Richard, why not begin by explaining to all of us (not just Catholics) exactly how elective abortion, the intentional destruction of the Life of a Human Individual, is Health Care? How exactly does one preserve the Life of a Human Individual (definition of Person) while destroying the Life of that Human Person, simultaneously? Just to be clear, are you aware that it is a self-evident Truth that our Creator, not "Caesar", has endowed every Human Person with the unalienable Right to Life at the moment that each and every Human Person was created equal in The Eyes of God? Are you aware that our Founding Fathers believed that Governments are instituted by Men to secure our fundamental, unalienable Rights and that without securing our Right to Life there would be no Liberty or Pursuit of Happiness? If you hold these Truths to be self-evident, then clearly you would understand, that these "after shocks" you refer to are a direct result of those who seek to destroy the very foundation upon which this Nation was founded.

There is an elephant in the room with reference to this excellent article and a number of similar that have appeared in Commonweal since the health care debate erupted.  It is the name of Professor Robert George of Princeton and his apparently unique role in advising the US bishops (or a fair number of them). (cf The New York Times Magazine 12.20.2009).  George's role is to offer advice on social policy, obviously from the politically conservative point of view which he espouses; a sophisticated version of Glen Beck's "social justice = communism" screed.  That alliance emphasizes what seems apparent in a number of other ways: the opposition of influential bishops within the USCCB to the legislation under discussion - indeed, their opposition to pretty much anything that originates with President Obama - has at its root the conservative politics that virtually took over American Catholicism in the Reagan years.  It is possible to put the most charitable face on that and attribute their politics to the (ostensibly) righteous concern of achieving a Supreme Court that will overturn Roe v. Wade. Frankly, I doubt it stops there. It seems a gut-level attitude akin to that which kept the church of its day and place in bed with Franco and similar types. In present day America the politics of these men strikes me as being opposed to the Democratic party and all its works on political grounds.  A position I find appalling, and one that leaves me grieving for the church I love and revere and the faith I cherish.

@WF Martin:  How do you reconcile your conspiratorial theory with the USCCB's support for the House version of the bill that included the Stupak provisions?

I would also be interested if you could site any writings from Prof. George to support your assertion that he shares Glenn Beck's position that "social justice = communism?"  Perhaps you should check these things out before plunging into despair and grieving the Church you love.

---

I agree that this debate brought some divisions into relief.  Apparently, the author and Commonweal believe that the solution is for bishops to shut up when they disagree with them are outside of their competence.

I have one question, though.  If  Catholic politicians had fully accepted the USCCB's advice, and insisted on Stupak language in the bill, how would we be worse off?

The difficulty is that the bishops would brook no discussion from or with other Catholic entities on either substantive issues or the political strategies necessary to insure passage of this most important action. Their 'take it or leave it' approach was not helpful nor pastoral. The understanding of most folk is that if the bishops' position was to be the only approach of the church and its institutions that then the legislation would not have passed and would have died in process. Only time will tell ultimately, but the President's signing statement that public funding for abortion was still not allowed must be respected.

@Mike,

Do you have specific incidents in mind where the USCCB would "brook no discussion" and adopted a "take it or leave it" approach?

You acknowledge the signing statement was a positive development.  Would that have happened without the USCCB's engagement?

If  Catholic politicians had fully accepted the USCCB's advice, and insisted on Stupak language in the bill, how would we be worse off?

If Catholic politicians, en bloc, set aside their own personal understanding of the text of this legislation and simply wrote into law particular text because it was the legislative language decreed proper by the USCCB, we as a society and as a faith community would be much worse off.

As a person who has professional responsibilities to analyze legislation, my preofessional judgment is that the USCCB analysis is incorrect.  I carefully read and considered their analysis, but no more than Galileo could, can I set aside what I have observed in my professional field because some Church authorities deem otherwise.

Gaillardetz doesn't like it when "religious communities" and the CHA face criticism for their public positions.  If, as he claims, authority attenuates the further one goes from the episcopate, then one should ask what the authority is of these "religious communities" (the CHA?) that Gaillardetz references?  If one is free to oppose the bishops, how much more freedom does one have to oppose the CHA or these "religious communities" based on their remote position from authority. Is criticism of the CHA by the CNS the best that he can come up with to document "harsh and unwarranted punitive measures"?

The 800lb. gorilla that Mr. Gaillardetz fails to recognize is that these "religious communities" who supported the legislation are also content with contraception, abortion, and other positions that are in opposition to episcopal authority that reside CLOSE to revealed truth.

Resepctfully, this is yet another of Mr. Gaillardetz's fancy rants about why we are free to ignore the bishops but dare not criticize the thin-skin of those who choose to do so in public.

"There is an elephant in the room." No doubt it is not just some Catholics who fail to see that elephant. How can a Country that has been founded on the Truths that are self-evident and endowed to every one of us from our Creator, be complicit in the act of elective abortion which destroys the Life of an innocent Human Person, WITHOUT destroying the very foundation upon which that Country was created?

@kurt,

Do you think it would have been possible to construct a law that would have advanced the common good, and passed the USCCB's muster?

In other words, would the House bill that included the Stupak language have advanced the common good?