrained from posting on the subject. I don't have time for an extensive response to the statement of Bishops Naumann and Finn, but since Rob Vischer was chiding me this morning about my silence on the subject, let me offer a couple of thoughts prompted by their statement and his post.
First, one of the things that is persistently ignored when people react with horror to government involvement in the health care area is that the failed system we have now did not grow up through operation of a free market unaffected by government law and policy. The system that has developed is largely a result of federal tax law which encourages the provision of health care through employer plans by providing favorable tax treatment to those plans. (And those plans started to come into common existence during a time when the governmetn imposed wage controls during WW2 and employers wanted a way to increase compensation without increasing wages.) The dominance of employer-provided medical coverage is a significant part of what skews the insurance market, making purchase of insurance by individual so costly. So when we talk about federal involvement in health care reform, we are not talking about the federal government stepping into an area that has been completely private, but rather helping to address a situation it helped create. Add to that the existing government involvement in health care through, e.g., the VA. (When have you heard anyone saying that subsidiarity means we should cease providing health care to veterans via the federal government?)
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Another Response on Homosexuality and Church Teaching
I asked a close friend of mine who is in a committed homosexual relationship and who is a former priest what he thought of the exchanges between Greg and me on the issue of homosexuality and Christian teaching (here, here, here, here and here). After reading the various posts, here is what he wrote to me:
“Greg asks whether ‘a departure from traditional Christian teaching on sexual morality [might] set the stage for a broader disintegration, not only of church structure and world-wide communion, but of basic Christian doctrine?’ Like it or not, the ground on which we stand is shifting, roiling. Hanging tight isn’t a viable option. Perhaps it shouldn’t even be an option – at least among reflective, thinking individuals. We are in the midst of a profound and thorough cultural transformation. Do you think God might even have something to do with it? It took the Magisterium a couple of centuries to adjust to Newtonian physics. We haven’t seen anything yet! I don’t even know the quarks and scientific constructs (e.g., astronomy) and the new synthesis the Church’s tradition needs to incorporate.
“Greg also asks ‘what Christian group of any significance size and venerability has accepted a revision of traditional church teaching on sexual morality, thereby setting aside the complementarity of male and female as a guiding principle for sexual relationships, while still maintaining orthodox beliefs on the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Christ, on His Church, and on the Scriptures?’ Truthfully, I fail to see any imperative between core Christian doctrine and its moral teaching. Twenty years ago I could have made a pretty compelling philosophical case that it would be virtually impossible for the Magisterium (which I take to include a robust appreciation for the sensus fidelium) to infallibly define any moral teaching because morality by definition includes human behavior by autonomous moral subjects. Today, making such an argument simply holds little interest for me. As an old Baptist preacher was heard to say: ‘Sometimes your religion can be so heavenly minded it’s no earthly good.’
“Greg also asks whether it might ‘be that an assault on that dimension of the magisterial authority addressing sexual relationships is so revolutionary as to place the magisterial authority itself and generally at risk, so as to lead to an inevitable post-modern retreat from tradition…’, observing that ‘some on and off this list might welcome such a diminution of magisterial authority and a movement away from orthodoxy and tradition.’ I admit it. I’m one of them and thought it would happen with Vatican II. It seems from what we are seeing now that the principle historians describe about social revolution is true – there will be a last, gasping Conservative resurgence before it all breaks open. It’s been 500 years since the Reformation. My sense is that the current resurgence of rigidity and “restoration” in the Roman Catholic Church is simply building up pressure for the next Reformation – and this will be the work of the Spirit of God.
“Greg lastly suggests, ‘In sum, might the surgery necessary to excise moral teaching on sexual relationships from the rest of the body of Christian tradition prove to be so radical that the patient cannot survive?’ Moral teaching on sexual matters is simply one of the most neuralgic (it’s about sex, after all) flash points of the profound cultural transformation in whose wake we live. That is exciting and it not something I fear. Greg needs to be careful not to confuse or conflate “the Church” with “the body of Christian tradition”, or at least those threads of the tradition Greg deems to include or defend.
“Finally, about your post from one of your readers: I am not surprised by the survey results about the level of religious activity of homosexuals. I believe religious practice is quite high among gays and lesbians. Sadly, I suspect some of it might be based on fear or guilt (best little boy in the world syndrome). On a personal level, I guess I take offense at the implication that anything about my relationship with my partner or even my delight in the male physique is antithetical to my Christian faith, inconsistent with my religious practice or “displeases” God. I know I was a better priest and pastor precisely because I am gay. Others, in numerous ministerial contexts have affirmed this – mostly coming from women or anyone else on the margins of society or who knows life on the underside/outside of power structures. I will conclude with one of my favorite quotes from Flannery O’Connor: ‘You know, most of us come to the Church by means the Church wouldn’t allow.’”
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Another Reader's Response on Homosexuality and Christian Faith
Another MOJ reader offered this comment to Greg's reply to my response to his original post on the ELCA's recent decision to allow parishes to allow noncelibate homosexualis in committed relationships to the pulpit:
"Sisk asks: And what Christian group of any significance size and venerability has accepted a revision of traditional church teaching on sexual morality, thereby setting aside the complementarity of male and female as a guiding principle for sexual relationships, while still maintaining orthodox beliefs on the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Christ, on His Church, and on the Scriptures?
"The answer to this is easy: All of them except one. To my knowledge, every single Christian Church other than the Catholic Church is accepting of the use of birth-control between married couples. And there is a very strong argument to be made that in accepting such a use of birth-control these churches have accepted "a revision of traditional church teaching on sexual morality" that is no less radical than the revision entailed by condoning homosexual sexual acts and partnerships....
"Surely Sisk would agree that many of these birth-control-accepting churches retain recognizably orthodox beliefs on the incarnation, death and resurrection of Christ, etc..."
More on Homosexuality and Christian Faith
One reader offers these reactions to Greg's reply to my response to his original post on the ELCA's recent decision to allow parishes to allow noncelibate homosexualis in committed relationships to the pulpit:
"I greatly appreciated your comment in response to Greg's original post entitled "The ECLA, the Episcopal Church, and the Integration of Church Teaching on Sexual Morality with Christian Doctrine." I think that you are entirely correct that questioning one issue does not destroy the entire structure of the Catholic Church's teachings. John T. Noonan in his book "The Church that Can and Cannot Change" discusses issues on which the Church has changed its position over time because of people within the Chuch questioning them.
"I see that Greg has responded to your post demanding empirical evidence for your views. In particular, he asked two questions: "Has it not been true that the minority of political societies in the world that have recognized same-sex unions (something that, as a political matter, I myself am tempted to support in some manner) are also characterized by a persisting or increasing libertinism on matters of sexual behavior? Has orthodox Christian faith increased in any such country (or has the opposite occurred)? "
"The first question confuses correlation with causation as there has been a general decline in actual church attendance in most Western developed nations since WWII (although polls in the US show that those claiming to attend church regularly have been relatively stable from 1939 to today - about 40%) while attitudes about sex became more liberal during the same period. It would be difficult for him to prove that one caused the other or that other factors did not play a significantly stronger role in causing the decline in church attendance. The second question seems a bit of a catch-22 because Greg would probably exclude as "orthodox" any Christian faith that condone same-sex unions.
"For what it is worth, a survey earlier this year reported that the number of people who regularly attended church in Britain, one of the few nations that permis homosexuals to marry, increased in 2008 from 21% to 26%. In addition, homosexuals in the United States who profess to be Christian (about 70% which is pretty high given the extent to which Christian Churches have traditionally demonized homosexuals) tend to be more active in the churches to which they belong than their straight brethen according to a survey by George Barna, an evangelica pollster. As for "orthodox" teachings of the Catholic Church keeping people in the pews in Europe, this doesn't seem to be the case in Italy where a recent survey revealed that chuch attendance was far lower than previously thought and much closer to that of Britain."
Monday, August 24, 2009
Why Does Fostering a Strong Sense of Catholic Identity Require A Restrictive View of the Role of Lay Persons?
NCR reports today on the Vatican's decision to veto an election by the Maryknolls that would have resulted in a religious brother holding the position regional superior of the United States for the Maryknolls. The Vatican directed thata priest be chosen for the role. What prompts my post is the following:
"More broadly, the reluctance to see religious brothers elected to positions of authority over priests is part of a long-simmering debate in the church over how much power a lay person may exercise. ... The Vatican's tendency towards a restrictive view of the capacity of lay persons to exercise governance is generally understood as part of an effort to preserve the distinctiveness of the ordained priesthood, which in turn is driven by a desire to foster a strong sense of Catholic identity in contrast with secularism... "
My post title poses the question I have in reading this: why does the desire to foster a strong sense of Catholic identity require that we have a restrictive view of the role of lay persons to exercise governance? We can certainly "preserve the distinctiveness of the ordained priesthood" (who, after all, are the only ones with certain authority, such as their role with respect to the sacraments of the Eucharist and Reconciliation), without saying lay persons can not exercise any governance authority. In what sense would appointment of a brother who has held various positions of authority and who was elected by a group primarily composed of priests fail to foster a strong sense of Catholic identity?
Sunday, August 23, 2009
The ELCA and Plucking a Thread from a Garment
I don’t have time for more than short answer to Greg’s question. (It is Harvest Festival weekend here at St. Hubert’s in Chanhassen.) I do believe it is possible to pluck one thread from Christian teaching without unraveling the entire garment.
Whatever may be the narrative of the Episcopal church (and I don’t have the knowledge to agree or disagree with Greg’s characterization of that narrative), it seems to me that one can quite easily separate a view on the Church’s position on homosexuality from questions of abortion, monogamy and the centrality of Christ to our salvation. I don’t at all think one’s disagreement with the Church’s position on homosexuality either implies or leads down a slippery slope toward approving of abortion and promiscuity (I note that the ELCA vote was to allow gay or lesbians in committed relationships to serve as members of the clergy) or negating the centrality of Christ.
In my view implying that one can’t question one issue without risking everything falling to pieces risks cutting off useful questioning and discussing of issues.