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.

Is this what you mean?

Priests for Life has launched a special project called "Is This What You Mean?" It aims to:

 1) Reveal the nature of the abortion procedure to the public, and

 2) Challenge public officials and candidates who support the legality of abortion to admit what abortion is.

The idea is simple. It's not a partisan trick or threat, nor a complex argument, but a call for honesty. Just confronting the abortion supporter, especially the public candidate or office holder with the reasonable appeal: Let's be sure we understand each other here. When you say "abortion", is this what you mean? We just want to make sure we're talking about the same thing.

Go to this page to learn more, to watch YouTube videos and read quotes from abortionists, and learn what an abortion procedure is like.

Then spread the word. Announce this on your own website or blog. Email friends. Use the information in town hall meetings, editorials, etc. Ask your liberal (er - 'progressive') friends: Is this what your candidate supports? Is this what you support? Is this what you mean?

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.

Crisis of authority

A summary of the past 6 posts would go something like this: The shallow selfishness of consumerism and the myth of overpopulation has led to an irrational fear of human propagation, and to a widespread acceptance of artificial contraception. The acceptance of contraception has in turn led to an ideological divorce between sex and procreation. This divorce then leads inevitably to the acceptance and even approval of abortion, fornication, adultery, pornography, and homosexual practice. It's quite logical: If sex is primarily about the father-mother-child thing, the family thing, then traditional mores make lots of sense. But if it's just intimate pleasure between two partners, these various aberrations are no big deal.

There seems to be one more piece to this puzzle, another fundamental cause for the widespread acceptance of contraception and of all that follows. That piece would be a crisis of authority and of obedience to authority. In fact, if our culture manages to survive into the future, I believe future historians will name the crisis of authority as one of the defining elements of our time.

I was a teenager in 1968 when post-Vatican II changes were sweeping through the Catholic Church. Those were the heady days of great social upheaval; of hippies, free love, and the questioning of authority. Some priests of my acquaintance - hip and relevant and groovy - were confident, and assured us lay folks, that the Church would soon get with it and relax most or all of her sexual hangups. When Pope Paul VI issued Humanae Vitae, and it wasn't what we were expecting, and did not seem relevant (true prophecies are rarely recognized at first), the cold reception it received was to be expected, given the milieu. Yet this was unprecedented, and has proven to be tragic.

Many priests and a few bishops openly repudiated both the new encyclical and the Church's long-standing condemnation of contraception. Other priests and bishops were simply silent, neither openly rejecting nor openly applauding the Pope's teaching. Only a few were vocal in their support. I have no credentials as an historian to say this was absolutely unprecedented, but can report that, even as a progressive-minded young man, I was surprised at this change of posture. For a reigning Pontiff to be thus ignored and even rebuffed was something I had never heard of.

This crisis extends beyond the Catholic Church. Lines of authority within the family are now typically pooh-poohed as well. Patriarchy is summarily dismissed as outmoded and irrelevant, and the father's authority in the home is questioned along with the bishop's and Pope's in the Church. I suppose this revolution took many decades, but the late 1960's have seemed to be the watershed moment.

But notice where authority is still esteemed - in the military, and in our places of business. Occasional exceptions aside, the chain of command in these settings is still clearly defined and adhered to. The corporate equivalent of a Fr. Richard McBrien would be quickly shown to the door. Perhaps the difference is: We need our businesses and our military to succeed; failure is unacceptable. But the health and success of the Church, or the family? (yawn) Who cares?

In 20-20 hindsight, it should now be obvious that Pope Paul VI was right. The dissidents were wrong then, and are wrong still. Even more fundamentally, rebellion against legitimate authority is both immature and arrogant. Rebellion against divinely ordained authority within the Church and the family is sinful, and is tantamount to rebellion against God. The 60's mentality - question traditional morality, question the status quo, question authority - seemed cool and relevant at the time, but has turned out to be merely stupid and selfish and short-sighted. Question one more thing, all you old hippies - question the questions!