The bishops on health care

So far, no one has answered my question about federal health care legislation. Thus, my puzzlement and confusion continues and deepens.

The U.S. Catholic bishops have issued more statements on the issue since I last wrote about it, and their message remains pretty much the same. In their most recent statement, for example, which coincided with Obama's "bipartisan" summit, the bishops pled, "It is time to set aside partisan divisions and special interest pressures to find ways to enact genuine reform. We encourage the administration and Congress to work in a bipartisan manner...". Calling it a "moral imperative and urgent national priority", the bishops "...hope and pray that the Congress and the country will come together around genuine health care reform..."

There is the requisite insistence that "...genuine health care reform must protect human life and dignity from conception to natural death...", and that "...health care legislation must respect the consciences of providers, taxpayers, purchasers of insurance and others...". But the intensity and frequency of these public statements is obviously driven by the fact that pro-abortion Obama and pro-abortion Democrats on Capital Hill have made this legislation a priority. The bishops have apparently adopted this urgency and are clearly scolding those recalcitrant Republicans for being such partisan obstructionists. Such, at least, is the evident tone of their messages.

Meanwhile, here's Jerry, wondering what gives. I am no great fan of the Republican party, but I thank God for their "obstructionist" stance, and also for the bickering and infighting within the ranks of the Democrats that has delayed passage of this outrage and may, please God, derail it altogether. I'm sorry, your Excellencies, but I cannot view the prospect of federal health care mandates, especially from the current office-holders, as anything but evil and tyrannical.

Prior to any religious dogma to which I may assent, prior to any fraternal loyalty I may feel toward the Catholic Church or any other ecclesial body, I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that the wholesale slaughter of innocent and helpless human beings is a wicked crime. The stakes are enormous, perhaps apocryphal. I had thought this sentiment to be in solid conformity with the teaching of the Catholic Church. Moreover, I have not undergone a frontal lobotomy, and so entertain no tender delusions that "progressives" such as Obama, Pelosi, Reid, et. al. can ever be trusted to do what is right in this regard.

As stated in a previous post, it was through the wisdom of better Catholics than myself that I learned to mistrust the promises of Socialism, that godlessness is inherent to the positive law tenets thereof. I remember 16 or 17 years ago: the U.S. bishops boldly proclaimed with one voice that, were "Hillary Care" enacted, they would close the doors of every Catholic hospital in the nation. The clear, prophetic vigor of that action moved me profoundly, and was instrumental in making me appreciate the Catholic Faith in its unswerving and uncompromising strength. While other denominations were wilting and caving to various cultural pressures, the Catholic Church stood like a rock, a testament to its divine ordination.

That's what is so disturbing about the current situation. I have heard nothing about closing Catholic hospitals if this current thing passes. Quite the opposite: the bishops sound like they would heartily welcome the current proposals, albeit with some mild reservations. What has changed in 16 years? How has Socialism now come to be so favored by the U.S. clergy, and abortion mandates merely a "defective" detail? After centuries of teaching Christians to care for the sick and the weak, today's bishops plead for government-run health care. Jerry continues to pray for the opposite. Are the bishops apostate? Have they ceased to teach, sanctify and govern, preferring instead to unify, pacify, and affirm? Or has Jerry suddenly lost his Catholic identity? At least, there seems to be no common ground here.

Gentle apostasy

Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God
  - James 4:4b

I believe the Catholic Church is the one founded by Jesus, her Sacraments and her very life flowing from His pierced side. I also believe that the Church in this part of the world and at this point in time is floundering pitifully, having wandered far from her Lord's heart and will.

The wandering away has been a slow regress over the decades, a gradual erosion of fervor, exemplified in a thousand ways. The previous post's question is one example. The Democratic party was at one time nearly synonymous with Catholicism. So now most Catholics and most Catholic clergy want to remain loyal, and find ways to be reconciled with the Democrat's current brand of ungodly socialism. At best, it may timidly be suggested that, perhaps, some principles are important, and maybe we should, you know, study certain matters more carefully. Above all, one must not appear to be rigid or harsh, and one must never alienate anyone, no matter how serious the error.

The typical dumbing down of today's feast (Holy Family) is another example. Permission is granted to use an alternative to the (gasp!) patriarchal Scripture reading about husbands and wives. Of course, the more palatable alternative is nearly always adopted by the local parish.

Besides being a limp-wristed concession to the world, and to our culture's socialist and feminist and egalitarian errors, this meek approach leads away from God. The error that is tolerated out of human respect and a fear of alienation is eventually embraced as one's own belief. You avoid speaking against popular sins and after awhile find nothing sinful except what your culture condemns. This is not the highway to holiness or faithfulness.

A repentant hippy

I have a confession to make: Jerry DePyper has not always espoused the views reflected in these blog posts. You might even say that they represent the zeal of a convert (or, revert).

I grew up as an American, Catholic, Democrat. This was my patrimony, my identity, and it was a seamless garment; as unthinkable to become a Republican as to become a non-American. Then, coming of age in the 1960's and early 70's, I was swept along in the heady spirit of that era. Though not part of the drug scene, I was definitely into the "flower child" mentality - questioning authority, questioning tradition, questioning the status quo. The patrimonial identity remained intact, but became infused with new ideologies. The 'flower child' mentality became a part of the patrimony, an integral part of my identity. As a self-identified Democrat, I applauded the Democrat's 'flower child' promise to end racism, poverty, and war. As a Catholic, I eagerly embraced the hippy, ecumenical ideal of "We are one in the Spirit". This meant rejecting 'rigid dogmatism' and following many heterodox ideas. But the patrimonial identity remained; I still considered myself a good Catholic. I was a Catholic, Democrat hippy.

Come on, people now, smile on your brother
Everybody get together, try to love one another
 right now.

The hippy image faded, but not the ideological identity. I voted for George McGovern, Jimmy Carter, Walter Mondale, and Michael Dukakis. Somehow, I managed to convince myself that their horrible values and policies were outweighed by their good promises. In reality, it was my life-long identity as a Democrat which made want me see positive values in these candidates. Had I continued in this vein, I suppose I would now be supporting Barack Obama.

I was no longer a hippie - in fact, I was no longer a young man when a very close friend, a man just a year older, stated frankly that our generation had created a horrible mess. This shook my world, and I resented my friend's attack upon our generational and ideological identity. But I had to admit he was right; our ideology was not working as advertised. This was a terribly gut-wrenching moment, a threat to my identity. Perhaps it's when I finally took the 60's attitude to the hilt, and began to question the questions.

Painfully weaning myself of life-long ideological habits, the long path back home was guided mainly by two emerging convictions: First, there has to be such a thing as truth, and there has to be but one version of it. Relative truth is an oxymoron. Second, the wholly vulnerable and wholly innocent babies must be defended; this was certain. Those who were so defending must be right; those who were not must be wrong. (By their fruits you shall know them.)

You can read in this blog the result: 'right-wing extremist', 'conservative', 'orthodox Catholic' - employ whichever label you like. (Here's a hint: I will not be voting for Obama.)

Why do I tell this story now? Maybe just in case someone else of the baby boomer generation happens to read it. Let me break for you the gut-wrenching news: our generation has made an awful mess, and you do not have to carry this around any longer as your inherited patrimony. You can make a clean break, embrace truth, and join in making amends.

SCHIP: A solution

President Bush's veto of the SCHIP expansion has Democrats complaining that he and other conservatives simply don't care about poor children. Republicans reply that the expansion costs too much money. I think I have the ideal compromise:

As I understand it, the vetoed proposal would expand, among other things, the age limit to include children up to 25 years of age. Leaving aside the question of whether a 25-year-old can reasonably be considered a child, I actually think the age expansion doesn't go far enough. Expand the age criteria just another 9 months - in the opposite direction - and the bill would probably garner plenty of Republican support. Heck, President Bush might even sign such an expansion. Such a nine-month expansion would not only save millions of children's lives every year, it would actually reduce the overall price tag, since federal policy now allocates a sizable chunk of tax dollars for the express purpose of removing health benefits for these very young children.

The reduction in expense might persuade some hard-hearted Republicans to go along with the new plan. And the compassionate Democrats, desiring above all to save children's lives, should also eagerly embrace the additional expansion. It's a win-win scenario!