Recently in Health Care Category

This morning's Washington Post made me choke on my coffee:  "Catholic Church Gives D.C. Ultimatum."  The Catholic Archdiocese is playing political hardball by threatening to cut off social services to the city's poor--including the homeless, the hungry, the sick, and children--if D.C. expands gay and lesbian civil rights and recognizes same-sex marriage.

That's right.  The Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Washington is holding poor people hostage in order to keep gay and lesbian persons from getting married.  They are willing to trade the indigent for getting their theological way.  

I don't like to criticize other people's religious faiths or churches.  There's plenty enough to criticize in my own Protestant tradition.  In the last year, however, we have witnessed a new authoritarian activism on the part of the Roman Church hierarchy that has an impact well beyond the Catholic Church.  This new coercive Catholicism is akin to the development of the Christian Right in evangelical churches in the early 1980s--a religious-political movement that reshaped American culture.  This is everybody's business.

In the last year, new Catholic politics emerged in the Prop 8 campaign in California where the church invested vast resources of money and leadership to overturn gay marriage; and then did the same in Maine.  Last week, in a political maneuver worthy of Tom DeLay, authoritarian Catholic bishops forced a Democratic Congress to adopt the Stupak Amendment undermining the legal right to choice by threatening to torpedo health reform.  Now they threaten the D.C. City Council?  Using the lives of poor people as a political tool?

I don't want to be alarmist about this.  Nor, in this ecumenical age, do I wish to be seen as a nativist calling for a new anti-Catholic crusade.  That would be a terrible misrepresentation of these concerns.  Nor do I want to offend Catholic friends and family.  But it is profoundly disturbing that the Roman Catholic Church appears to be using threats and fear to manipulate a democratic political process to enforce Catholic doctrine regarding abortion and human sexuality.  There seems to be a political pattern developing that should cause broad-minded citizens--Catholics included--to ask some serious questions regarding what is happening within the Catholic hierarchy.

Recently, Congressman Patrick Kennedy did just that.  In an argument with his own bishop about health care, Kennedy reminded the Bishop of Rhode Island that American Catholics have a long history of diversity and dissent regarding formal Catholic teaching.  Disagreement with the Catholic Church was, Kennedy argued, part of the dynamic of being Catholic in a democratic society.  Here's the bishop's answer:

"The fact that I disagree with the hierarchy on some issues does not make me any less of a Catholic." Well, in fact, Congressman, in a way it does. Although I wouldn't choose those particular words, when someone rejects the teachings of the Church, especially on a grave matter, a life-and-death issue like abortion, it certainly does diminish their ecclesial communion, their unity with the Church. This principle is based on the Sacred Scripture and Tradition of the Church and is made more explicit in recent documents.

For example, the "Code of Canon Law" says, "Lay persons are bound by an obligation and possess the right to acquire a knowledge of Christian doctrine adapted to their capacity and condition so that they can live in accord with that doctrine." (Canon 229, #1)

The "Catechism of the Catholic Church" says this: "Mindful of Christ's words to his apostles, 'He who hears you, hears me,' the faithful receive with docility the teaching and directives that their pastors give them in different forms." (#87)

It is worrisome that a Roman Catholic bishop would remind a member of the Kennedy political family that "docility" is the primary calling of faithful Catholic laity.  What about courage, compassion, and creativity?  

Oddly enough, Roman Catholic leaders have adopted a strategy of authoritarian engagement with the body politic at the very moment at which their church is declining. One in ten Americans is now an ex-Roman Catholic, with numbers dwindling, churches closing, a decline in the number of priests and religious, and with only immigration holding the number of communicants steady. With the church clearly in crisis, the bishops apparently have chosen to use the sick, poor, homeless, children, the faithful laity, and marginal as tools to increase their public power and influence by coercing public policy to fit their theology.  You'd think that they would be looking inward to see what is eroding Catholic congregations instead of lobbying Congress and threatening politicians. 

This is not what John F. Kennedy would have imagined for his beloved church when he so courageously broke through the boundaries of anti-Catholic prejudice to become the nation's first Catholic president.  The eternal flame at his grave in Arlington witnesses to the ancient Catholic vision of universal peace, justice, and love. The new authoritarian Catholicism is not only playing politics but it is replacing a more generous vision of historic Catholic faith--the traditional one that sides with the poor, the oppressed, and the outcast--with a vision of political power.  For that, I am deeply sad.  Coercive religion should have no place in a church or a pluralistic, democratic nation--much less in City Hall or the halls of the United States Congress.

Aborttion has been part of the healthcare debate from the beginning.  The effort was supposed to be that the healthcare bill would be "abortion neutral" meaning it neither expanded the opportunities for abortion, nor restricted them.  Now it seems that no longer suffices for the US Catholic Bishops who want to impose their view on abortion on all of American citizens and make this an anti-abortion health Care bill.  Sara Posner at Relgion Dispatches explains the current fight over abortion in the health care bill:

As the House of Representatives health care reform bill edges closer to a vote, anti-choice Democrats continue their threats to hijack the bill over abortion funding. These members, and their supporters, are the very constituency Democrats have been urged to placate on abortion-related issues. That strategy, misguided to begin with, seems even more so as the "pro-life" Democrats are trying to bring down their own party's signature legislative initiative.

As part of Democrats' re-tooling in the post-"values voters" election of 2004, they tried to be more "friendly" to religion. A big part of that strategy included making anti-choice Democrats feel more "welcome" in the party by being less doctrinaire on choice, and acknowledging the claimed heartfelt religious belief at the core of these Democrats' position.

But now some of these Democrats, who claim to be pro-life, are playing politics with health care reform, aligning themselves more closely with the anti-choice hard right and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) than their own party. They insist that efforts to ensure that no public funds will be used to cover abortion services are insufficient. This game-playing is not about public funding of abortion, already outlawed in the Hyde Amendment (which bars federal funding from being used to pay for abortions for low-income women under Medicaid and other programs). Indeed, the House bill already incorporates Hyde through its own amendment authored by pro-choice California Democrat, Rep. Lois Capps.

Instead, these Democrats, led by Rep. Bart Stupak of Michigan, are pushing for an amendment to restrict womens' access to abortion. And that's not theology, it's politics.

Even so, says Cecile Richards, president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, those attempting to torpedo health care reform over the abortion issue do not represent mainstream religious views. "Pro-choice religious groups and leaders are very mainstream. They are supporting health care reform in the broadest framework," she said in an interview with RD.

While the USCCB has taken a hard line on opposing health care reform (which it claims to support) if abortion isn't sufficiently restricted, it does not represent the views of most Catholics. A recent poll commissioned by Catholics for Choice found that 68% of Catholics disapproved of the Bishops' opposition to health care reform that includes abortion coverage; 56% believed the Bishops shouldn't even be taking a position on the health care reform legislation. The views of the country's 65 million Catholics, said Jon O'Brien, the group's president, "are not represented by 350 members of the USCCB."

Other pro-choice religious leaders are similarly dismayed. Rev. Debra Haffner, president of the Religious Institute on Sexual Morality, Justice, and Healing, reacting to efforts to restrict abortion coverage in health care reform, wrote on her blog, "It is profoundly unjust when the private moral choices of women... are subject to majority vote and political trading. There can be no common ground when votes are allowed to strip people of their existing rights."

Planned Parenthood, said Richards, wants the Hyde Amendment repealed because low-income women should have equal access to abortion services. But, she added, "we're not taking the position that health care reform is the place to relitigate that issue... unfortunately a handful of people would rather bring down health care reform in its entirety than provide the coverage women already have."

Read the entire article on abortion and health care over at Religion Dispatches:

John Gehring is Media Director and Senior Writer for Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good

Catholic progressives are not the only faithful worried about the dangers posed by some U.S. church leaders turning away from civil engagement in the public square and embracing a confrontational style when it comes to politics. The Obama-Notre Dame commencement controversy - along with the shrill tone of our nation's bitter abortion culture wars -- has provoked self-reflection among those bishops who see prudence and reason as a more effective strategy for winning hearts and minds.

In a rare public airing of criticism from an active bishop, Archbishop Michael J. Sheehan of Santa Fe, New Mexico gave a provocative interview recently with the National Catholic Reporter decrying the combative tactics of a few bishops as counterproductive to getting a fair hearing for Catholic values. He lamented the fact that some church leaders even refuse to talk to politicians or deny them communion based on a single issue. Sheehan also disagreed with his brother bishops who lashed out at the University of Notre Dame for inviting President Obama to give the commencement address. According to the National Catholic Reporter, here's what Sheehan told his fellow bishops:

"I don't feel so badly about Obama going [to Notre Dame] because he's our president. I said we've gotten more done on the pro-life issue in New Mexico by talking to people that don't agree with us on everything. We got Governor Richardson to sign off on the abolition of the death penalty for New Mexico, which he was in favor of. We talked to him, and we got him on board and got the support in the legislature. But you know, he's pro-abortion. So? It doesn't mean we sit and wait, that we sit on the sides and not talk to him. We've done so much more by consultation and by building bridges in those areas. And then to make a big scene about Obama - I think a lot of the enemies of the church are delighted to see all that. And I said that I think we don't want to isolate ourselves from the rest of America by our strong views on abortion and the other things. We need to be building bridges, not burning them."

While the media highlights the most controversial religious voices - Cardinal James Stafford describing Barack Obama's election as an "apocalyptic" event  surely made irresistible headlines - most Catholic leaders recognize the need for thoughtful dialogue. Pope Benedict XVI's recent cordial meeting with President Obama at the Vatican offers an example of how the global Catholic Church recognizes politics is the art of the possible rather than a zero-sum game. The Holy Father found common ground between the church's broad international agenda and many of the president's priorities: Middle East peace, nuclear deterrence, poverty alleviation, religious freedom, comprehensive immigration reform, and addressing the dire impact of global climate change. Instead of vilifying Obama on the issue of abortion, Pope Benedict gave Obama a signed copy of "Dignitas Personae," a Vatican document on bioethics. No screaming or spectacle, simply a gracious model of faith and reason at work.

The Catholic Church risks losing credibility in the public square when even a few bishops are perceived to be closely aligned with ideologues pushing narrow agendas. As Archbishop Emeritus of San Francisco John Quinn recently wrote in America magazine: "The condemnation of President Obama and the wider policy shift that represents signal to many thoughtful persons that the bishops have now come down firmly on the Republican side in American politics...The perception of partisanship on the part of the Church is disturbing to many Catholics given the charge of Gaudium et Spes (a seminal document of Vatican II) that the Church must transcend every political structure and cannot sacrifice that transcendence, no matter how important the cause."

Take the polarization over health care reform. While the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has long promoted universal health care and views it as an essential human right, a few bishops sound like they are reading from right-wing talking points when they warn, as two did recently, about a "government socialization of medical services." Another bishop wrote that the "Catholic Church does not teach that government should directly provide health care" and warned, "any legislation that undermines the vitality of the private sector is suspect." This raised some red flags with prominent Catholic theologians and social justice leaders who warned in a statement that these comments only "embolden opponents of reform and distort Church teaching about the essential role government has in serving the common good."

Catholics in America have journeyed a long way from being a despised immigrant minority in a culture that questioned their commitment to democracy. Today, Catholics are leaders in the influential fields of politics, business and journalism. The Catholic Church is a powerful voice for social justice, peace and human dignity around the world. But the church is also at a defining crossroads. The choice between an embattled fundamentalism that hunkers down against hostile threats from a wider culture and the hope of a vibrant faith engaged in constructive dialogue could well define the future of Catholicism.

What would you do if you found out that people in your neighborhood had a 30% higher cancer rate, 25% higher infant mortality rate, and 95% higher cirrhosis of the liver rate than the surrounding area?  Then you found out that hair sample surveys of your neighbors showed that 34% of the population have toxic levels of mercury, 55% are contaminated with lead, 69% with arsenic, 69% with cadmium, 90% with aluminum, and 93% with antimony.  What would you do?  What would you expect your government to do? 

The truth is that this is just a hypothetical for most Americans.  If those problems showed up in New York City or St. Louis, MO, the response would be immediate and overwhelming.  But sadly when those problems began to emerge in Vieques, Puerto Rico, and the Americans affected were very poor, often spoke Spanish, and were living without direct representation in our government, the response has been to try to sweep the problem under the rug. 

Thankfully, TIME Magazine has just broken a story at the national level that has been well known to the people of Puerto Rico for a long time.  Studies by Yale, UGA, San Juan College of Engineers, and many other have proven beyond a doubt that the people are being poisoned by the results of 60+ years of naval weapons testing on the island.  But until this Time piece, there was virtually no attention being paid to this crisis. 

The health situation in Vieques is a black and white moral imperative.  We must address the needs of our fellow citizens down there who are truly the least and last in our society.  Americans will demand action if they understand the facts.  Please spread the word and contact your Congressman.

Click here to read the Time article: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1924101,00.html

And click here for more details and history:  http://americanvaluesnetwork.org/vieques/

Media analyses of President Obama's health care speech were divided on whether he had indicated serious support for a public option or had, instead, cleverly tossed a bone of "recognition" to the progressives while simultaneously demanding that they drop their insistence that the health care reform undercut insurance company profits.

The confusion, for once, is not with the media but with the incoherence of a centrist politics.  Obama wishes to relieve the suffering of Americans, but he does not wish to challenge the profit-uber-alles old "Bottom Line" of the competitive marketplace. Unfortunately for him and for most Americans, he can't have it both ways. FDR recognized that--and so was willing to stand up to the vested interests of the class from which he emerged, not only rhetorically, as Obama is willing to do at some rare moments like his Health Care speech, but in the actual policies he promoted. 

Goodness knows, Obama has tried. He understands the suffering caused by the military-industrial complex's insistence that American security can only come through economic, military and diplomatic domination of the world, and would like to alleviate it. He would prefer a world of peace. But he can't get that without challenging the fundamental equation of security with domination and presenting an alternative, e.g. that security might best be achieved through generosity and genuine caring about the well-being of others around the world, manifested in the kind of G-8 funded Global Marshall Plan that has been introduced into Congress by Keith Ellison (D,Minn). So, instead, he has escalated the war in Afghanistan. 

Obama is aware that unless we can get down to not more than 350 particles per million of carbon emissions that life on the planet is finished. Standing up to the corporate interests that have resisted this and managed to eviscerate his environmental program into a corporate-giveaway called "cap and trade" would require championing a carbon tax that he fears would make him unpopular with the corporate polluters and with the public whose consciousness these polluter are able to shape through the media.

Obama knows that a single-payer program--extending Medicare to everyone--is far more rational than what he has proposed to Congress, but he also believes that eliminating the insurance companies, hospital chains, and other medical profiteers would require a battle beyond his current capacities.

To address any of these problems fully would require a fundamental challenge to the old Bottom Line.  Obama would have to call for a New Bottom Line--to advocate for defining governmental and private corporate policies as "rational," "productive" or "efficient" not only to the extent that they maximize money and power, but also to the extent that they maximize love and caring, kindness and generosity, ethical and ecological sensitivity, enhance our capacities to respond to other human beings as embodiments of the sacred and our capacities to respond to the universe with awe, wonder and radical amazement at the grandeur mystery of the universe.

He actually reached in that direction momentarily at the end of his Health Care speech to Congress by seeming to endorse Senator Ted Kennedy's  "large-heartedness: a concern and regard for the plight of others" which he defined as "our ability to stand in other people's shoes; a recognition that we are all in this together, and when fortune turns against one of us, others are there to lend a helping hand."

Yet over and over again in the details of his plan it was not this large-heartedness that he championed, but a belief in the positive outcomes of the competitive marketplace. What Obama omitted from mention is that the ethos of that marketplace, which rewards selfishness and materialism and "looking out for number one," as the "common sense" that guides individual as well as governmental behavior, is a product of the fear that we cannot count on others, that there will be no one there to take care of us, and that we must therefore maximize our own advantage lest someone else do so for themselves in ways that will permanently hurt or undermine us.