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.

Is socialized health care good?

??

Here is a question that has been haunting me of late. And I mean this sincerely, not rhetorically nor as a sarcastic swipe. If anyone can give me an honest reply (for which I may have more questions), I would be grateful. Here it is:

As a young man I was a socialist, believing that government programs were the answer to most of society's problems. It took a personal conversion to Jesus, and, as noted elsewhere, some serious soul searching before I was able to rethink my ideological loyalties. Other, wiser souls were able to help me to see that socialism is inevitably atheistic. I came to see for myself that it also seemed bound up with legalized and tax-funded abortion, and with a host of other moral depravities.

Before long, I had adopted as my own the quote so favored by Dorothy Day,

He who at 20 is not a socialist has no heart.
He who at 30 is a socialist has no head.

I began to appreciate the Church's consistent stand against atheistic socialism. I cheered to see Pope John-Paul's role in the dismantling of the Soviet regime. I understood now that it was the Church and individual Christians, not the government, who could address the maladies of society. Through the centuries, the followers of Jesus have been the ones to build hospitals for the sick, orphanages for the abandoned, who have fed the hungry, clothed the naked, and treated the ill and the dying.

But lately the consistent message from U.S. Catholic bishops is that we do well to expect health care from our government, only it just needs to be monitored so as not to violate Christian values. Bishop William F. Murphy, for example, is quoted as saying, "Genuine health care reform that protects the life and dignity of all is a moral imperative and a vital national obligation". This is no isolated quote, but seems to be the consensus among all the clergy.

After all the hard work and sacrifices that have been offered by Christians for the relief and healing of the sick, after building and staffing all those hospitals in Christian charity, after all the religious orders founded upon the apostolate of healing, now we should turn the reins over to government? And - - this government?????

I truly don't understand.

Moral freedom

Multitudes, multitudes, in the valley of decision!
For the day of the Lord is near in the valley of decision.
  - Joel 3:14 [RSV]

... therefore choose life, that you and your descendants may live.
  - Deut. 30:19b [RSV]

Continuing from previous posts... The importance of conscience is intimately connected with the notion of moral freedom. Moral freedom simply means an unhindered ability to exercise one's conscience, to make moral choices.

As was observed with fasting, this is a uniquely human attribute. As amoral beings, animals can only behave as their appetites, instincts and conditioned behavior dictate. They lack the ability to deliberately choose right vs. wrong, whereas we humans are constantly making moral choices, choosing whether to go this way or that, right or left, good or evil.

Reason teaches us that freedom is not absolute. In any sane society, one's freedom to do this or that is contingent upon whether another person's basic human rights would be infringed upon. One person can not be "free" to deliberately harm another. Such would not be true freedom, but a crime.

Sound religion goes further, teaching us that true freedom consists in seeking and choosing that which is good. Moral slavery involves being bound by one's appetites, instincts, and conditioned behavior, just as an animal. If you are constantly doing whatever you have an itch to do, you are not really free, but a slave to your own desires, no better than a dumb animal. To become fully human involves deliberately rising above merely animal appetites, and exercising volition in willing and doing good.

God is "pro-choice" in the truest sense of the term. He has endowed us humans with a moral nature. He gives us the faculty of volition, of free will, and he sets before us two paths, allowing us to choose which we will follow. He pleads with us to choose life, which leads to true freedom, as opposed to death and enslavement. But God will not force us to take the right path; we must each freely choose life over death, good over evil.

If you are constantly doing whatever you have an itch to do, you are not really free, but a slave to your own desires.

In this light, the politics of "choice" is seen to be a misnomer and a lie. The "right" to commit abortion is not a movement towards freedom, but a crime - the crime of murder. Moreover, it is an act of enslavement. Thus, advocates for abortion are true to their agenda when they seek to coerce doctors and nurses to violate their consciences in committing abortion. The so-called "pro-choice" ideology was never about moral freedom, but about trying to justify murder, and about contradicting the voice of conscience.

It is not legitimate for government to force health care workers to violate their consciences. And it is not right for these workers to abdicate their moral freedom in this matter. If a human authority seeks to strangle the voice of conscience, that human authority must be ignored or disobeyed.

Likewise - to issue my drum beat theme - it is not legitimate for government to force taxpayers against their consciences to pay for abortions, embryonic stem cell research, or other forms of murder. And taxpayers must not abdicate their consciences. We must not cooperate with the tax-funded slaughter of the innocents.

Related: A citizens' movement to refuse abortion taxes

Conscience clause

Much has been made, and for good reason, about Obama's announced plan to rescind the "conscience clause" for health care workers. The conscience clause was put in place to allow doctors, nurses, pharmacists and other medical personnel to opt out of performing or assisting at abortions or other procedures to which they have moral objections. Rescinding this option is tantamount to fascist coercion and a repudiation of religious freedom for health care professionals.

This past Thursday, April 9, was the Administration's deadline for expressing opposition to the proposed rescission. I weighed in, and hope you did, too. I haven't yet heard whether the thousands of protests will be heeded or not. I think the sites to keep an eye on in this regard are freedom2care.org and lifenews.com.

There's another deadline approaching, which millions are racing to meet. By April 15, wage-earning Americans must sign their names to their 1040s and turn over a large percentage of their wages to the government, or risk the wrath of the IRS.

The signing of your name at the bottom is especially galling, isn't it? It means you are OK with everything, and that you are doing this of your own free will. You are willing that the government should use your tax dollars to fund abortions, Planned Parenthood, foreign population control programs, and the like. You are willing to underwrite the slaughter.

Where is the concience clause for taxpayers? Where is it written that we must hang our moral sensibilities up on a hook while we fill out and sign our tax returns? Why do we not protest against this fascist control of our very consciences?

Related: A citizens' movement to refuse abortion taxes