Except for the colossal failure in the sex abuse crisis, the Catholic Bishops of the United States have provided many years of reasonable, moderate, and pastoral leadership. However, conservative bishops now appear to be in the ascendancy. It turns out that being a conservative bishop appears to mean a number of things that run counter to core gospel values. Abortion is the only issue that matters. Orthodoxy is a close second, and imperial and even repressive authoritarian rule is the leadership style. All of this points to the Bishops refusal to support health care reform in Congress.
Well, after all, the issue of abortion is paramount, and of course the bishops would support the legislation if only the Congress would adhere to its principled stand in every detail. First of all, legislation doesn't work that way. Legislation moves forward through compromise. But of course monarchical bishops have no concept of what that word means. The notion that a group of Roman Catholic Bishops can and should be determinative on a bill affecting all Americans, a majority of whom are not Catholic is rather ludicrous. Unless of course you are a Catholic Bishop who believes no one other than yourself has any ideas worthy of consideration or respect.
How far have we come from the spirit of Vatican II? Collegiality seems to be a forgotten or at least ignored concept. There seems to be little or no respect for other Christian Churches, religions, or other points of view. Another ignored tenet of Vatican II is the recognition of the primacy of conscience as taught in the Declaration on Religious Liberty. Is not the Church also to be understood as the people of God? We all have the spirit moving in us. Paul tell us that we all have our individual charisms. It wouldn't hurt the bishops to listen to the Holy Spirit moving through the people of God once in a while.
More basic than Vatican II however, is the message of Jesus in the gospel. We are told that we are here to serve, not to trample down the weak. What about the social justice cry of helping the poor? Do we no longer subscribe to the worth value and dignity of every individual? The bishops proclaimed health care a right and not a privlege. Have they forgotten? The opportunity to achieve success in obtaining this right for the people now exists after decades of failure, and the bishops are suddenly willing to stand as a road block and contribute to its ultimate failure. Is this the way our bishops reach out to aid the poor the hungry and those jobless and without health care benefits?
The Bishops have now gone even further. In the nations's capital they have decided to stop providing charitable services through Catholic Charities because of the new same sex marriage law. They have even withdrawn health insurance to all new employees rather than risk being tainted with providing health care insurance to a gay couple. Does a gay couple not need health insurance? Is their right to health care abrogated because of their sexual orientation? Is it permissible to deny them needed services because you disagree with some action they have taken? What game do you play when even those couples who are not gay will be denied help lest some crumbs of service fall into the hands of a gay couple? Bishops may want to reread the story of Lazarus and the rich man in the New Testament.
The Bishops have managed to turn the good news of Jesus upside down. They sit smugly in their palatial domiciles and basque in their certitude, even though we know that our ways are not God's ways. We can never truly be certain of what God expects of us. Yet, if we know anything for certain it is that we are called to serve the least among us. The Bishops have put the poor, the hungry, and the oppressed, side by side with abortion and homosexuality, and they have concluded that people don't matter. Yet when Jesus speaks of what he expects of us at the last judgement we are judged by whether we fed the hungry, gave drink to the thirsty, and ministered to the sick. In fact by ministering to those in need, Jesus tells us we are ministering to Jesus himself. Maybe the Bishops may want to reread a little of Matthew.
What immutable truth are these Church leaders upholding with their bizarre behavior? They are proving that they are in charge. Yet Jesus took a towel and washed the feet of his apostles. This was not meant as a quaint little ceremony to be repeated ritually on Holy Thursday evening. It exemplified a way of life that our leaders were meant to emulate. We are constantly humbled by the example Jesus gave us in the New Testament. How unfortunate it is that I see little to emulate in those who currently seek to be revered as leaders of the Catholic community.
Sunday, March 14, 2010
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
The Health Care Summit: A Win for the Country
Just about every politician who was asked who won the recent health care summit, said that it was a win for the American people. As trite and self serving as that may sound I believe that in this case it may be true. Many pundits are saying that it was a failure or useless because no deal was reached. Yet, this was never a gathering that was expected to reach an agreement. We all knew that Republicans would not join with Democrats regardless of what concessions Democrats might make. Republicans believe their political fortunes are tied to saying no. Democrats, on the other hand, can not give up on health care if anything of their campaign agenda is to be salvaged.
I believe the summit did accomplish a number of things that are indeed good for the country. First of all it was a civil debate and a substantive debate. Keep in mind that this summit has followed months of non civil and non substantive debate. The meeting demonstrated that it is still possible for politicians in this country to speak to each other and act like grownups. Certainly there were a few Democrats and Republicans present who chose to continue the same old tired debate and recriminations, but on this day they were actually in the minority. Voters were able to hear cogent discussions of each side's arguments about health care. For many of us, I believe, it was the first time such meaningful arguments were heard.
What this civil debate demonstrated for those listening is that the extreme positions we have been hearing from both sides of the aisle do not represent with any degree of accuracy what the health care debate is really all about. The tea party and the Republican talking points that speak of death panels and government take overs are empty though perhaps dangerous rhetoric. Moderate and conservative Democrats who allow themselves to be talked in to voting no out of fear of losing their jobs are likely underestimating the American people. The summit will hopefully force responsible politicians to move away from rhetoric about socialism and focus on the legitimate differences that are worthy of their consideration.
The real substantive issues boil down to a surprisingly few but important points. There is of course the question of cost and whether in light of current economic circumstances and budget deficits, the country can afford such an expense. In regard to cost I would make a couple of points. First, there is never a good time to undertake such an expansion of health care. Clearly we have waited for decades and forces continue to be arrayed against its enactment. If health care reform is a good thing, then now is the appropriate time to act. Second, it strikes me that when it comes to money there is never enough money to help poor and middle class Americans. If there is a war to be fought there appear to be unlimited funds. If banks or corporations need to be bailed out the government has ample funds. If ordinary Americans are suffering or in need of help, however, we just can't afford to help them. Finally, the fact is that the Congressional Budget Office(CBO) says that this bill will actually reduce the deficit. It is of course possible that eventually the numbers won't add up, but CBO figures have been the neutral standard for both parties, so you can't accept the figures when they support your position, and ridicule them when they are not to your liking.
The second issue concerns the role of government and its appropriate degree of involvement. If, of course, you believe that government should have no role in health care or any other program to help Americans you will not like this or any health care bill. Yet we ought to at least be clear about what is actually involved here. If you want to talk about a government run health care program you might want to talk about Medicare. It is a government run program, yet, it is difficult to find many Americans who oppose it. Seniors in particular are adamant that their benefits in this program be protected. So apparently some government involvement is a good thing. In the case of so called Obama Care, there is no government run program. In fact the limited public option has been excluded from the bill. Government involvement here refers only to the regulation of private insurance policies. I repeat, we are talking about private insurance companies, not government programs. What is at issue is whether government should demand that insurance companies provide at least a minimum level of benefits to consumers. Government regulators inspect the food we eat, the water we drink etc. Do we want no accountablility of insurance companies? Can we really count on these companies to always protect the public interest with no oversight?
What happens now? Both parties will likely go back to their respective corners and resume the useless bickering. Democrats in the Senate will likely proceed to pass a health care bill through reconciliation. This procedure means that the bill can pass with a simple majority rather than a 60 vote threshhold. Won't that destroy everything that was accomplished through the summit? I don't think so. I think the summit because of its level of serious discussion has cleared the air and made forward movement possible. Some won't like it, but differences were aired and now the majority party and administration has a responsiblility to lead and govern. Just because Republicans have chosen to vote as a bloc to kill all administration legislation does not mean that Congress can shut down and cease operating until the next election.
Whatever the process, efforts at bipartisanship need to continue, but the determination of Republicans not to join should not prevent the administration from acting. Republicans not only had an opportunity to be part of the solution, but also had their serious ideas considered and included in the bill. As President Obama said, the voters elected the president and the congress to govern. Elections will take care of themselves. If the American people don't like what this administration does, they can vote them out. But worse than being voted out would be to do nothing.
I believe the summit did accomplish a number of things that are indeed good for the country. First of all it was a civil debate and a substantive debate. Keep in mind that this summit has followed months of non civil and non substantive debate. The meeting demonstrated that it is still possible for politicians in this country to speak to each other and act like grownups. Certainly there were a few Democrats and Republicans present who chose to continue the same old tired debate and recriminations, but on this day they were actually in the minority. Voters were able to hear cogent discussions of each side's arguments about health care. For many of us, I believe, it was the first time such meaningful arguments were heard.
What this civil debate demonstrated for those listening is that the extreme positions we have been hearing from both sides of the aisle do not represent with any degree of accuracy what the health care debate is really all about. The tea party and the Republican talking points that speak of death panels and government take overs are empty though perhaps dangerous rhetoric. Moderate and conservative Democrats who allow themselves to be talked in to voting no out of fear of losing their jobs are likely underestimating the American people. The summit will hopefully force responsible politicians to move away from rhetoric about socialism and focus on the legitimate differences that are worthy of their consideration.
The real substantive issues boil down to a surprisingly few but important points. There is of course the question of cost and whether in light of current economic circumstances and budget deficits, the country can afford such an expense. In regard to cost I would make a couple of points. First, there is never a good time to undertake such an expansion of health care. Clearly we have waited for decades and forces continue to be arrayed against its enactment. If health care reform is a good thing, then now is the appropriate time to act. Second, it strikes me that when it comes to money there is never enough money to help poor and middle class Americans. If there is a war to be fought there appear to be unlimited funds. If banks or corporations need to be bailed out the government has ample funds. If ordinary Americans are suffering or in need of help, however, we just can't afford to help them. Finally, the fact is that the Congressional Budget Office(CBO) says that this bill will actually reduce the deficit. It is of course possible that eventually the numbers won't add up, but CBO figures have been the neutral standard for both parties, so you can't accept the figures when they support your position, and ridicule them when they are not to your liking.
The second issue concerns the role of government and its appropriate degree of involvement. If, of course, you believe that government should have no role in health care or any other program to help Americans you will not like this or any health care bill. Yet we ought to at least be clear about what is actually involved here. If you want to talk about a government run health care program you might want to talk about Medicare. It is a government run program, yet, it is difficult to find many Americans who oppose it. Seniors in particular are adamant that their benefits in this program be protected. So apparently some government involvement is a good thing. In the case of so called Obama Care, there is no government run program. In fact the limited public option has been excluded from the bill. Government involvement here refers only to the regulation of private insurance policies. I repeat, we are talking about private insurance companies, not government programs. What is at issue is whether government should demand that insurance companies provide at least a minimum level of benefits to consumers. Government regulators inspect the food we eat, the water we drink etc. Do we want no accountablility of insurance companies? Can we really count on these companies to always protect the public interest with no oversight?
What happens now? Both parties will likely go back to their respective corners and resume the useless bickering. Democrats in the Senate will likely proceed to pass a health care bill through reconciliation. This procedure means that the bill can pass with a simple majority rather than a 60 vote threshhold. Won't that destroy everything that was accomplished through the summit? I don't think so. I think the summit because of its level of serious discussion has cleared the air and made forward movement possible. Some won't like it, but differences were aired and now the majority party and administration has a responsiblility to lead and govern. Just because Republicans have chosen to vote as a bloc to kill all administration legislation does not mean that Congress can shut down and cease operating until the next election.
Whatever the process, efforts at bipartisanship need to continue, but the determination of Republicans not to join should not prevent the administration from acting. Republicans not only had an opportunity to be part of the solution, but also had their serious ideas considered and included in the bill. As President Obama said, the voters elected the president and the congress to govern. Elections will take care of themselves. If the American people don't like what this administration does, they can vote them out. But worse than being voted out would be to do nothing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
