Print This Article

Archbishop Chaput et. al. on Obama's Health Care Reform -
Here We Go Again?
Originally published in E-Leaven, September 4, 2009, Issue 15
by John F. Kane

Despite all the silly and angry noise, it is becoming increasingly clear (at least to me) that the health care reform issue really is complex, and that people of good will both agree and differ in many different ways.

Now our Archbishop (in the Denver Catholic Register on 8/26) and some of his colleagues from Kansas City have weighed in on the national debate. In various ways they all are urging Catholic opposition to at least some aspects of Obama’s proposed reforms. What to make of such episcopal yet political pronouncements becomes again the question. In what follows I offer first an important reminder about the authority of bishops, and then some brief comments on some of the content of these recent pronouncements.

First and foremost, as I see it, is to remind ourselves once again that on questions of political prudence – that is, on judgments about how Catholic moral mandates are best translated into political policy – Catholic bishops have no more authority than any other civic leaders. Or, to put that differently, their views are to be taken with the same combination of respect and polite questioning with which we should greet the views and arguments of other political actors or commentators (including writers in Leaven).

As citizens we owe such a combination of respect and polite questioning to all our fellow citizens. Thus we need to resist the current temptation to engage in polarizing shouting matches. As Catholics, we do owe a special respect to leaders in our community of faith, just as we also owe them a duty of familial correction when we think they are wrong.

One such correction involves the need again to call their attention to their general failure to help Catholics understand the difference between their proper moral authority and their role as civic leaders. At best, it seems, they typically are careful someplace in their pronouncements, to refer to the difference between moral principles and political applications. Rarely, however, do they clearly speak of this in terms of the actual limit that it places on their authority. Yet they surely know that most Catholics will learn of their views from the secular media which has scant understanding of such careful moral and doctrinal distinctions – and thus most Catholics will only hear the simplistic headline about bishops opposing Obama’s reforms.

In face of this media reality I believe that some of our bishops are failing in their proper role as teachers of the faith. They in effect (if carelessly or unintentionally) allow, without clear and constant correction, the “creeping infallibilism” (and thus the false teaching) whereby their political pronouncements are perceived by the faithful as teachings of the faith. Thus some especially faithful Catholics find themselves facing an artificial dilemma of conscience about whether they can disagree with their bishops. Many more Catholics, unfortunately, will simply find another occasion where they disagree with their bishops and will thus grow in increasing skepticism about all church authority. It is the Bishop’s obligation, precisely as the primary teacher of the faith, to help Catholics to understand Catholic teaching about the proper and properly limited authority of the hierarchy.

Now a few comments about some of their political views on health care reform.

First, the bishops (locally and nationally) have been consistent and, in my view, consistently right in holding Obama’s feet to the fire about not changing the present prohibition against using federal monies to fund abortions. So too their strong concern for protection of the consciences of health care workers and protection for Catholic institutions from pressures to perform procedures that are against Catholic teaching. And they are correct to warn (as Cardinal Rigali of Philadelphia, Chairman of the USCCB Committee did in an 8/11 letter to Congress) about the devil in the details whereby some aspects of the present House Bill 3200 would seem to allow federal funding for abortions. Unfortunately, Rigali’s careful letter was reduced by the New York Times to an 8/28 report that “leaders of the [USCCB] have concluded that Democrats’ efforts to carve out abortion coverage are so inadequate that lawmakers should block the entire effort.” That’s my emphasis on the Time’s ambiguous final phrase which is indicative of the media problem I noted above.

Second, about Archbishop Chaput’s views. The main thrust of his 8/26 column, “Health Care and the Common Good,” is to urge the government and all of us to slow down in this push for health care reform. He seems particularly concerned about broadening the power of government bureaucracy to decide (and limit) health care. Let’s be careful and do it right – for the common good of all – is the message. And I’ve come to agree, even though I know (as he must) that “slow down” is the deliberate tactic of many whose goal is to kill any significant reform. Yet Chaput does himself and us a disservice by spending the opening section of his column attacking an editorial in “a British Catholic journal” [actually The Tablet from London]. In his worst feisty fashion he attacks them as foreigners and accuses them of ignorance and cynicism. Then he concludes this section with a broad brush accusation of lies. It’s no surprise, then, that the Times 8/28 article (“Some Roman Catholic Bishops Assail Health Plan”) reduces Chaput’s views to a misquoted phrase suggesting that the entire Obama proposal is “not only imprudent; it is also dangerous.” [NB – the newest DCR, on 9/2, contains a 2nd “Archbishop’s Column” on health care. Rather than rewrite the preceding paragraph, I have added a paragraph below about his further reflections.] Finally, the joint pastoral letter from the two bishops of the diocese of Kansas City-St. Joseph. It’s a complex statement and largely a good read, yet has serious problems of both fact and principle.

The bishops do tell us that they are focusing on principle and know that there is legitimate debate about the application of principles. Yet their entire focus is on only two central principles of Catholic social teaching – the principle of subsidiarity (which warns against overly centralized and socialized systems) and the correlative principle of individual responsibility (for health care) and rights (to make health care decisions). Nowhere do they give any significant emphasis to the corresponding and equally important Catholic principle concerning the legitimate role of government and of centralized systems. Thus the National Catholic Reporter (online on 9/1) is essentially correct in summarizing the pastoral letter under the headline “K.C. bishops sound alarm about ‘socialization’ of health care.“

Concern about centralized government systems is important, yet their unbalanced presentation leads the bishops into a number of common traps. They worry almost entirely about government systems without either adequately acknowledging important and largely successful government systems (in health care and elsewhere) or pointing to the equally problematic reality of large and centralized private/corporate systems (in health insurance). And they present as fact the cliché that strikes me as patently false: “Our country, in some ways, is the envy of people from countries with socialized systems of medical care.” Having lived in Canada and tried to keep up with the debate about European systems of care, I know that folks in such countries have problems with their “socialized systems.” Yet I also know that few, aside from the rich and doctors wanting to get rich, “envy” our system or would trade it for theirs.


And so it goes. The debate is important, even as it is causing a serious slowing of reform that risks killing any real reform. The bishops are jumping in as is their right and duty, but doing so in often clumsy ways that in effect exaggerate their authority and often effectively undercut the larger Catholic episcopal support for reform (go to the USCCB website).

Of course, in writing I risk being too influenced by my general support for Obama’s effort and too blind to its real or potential problems. Yet I can’t help wondering why it is that some bishops are now becoming so vocal and in such seemingly partial ways about the current debate. Is it possible that resentment at Obama’s election, which they clearly opposed, has led them to join the present conservative and Republican pattern of “piling on” to perceived Obama and Democratic weakness? That’s at least the effect even if it isn’t the intention.


Addendum
Some comment on Archbishop Chaput’s latest (9/2) DCR column: First, to read the column click here or google the Denver Catholic Register and click on the top right link to “Archbishop’s Column.” Secondly, I’m happy to note that this writing is the Archbishop at his thoughtful best. It is a very good read and presents a concise but developed reflection on the need for Catholics to bring faith and discipleship to their concerns about the politics of healthcare. There is even a clear rebuke to the kind of suspicion I raise in my original “closing question” just above. Yet I do have one bone to pick with his ideas. Unlike the Kansas bishops, Chaput is clear that there is a legitimate role for government in dealing with crucial issues like health care. Yet with them he emphasizes the principle of subsidiarity; he claims that “government involvement should normally be the choice of last resort”; and he adds that “a proper government role in solving the health-care crisis does not necessarily demand a national public plan.” For what it’s worth, I think he’s simply wrong to say that the principle of subsidiarity means that a government role should normally be “the last resort.” That’s not an accurate understanding of Catholic social teachings. And while he’s correct to say that a government role doesn’t necessarily mean “a national public plan,” his emphasis on this point is seems clearly to suggest the kind of political judgment with which all are perfectly free to disagree. But perhaps I nit-pick. It’s a good column and I suggest you read it.

Hot off the wires, Duquesne law prof lambasts some bishops for doing the destructive work of the Republican Party with their recent comments on health care -- click here.

 

Top of Page