Bishops: Pass the [darn] bill?
From Bishop William F. Murphy, Cardinal Daniel DiNardo, and Bishop John Wester, to Congress:
On behalf of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), we strongly urge Members of Congress to come together and recommit themselves to enacting genuine health care reform that will protect the life, dignity, consciences, and health of all. The health care debate, with all its political and ideological conflict, seems to have lost its central moral focus and policy priority, which is to ensure that affordable, quality, life-giving care is available to all. Now is not the time to abandon this task, but rather to set aside partisan divisions and special interest pressures to find ways to enact genuine reform.
David Gibson reports at Politics Daily. Mark Silk says, “Color me unimpressed.”
Too little? And/or: Too late?
Where were they months ago? They are clueless. So disappointing. We need catholic leadership; not administrators; and especially clueless administrators.
The Japanese are famous for honoring controversial figures, but only after they are well and truly dead.
Somehow this reminds me of that.
On the other hand, might it help get the Senate to do what the House has said it will do if only the Senate will do what the House wants it to do? Nothing’s simple.
“Where were they months ago? ”
They’ve been there all along.
http://www.usccb.org/healthcare/
I don’t think they are referring to reconciliation. (No pun intended.)
Hm, reading the letter it seems the bishops have the same misreading (cf Boudway) of the abortion provisions in the Senate bill as Rep. Stupak.
I think the bishops have the best of intentions, but they lack the courage to face down the loud and ruly evangelical-aligned right. It started with the furore over a non-existent FOCA and degenerated into a frenzy over Obama at Notre Dame (and where are they now that Legatus is giving George Bush, of all people, a “pro-life” award?). By the time healthcare came along, it was pretty obvious to everybody that George and his lackies were intent on destroying this healthcare reform effort, primarily on libertarian grounds – precisely the grounds opposed by the Church. And to do so, they used the unborn as a political weapon – as they have been doing with great success for over a quarter century now.
Abortion has always been marginal to this reform effort. Everybody knew that. If abortion was covered by private insurance, and you expand private insurance dramatically, then some of these plans will cover abortion. The relationship between taxpayer dollars and the funding of a particular abortion is remote, and the reformers made every effort to make it as remote as possible. For sure, Stupak is better than Nelson, but not that much better, and certainly not better enough to derail the alternative. But that is what the Georgians always wanted. They wanted to kill the reform. They were honest about it. Unlike the USCCB, they did not even support the House version, with the ironclad Stupak language. No, their loyalty was instead to the American cult of individualism, which objected to forcing people to purchase health insurance, and especially to forcing the healthy to subsidize the sick, either directly through community rating, or indirectly through budgetary subsidies.
I only wish the bishops had the courage to face down this crowd, instead of cowing before them.
The general view is that in liturgy George speaks for the Vatican,i.e., the Pope. Do you think that this is also the case in the matter of health care?
I think MM means Robby George, whereas I assume you’re referring to His Eminence Cardinal George, Joseph. But it’s possible I’m the one who’s confused… So hard to keep up with who’s calling the shots these days!
I only wish the bishops had the courage not to worry what Rome thinks or what will get them promoted to a better post.
Remember the promotion of Archbishop Raymond Burke. The US bishops are the best in the entire episcopal college at reading the signs of the ecclesiastical times.
“The general view is that in liturgy George speaks for the Vatican,i.e., the Pope. Do you think that this is also the case in the matter of health care?”
I heard Cardinal George speak about healthcare this past weekend, and yes, I do think he and the Vatican are in accord on it.
It’s ironic, or something, that the Democrats are now trying to figure out a way to get the House to pass the Senate bill, whereas if only the Senate could have found a way to pass the House bill, then the bishops would have been quite happy and very supportive of the legislation.
From here it looks like too little too late and that Morning’s Minion has hit the nail on the head.
The collective body of U.S. bishops lost its credibility with the sexual abuse crisis, its rubberstamping of awful liturgical texts, its focus on abortion in the healthcare debate, ad nauseum.
I say, Throw ‘em out and start anew!
One would think that the only place the bishops had to go was up. “When there is no vision, the people perish.”
“its focus on abortion in the healthcare debate”
Abortion is in the healthcare plan? I thought we were assured that the healthcare plan did not provide for abortion? That must have been a lie from the start.
Kudos for the Catholic bishops as they continue their multi-decade effort to pass comprehensive health care reform that recognizes health care as a universal right and has special protections for the vulnerable: regardless of age or legal status.
Most on the comments here are criticizing them for not being involved enough in trying to pass the bills (which displays an almost complete and even willful lack of perspective), but interestingly many on here this blog also criticized them for being TOO involved in the process of trying to get a bill that would pass and, as much as it was practically possible, also reflected their values. Tough crowd.
Btw, I find it remarkable that Mark Silk and others are trying to claim that, “Had the bishops not insisted on their whole package of pro-life measures, health care reform would have been enacted by now.” The House seems unlikely to pass the Senate bill, not because of abortion, but because of the lack of a public option and because of how the bill is paid for.
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2010/01/27/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry6148164.shtml
Thank you Charlie, for condemning all of us while triumphing the American hierarchy. I am sure you know a lot that we don’t know.
Bill, I disagreed with the perspective of those who have commented on here so far and have defended the bishops on the issue at hand…along with Michael Sean Winters who, I’m sure, you’ve read as well:
http://www.americamagazine.org/blog/blog.cfm?blog_id=2
Even on the basis on what virtually everyone who comments on this blog knows (again, it has been the basis of criticism from some here that the bishops are TOO involved), I can’t imagine how the criticism in these comments is justified.
There are things for which they should be criticized, no question, but the claim that they didn’t work hard enough to pass the bill (their lobbying efforts were tireless for passage…and have been for decades) or that they sold out to the right (the bill itself is abhorred by the right…as were their strong attempts to get coverage for undocumented immigrants) beggars belief.
I don’t think the bishops worked especially hard to pass the legislation. I’m on the e-mail list for the Catholic Advocacy Network which is the advocacy arm of the NYS Catholic Conference. Last Fall, when the bill was in play in the House, I received a blast e-mail asking me to urge my legislators to either pass the Stupak Amendment or kill the bill. When the bill was passed with Stupak, I received a blast congratulatory e-mail that celebrated the fact that their advocacy just successfully prevented abortion funding; not a word in the e-mail that this ground-breaking health care legislation was passed which would have a tremendous impact on millions and millions of lives, just a message that there would be no abortion funding.
Like some others on this post, I think their statement now is a day late and a dollar short.
It is not too late to come together to enact genuine Health Care reform that will “protect the Life, dignity, conscience and health of all”.
“Tough crowd”
Yep. If, by definition, the bishops are the problem, then there is no conceivable thing they can say or do that doesn’t somehow result in them being the problem.
Stick to the facts. Both Ms. Baldwin and Ms. Steinfels have correctly outlined some of the contradictory steps and statements of the USCCB and individual bishops over the last 18 months.
Yes, in broad strokes the USCCB supported healthcare as a human right. But, pay attention to the historical facts – look at statements by various bishops and even the USCCB that missed the big picture and focused on abortion. They assumed that reform would happen; will it?
Ms. Steinfels admirably pulls from the NCCB history and their excellent works on poverty and nuclear weapons. Both of these documents revealed a unitied front based on principles; they suggested action; political steps, etc. but did not insist, demand, or overplay their influence in the process. Compare that to the Finns, Chaputs, Burkes, Vasas, etc. of this process.
Knee jerking to either extreme (for or against the bishops) misses the point; reveals a lack of knowledge about the USCCB and their statements over the last 18 months; reveals a lack of analysis.
Sorry, this is not a proud moment for the USCCB. Many earlier blogs used the term “Republican Catholic Bishops” instead of the RC bishops. Rude – possibly; but it hit the nail on the head in too many episcopal cases.
Sure, Bill D., let’s stick to the facts. Here are a whole slew of them:
http://www.usccb.org/sdwp/national/health1.shtml
Sure, you can pick out individual bishops who are in bed with the right. My point was not about them, nor about the NYCCB, but about the USCCB. And they certainly did not just write letters…they were tirelessly involved behind the scenes attempting to draft compromises on everything from Stupak to the Menedez amendments.
And they’ve taken heavy fire from both the extremes of the right and the left in doing so.
Charles – here is another view that does not come from the USCCB itself (not exactly objective):
http://www.religiondispatches.org/blog/2230/catholic_bishops_now_push_health_care_bill_they_held_up/
Methinks Charles doth protest too much pro Bishops, I suspect because his view of health care reform is very much aligned with theirs.
But many think that:USCCB and both as a collective boidy and as individuals have been too long in conjunction with the political right and they expect it to get worse.
It’s less than clear that the common good they espouse is the common good many see and have seen in the health care issue.
The negative sentiments towards the episcopacy here are, in my opinion, gentle from the the perspective of many educated Catholics.
So to summarize: if health care reform doesn’t pass, it’s actually the bishops’ fault.
I also blame them for global warming, baseball’s steroids problems and the cancellation of Ugly Betty. But on the positive side, I give them credit for Domino’s Pizza’s new, tastier crust.