The Cathoholic

Catholic Church's Healthcare Debate/War

Capital Hill has endured months of wrangling over health care reform. Now the debate has moved to the Catholic Church, as we face the cathartic moment of an extended, deeply frustrating political drama. As this battle within the Church plays out in real time, a friend of mine who works at the highest levels of "Catholic health care" wrote this message:

"The Church and shadow-Church and the Magisterium and parallel-magisterium are finally, after 45 years, on public display with a clarity that no Catholic can ignore.  If the health bill passes, with "Catholic health care" support, we will have moral crisis the likes of which we have not seen since slavery since every Catholic will be paying to provide abortion."

From the beginning, the U.S. bishops wanted to make universal health insurance a reality. That was clear. They offered just a handful of preconditions: no federal funding of abortion and robust conscience protections. President Obama said he would honor those concerns. The hierarchy was heartened by the Stupak amendment, which imposed an outright ban on federal funding of abortions. The Senate chose a different path. More wrangling, more closed door meetings. By last Friday, the Democratic party leadership walked away from negotiations with Stupak, and the USCCB had to walk away from a tempting, if flawed solution to the mounting red ink that has forced the closing of many Catholic hospitals throughout the country.

Then Sister Carol Keehan, the president and CEO of the Catholic Health Association backed the Senate bill, a move that prompted Archbishop Charles Chaput, O.F.M.Cap. of Denver, the USCCB President, Cardinal Francis George of Chicago, and Archbishop Dolan of New York to reaffirm the USCCB position--and Cardinal George explicitly  took  aim at Sister Keehan's stance. A few days pass, and two House Democrat holdouts signal their willingness to climb on board the Obamacare train.

Yesterday, the Leadership Conference of Women Religious, already smarting from Rome's decision to launch an apostolic visitation that will review the practices of progressive-minded U.S.women's congregations, issued a statement of support for the Senate bill. Will the statement provide cover for a few more Democrats to back the Senate bill? We'll know the answer to that question very shortly.

Today, the orthodox Council of Major Superiors of Women Religious  jumped into the fray with a statement backing the U.S. bishops as the authoritative voice for the Catholic Church.  Meanwhile,  the USCCB has issued yet another statement that provides further ammunition for pro-life opponents of Obamacare.

I've posted the USCCB response in full below:

U.S. BISHOPS PROVIDE RESOURCES EXPLAINING FLAWS IN SENATE HEALTH CARE BILL  WASHINGTON—The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) has made available several new resources explaining its calls for essential changes to the Senate health care reform bill. In a March 15 statement, Cardinal Francis George of Chicago, President of the USCCB, said that the U.S. bishops would, regretfully, have to oppose the final bill if these changes were not made.             The resources are available at: www.usccb.org/healthcare             Among them is an analysis of the abortion funding provisions of the Senate health care bill that highlights the bishops’ objections (www.usccb.org/healthcare/030410facts.pdf). Two pieces respond to recent criticisms of the bishops’ position on the health care bill, namely criticisms from Timothy Stoltzfus Jost of Washington and Lee University Law School (www.usccb.org/healthcare/jost-response.pdf) and the other regarding the funding of abortion at community health centers (www.usccb.org/healthcare/communityhealthcenters.pdf).             With so much of the health care debate focusing on the nature of the legal “status quo” of federal abortion funding, the page also features a backgrounder on current federal policy on abortion funding (www.usccb.org/prolife/issues/healthcare/abortion_funding_102309.pdf) and an analysis of the House health care bill’s Stupak Amendment (www.usccb.org/healthcare/StupakAmendmentFactsheet.pdf). Update: The USCCB just issued a sharply worded  "clarification," responding to a statement issued by the religious lobbing group, NETWORK, which sent a letter to every member of the U.S. Congress endorsing the Senate bill and purported to represent  tens of thousands of women religious. The USCCB clarification is offered in full here: "Washington—A recent letter from Network, a social justice lobby of sisters, grossly overstated whom they represent in a letter to Congress that was also released to media.  Network’s letter, about health care reform, was signed by a few dozen people, and despite what Network said, they do not come anywhere near representing 59,000 American sisters. The letter had 55 signatories, some individuals, some groups of three to five persons.  One endorser signed twice.  There are 793 religious communities in the United States.  The math is clear. Network is far off the mark." Most unusual! Hard to know where this debate/war is headed. Will it be papered over, once the dust settles? Or will the fissures revealed in these statements erupt into something more definitive--that much discussed, long anticipated schism?     Sister Mary Ann Walsh Director of Media Relations United States Conference of Catholic Bishops

The Street Stops Here (documentary)

On March 31st, PBS will be airing a  documentary, "The Street Stops Here," about St.Anthony, a Catholic high school in Jersey City that educates inner-city teenagers, some of whom become top basketball players. Their strong work ethic and team spirit come together through the  dynamic influence of their coach, Bob Hurley, Sr.. I heard about the film today and plan to take a look at it soon.The Street Stops Here is based on Hurley, the central figure in the book,  “The Miracle of St. Anthony.” (Update: The film is not based on the book, but takes a fresh look at Coach Bob Hurley, Sr, a new team, and a new season).

It's a slightly strange coincidence, but today the New York Times published a story about a nun at Xavier University who helps to keep their basketball team focused on academics, and obtaining their diploma

The Times front page story begins:
"

( page of 4 )

By some measures, the success of the Xavier men's basketball team rests not with a sharpshooting guard or a ball-hawking forward. Rather, it rests largely with a 5-foot-4, white-haired 77-year-old nun not afraid to rap on dormitory doors or to call players before dawn to ask about missed classes or late assignments.

Xavier, a Jesuit university in Cincinnati, is entering the NCAA tournament seeded sixth in the West Region with a 24-8 record. But Sister Rose Ann Fleming is a perfect 77-0. Since she became the academic adviser for Xavier athletics in 1985, every men's basketball player who has played as a senior has left with a diploma."

UPDATE: Here's my review in the National Catholic Register of The  Street Stops Here. It airs tomorrow, March 31st. check local listings.

Archbishop Dolan of New York: Healthcare Bill "Grave Concern"

Today, as zero hour for Obamacare looms ever closer, Archbishop Dolan of New York added his voice to the growing chorus of opposition to the bill's provisions on abortion funding and conscience protections.

Cardinal George, USCCB President, Rejects Senate Health Bill

Today, hours after Archbishop Chaput issued his broadside against the Senate health care bill, and expressed his frustration with "Catholic" groups that appeared to undercut the Catholic church's united effort to defend the unborn, Cardinal George issued his own compelling statement, printed in full below:

PRESIDENT OF U.S. BISHOPS SAYS COST IS TOO HIGH, LOSS IS TOO GREAT FOR HEALTH CARE BILL NOT TO BE REVISED

The Catholic Bishops of the United States have long and consistently advocated for the reform of the American health care system. Their experience in health care and in Catholic parishes has acquainted them with the anguish of mothers who are unable to afford prenatal care, of families unable to ensure quality care for their children, and of those who cannot obtain insurance because of preexisting conditions.

Throughout the discussion on health care over the last year, the bishops have advocated a bipartisan approach to solving our national health care needs. They have urged that all who are sick, injured or in need receive necessary and appropriate medical assistance, and that no one be deliberately killed through an expansion of federal funding of abortion itself or of insurance plans that cover abortion. These are the provisions of the long standing Hyde amendment, passed annually in every federal bill appropriating funds for health care; and surveys show that this legislation reflects the will of the majority of our fellow citizens. The American people and the Catholic bishops have been promised that, in any final bill, no federal funds would be used for abortion and that the legal status quo would be respected.

However, the bishops were left disappointed and puzzled to learn that the basis for any vote on health care will be the Senate bill passed on Christmas Eve. Notwithstanding the denials and explanations of its supporters, and unlike the bill approved by the House of Representatives in November, the Senate bill deliberately excludes the language of the Hyde amendment. It expands federal funding and the role of the federal government in the provision of abortion procedures. In so doing, it forces all of us to become involved in an act that profoundly violates the conscience of many, the deliberate destruction of unwanted members of the human family still waiting to be born.

What do the bishops find so deeply disturbing about the Senate bill? The points at issue can be summarized briefly.  The status quo in federal abortion policy, as reflected in the Hyde Amendment, excludes abortion from all health insurance plans receiving federal subsidies. In the Senate bill, there is the provision that only one of the proposed multi-state plans will not cover elective abortions – all other plans (including other multi-state plans) can do so, and receive federal tax credits. This means that individuals or families in complex medical circumstances will likely be forced to choose and contribute to an insurance plan that funds abortions in order to meet their particular health needs.

Further, the Senate bill authorizes and appropriates billions of dollars in new funding outside the scope of the appropriations bills covered by the Hyde amendment and similar provisions. As the bill is written, the new funds it appropriates over the next five years, for Community Health Centers for example (Sec. 10503), will be available by statute for elective abortions, even though the present regulations do conform to the Hyde amendment. Regulations, however, can be changed at will, unless they are governed by statute.

Additionally, no provision in the Senate bill incorporates the longstanding and widely supported protection for conscience regarding abortion as found in the Hyde/Weldon amendment. Moreover, neither the House nor Senate bill contains meaningful conscience protection outside the abortion context. Any final bill, to be fair to all, must retain the accommodation of the full range of religious and moral objections in the provision of health insurance and services that are contained in current law, for both individuals and institutions.

This analysis of the flaws in the legislation is not completely shared by the leaders of the Catholic Health Association. They believe, moreover, that the defects that they do recognize can be corrected after the passage of the final bill. The bishops, however, judge that the flaws are so fundamental that they vitiate the good that the bill intends to promote. Assurances that the moral objections to the legislation can be met only after the bill is passed seem a little like asking us, in Midwestern parlance, to buy a pig in a poke.

What is tragic about this turn of events is that it needn’t have happened. The status quo that has served our national consensus and respected the consciences of all with regard to abortion is the Hyde amendment. The House courageously included an amendment applying the Hyde policy to its Health Care bill passed in November. Its absence in the Senate bill and the resulting impasse are not an accident. Those in the Senate who wanted to purge the Hyde amendment from this national legislation are obstructing the reform of health care.

This is not quibbling over technicalities. The deliberate omission in the Senate Bill of the necessary language that could have taken this moral question off the table and out of play leaves us still looking for a way to meet the President’s and our concern to provide health care for those millions whose primary care physician is now an emergency room doctor. As Pope Benedict told Ambassador to the Holy See Miguel H. Diaz when he presented his credentials as the United States government’s representative to the Holy See, there is “an indissoluble bond between an ethic of life and every other aspect of social ethics.”

Two basic principles, therefore, continue to shape the concerns of the Catholic bishops: health care means taking care of the health needs of all, across the human life span; and the expansion of health care should not involve the expansion of abortion funding and of polices forcing everyone to pay for abortions. Because these principles have not been respected, despite the good that the bill under consideration intends or might achieve, the Catholic bishops regretfully hold that it must be opposed unless and until these serious moral problems are addressed.

update; The Vatican newspaper published an article identifying the U.S.bishops as the authoritative voice for the Church on the health care reform debate--an implicit repudiation of any attempt to provide moral equivalence between the USCCB and the Catholic Health Association.

Archbishop Chaput Takes on Senate Healthcare Bill

As Capital Hill enters the final stretch of the Obamacare legislative marathon, Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver has targeted the Senate bill, which has yet to gain the requisite House votes, according to the House Majority Whip who made the rounds on media news shows last weekend. I've included the entire text of Chaput's statement, and the National Catholic Register will soon post my story on the subject. But it's worth noting here that if the Senate bill fails to get sufficient votes from House members, it will be due, in part, to the amazing perseverance of political and Catholic leaders like Rep Bart Stupak, the USCCB's Richard Doerflinger, and pro-life bishops like Archbishop Chaput.  As Chaput notes in his statement below, the U.S. bishops have pressed for health care reform for decades, and do not view it as a partisan issue. But the USCCB will not support any legislation that violates the right to life of the unborn. Full Stop.Below are statements addressing the remaining health care reform issues from Archbishop Chaput, followed by a statement from Cardinal George:

CATHOLICS, HEALTH CARE AND THE SENATE’S BAD BILL

By Charles J. Chaput, O.F.M. Cap.

Archbishop of Denver

 

Denver Catholic Register, 3.17.10

Web release, 3.15.10

 The Senate version of health-care reform currently being forced ahead by congressional leaders and the White House is a bad bill that will result in bad law.  It does not deserve, nor does it have, the support of the Catholic bishops of our country.  Nor does the American public want it.  As I write this column on March 14, the Senate bill remains gravely flawed.  It does not meet minimum moral standards in at least three important areas: the exclusion of abortion funding and services; adequate conscience protections for health-care professionals and institutions; and the inclusion of immigrants.  

Groups, trade associations and publications describing themselves as “Catholic” or “prolife” that endorse the Senate version – whatever their intentions – are doing a serious disservice to the nation and to the Church, undermining the witness of the Catholic community; and ensuring the failure of genuine, ethical health-care reform.  By their public actions, they create confusion at exactly the moment Catholics need to think clearly about the remaining issues in the health-care debate.  They also provide the illusion of moral cover for an unethical piece of legislation.

 As we enter a critical week in the national health-care debate, Catholics across northern Colorado need to remember a few simple facts.

First, the Catholic bishops of the United States have pressed for real national health-care reform in this country for more than half a century.  They began long before either political party or the public media found it convenient.  That commitment hasn’t changed.  Nor will it.

Second, the bishops have tried earnestly for more than seven months to work with elected officials to craft reform that would serve all Americans in a manner respecting minimum moral standards.  The failure of their effort has one source.  It comes entirely from the stubbornness and evasions of certain key congressional leaders, and the unwillingness of the White House to honor promises made by the president last September.

Third, the health-care reform debate has never been merely a matter of party politics.  Nor is it now.  Democratic Congressman Bart Stupak and a number of his Democratic colleagues have shown extraordinary character in pushing for good health-care reform while resisting attempts to poison it with abortion-related entitlements and other bad ideas that have nothing to do with real “health care.”  Many Republicans share the goal of decent health-care reform, even if their solutions would differ dramatically.  To put it another way, few persons seriously oppose making adequate health services available for all Americans.  But God, or the devil, is in the details -- and by that measure, the current Senate version of health-care reform is not merely defective, but also a dangerous mistake.

The long, unpleasant and too often dishonest national health-care debate is now in its last days.  Its most painful feature has been those “Catholic” groups that by their eagerness for some kind of deal undercut the witness of the Catholic community and help advance a bad bill into a bad law. Their flawed judgment could now have damaging consequences for all of us.

Do not be misled.  The Senate version of health-care reform currently being pushed ahead by congressional leaders and the White House -- despite public resistance and numerous moral concerns -- is bad law; and not simply bad, but dangerous.  It does not deserve, nor does it have, the support of the Catholic bishops in our country, who speak for the believing Catholic community.  In its current content, the Senate version of health-care legislation is not “reform.”  Catholics and other persons of good will concerned about the foundations of human dignity should oppose it. 

Update: Since my article about the final phase of health care reform negotiaions appeared online, Cardinal Francis George, the USCCB president, has issued his own statement that expresses great regret for the Democrats' path on health care reform and concludes that the bishops have given up any hope that it can still be salvaged in any form they can support. Cardinal George notes that the Catholic Health Association does not share the USCCB's stance.

 

Legion of Christ: Judgment Day?

Today, AOL News reported that the five bishops appointed as apostolic visitors of the Legion of Christ are due to submit their reports tomorrow, March 15th. The AOL News story mentions two potentially explosive issues: the late Pope John Paul II's apparent unwillingness to thoroughly address public accusations of abuse leveled against the Legion's founder,  and the possibility that other senior members of the order may have engaged in sexual abuse. Critics of both the Vatican's response to the original charges, and the order's slow-moving response in the wake of the founder's death--when it was acknowledged that he had fathered a child with a long-time mistress--have already suggested that these two issues created a roadblock to a transparent review of the order. Last week,Time Magazine addressedthe late pontiff's strong support for the Legion in a story dealing with a more recent accusation against the founder.

Still, despite all the lurid details that continue to surface in the media, It could take months before the reports issued by of the five  apostolic visitators might prompt an official Vatican statement confirming some kind of official course of action.  Over the last year, Vatican insiders have speculated that the Holy See might act to close the Legion, or initiate a  "reforming" that would establish a new charism for the remaining members. But some seasoned Vatican watchers contend that Rome will move very slowly--if ever--to directly intervene in the Legion's affairs.

Haiti: Missionaries of Charity, Jesuit Refugee Services

Ever since I left Haiti--three days before the January 12th earthquake leveled most of Port-au-Prince--it has rarely been out of my thoughts. Meanwhile, the Haitian people, and a vast number of foreign governemnts, NGOs, and Catholic church groups have engaged in a vast struggle to address the immediate needs of food, shelter and medical care, while also plotting a future course for the Western hemisphere's most impoverished nation. There has been a good deal of debate regarding the best path forward--from resettling more than a million homeless Haitians out of the capital, which still lies mostly in rubble, to rebuilding essential social and economic institutions. Religious orders in Haiti are playing a vital role in  shaping both the short-term and long-term strategy. Here's my up-date in the National Catholic Register that provides a glimpse of life on the ground in Haiti. The scenes and stories are heart-breaking and inspiring. It didn't get in the story, but one priest who is featured in the article said that the Haitian people, who have nothing and thus have never learned to become attachment to material possessions inspire him with their joy and hope. That priest needed some inspiration: everything he had worked to build, over two decades, for the people of a poor and dangerous slum is now in rubble.

The Road and The Book of Eli

I don't know whether I would have enjoyed the film adaptation of The Road, had I not read the book first. Cormac McCarthy's deeply stirring prose stays with you, and when you see the film, it's easy to replay the language of the book in your head. In any case, I'd strongly recommend the book--though it's not for the faint-hearted), and encourage friends to see the film with some qualifications. More recently, The Book of Eli was released, and it also sought to present a post-apocalyptic world, in part, through the eyes of faith. Unfortunately, The Book of Eli didn't have a great book propping up the audience's expectation. Here's my commentary in the National Catholic Register that looks at the very similar themes addressed in both films.

Healthcare Reform: Rep. Stupak & Abortion Funding

Yesterday I listened to an NPR interview with Rep Bart Stupak, the leader of House Democrats opposing abortion funding for health care reform. The NPR interviewer reminded Stupak that both the White House and the Secretary of Health and Human Services insisted that the Senate bill maintained the status quo (ie. no federal funding of abortions). Stupak begged to differ. Then the NPR interviewer asked him if he was prepared to deny health benefits to 30 million uninsured people, just to prevent the funding of abortion. He replied that that some principles were worth fighting for.

It was frustrating to listen to the Stupak interview, as the questions repeated  the Democratic Party leadership's claim that the Senate's health care reform bill doesn't really depart from the Hyde amendment. However, today, perhaps in reaction to Stupak's principled stance, both the New York Times and the Washington Post  published an AP wire service  article on the abortion impasse that actually explained the source of the confusion--or whatever you want to call it.  

For anyone still puzzled by the "he said, she said" back and forth between pro-lifers and Democratic party leaders, here are the relevant passages from the AP article:

"Government policy on taxpayer funding for abortion has been settled for years, following the Hyde amendment.

But the Democratic health care bills altered the balance by creating a new stream of federal money to help working households afford health insurance premiums. Those funds were not subject to the Hyde restrictions.

The House responded by adopting Stupak's amendment, although it was opposed by most Democrats. It says no health insurance plan receiving federal subsidies can pay for abortion, except under the three exceptions already allowed by federal law. Women who want insurance coverage for abortion would have to buy a separate policy.

The Senate bill took a different approach. It says health insurance plans operating in a new consumer marketplace can cover abortion, but it may only be paid for with private premiums. Money from federal subsidies would have to be strictly segregated from any funds used to pay for abortion. Consumers would have to write two checks to their insurance plan, one for the regular premium, the other for abortion coverage.

Leading abortion opponents - including the nation's Catholic bishops - say the Senate language is a fig leaf, opening the way for government subsidies for abortion. They're urging defeat of the health care bill unless it takes Stupak's approach."

For the final word, here's Charmaine Yoest of Americans United for Life in today's online  Wall Street Journal:

"In November, presidential adviser David Axelrod, on CNN's "State of the Union," also talked around the Hyde Amendment, saying that the president "doesn't believe this bill should change the status quo as it relates to the issue of abortion." But then Mr. Axelrod claimed that "this shouldn't be a debate about abortion" before concluding that there were discussions in Congress about "how to adjust [the abortion language bill] accordingly."

Apparently, his definition of "adjust" means opening up the spigot for the abortion lobby. The president's latest proposal mirrors legislation that has passed the Senate, which doesn't include a Hyde Amendment, and would inevitably establish abortion as a fundamental health-care service for the following reasons:

• It would change existing law by allowing federally subsidized health-care plans to pay for abortions and could require private health-insurance plans to cover abortion.

• It would impose a first-ever abortion tax—a separate premium payment that will be used to pay for elective abortions—on enrollees in insurance plans that covers abortions through newly created government health-care exchanges.

• And it would fail to protect the rights of health-care providers to refuse to participate in abortions.

The president's plan goes further than the Senate bill on abortion by calling for spending $11 billion over five years on "community health centers," which include Planned Parenthood clinics that provide abortions.

The bottom line is that the president wants to deploy words that sound soothing like "balance" and "adjust." Meanwhile, the courts are rendering precedent with stark words like "mandatory." "

D.C.Catholic Charities Ends Spousal Benefits

Today, the Washington Post and local blogs reported that Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Washington has  informed employees that spousal benefits will no longer be offered to future employees or the future spouses of present employees. The agency's new policy comes in the wake of the D.C. Council's recent vote to approve same-sex marriage--a move that becomes law tomorrow. Archbishop Donald Wuerl of Washington D.C. had warned late last year that the D.C. council's excessively narrow religious exemption could make it impossible for Catholic Charities to be in compliance with city contracts. In February, Catholic Charities closed its foster care and adoption services. Critics of Archbishop Wuerl's position had argued that he should adopt the so-called "San Francisco option" that provided health benefits to one other person residing in an employee's household. Approved by then Archbishop Levada of San Francisco, the policy sought to avoid any explicit support for same-sex civil unions that had been approved by the city. However, Archbishop Wuerl contended that the legal and political context in the District was different: the council's language requiring all city contractors to be in compliance with the new same-sex marriage law would require the church to affirm such unions--a move that would contradict Catholic teaching on marriage.

Here's my piece on the issue in the National Catholic Register, published a few days later. By then Chief Justice John Roberts had refused a request by opponants of gay marriage to stay the  law. Yesterday, jubilant gay and lesbian couples lined up yesterday to get their marriage licenses.