The High Ground

There is an important proposed regulation open to public comment on the Regulations.gov website. It is entitled “Ensuring that Department of Health and Human Services Funds Do Not Support Coercive or Discriminatory Policies or Practices In Violation of Federal Law” and has caused some controversy since President Bush directed the Dept Of Health and Human Services to draft the regulation. If you are interested, you may view the document here. Briefly, it provides protection under federal law to health care providers who do not wish to provide services that are contrary to their religious or moral beliefs. While one could argue that the Constitution already provides such protection, current practices and political ideology requires safeguards that one conversant with the Founding Documents would consider to be superfluous.

As I was writing my comment, I was thinking of the past two posts – both dealing with religion and politics. So, I have decided to post my comments to the HHS panel here as well. As always, I hope you enjoy reading it!

Thank you for providing a forum for this very important issue. I am writing to argue that the government supports the freedom of health care providers following their conscience. As much as I would like to see certain practices abolished, this is not the intent of my argument or of this proposed regulation. The patient seeking birth control, abortions, or other procedures contrary to a health care provider’s religious or moral beliefs are not being denied service, they would simply receive service from those who don’t object. This is the intent of this policy, and it is an acceptable compromise.

 The most immediate argument is that as Americans, we are protected by the Constitution from interference from the State regarding our religious beliefs and practices. Contrary to the interpretation of many, a careful reading of the First Amendment clearly mandates that the government cannot interfere with the religious practice of the populace. The very nature of the Constitution, and specifically the Bill of Rights, is to place boundaries on the power of government. not the people. Indeed, the Constitution repeatedly affirms that sovereignty rests solely in the hands of the people, and that we cede certain freedoms as stated and limited in the language of the Constitution. To suggest that an individual’s practices based on religion is unconstitutional is absurd. Only an activist judiciary would pervert the substance of the Constitution in such a manner. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has taken to this practice increasingly over the past several decades. I urge the Executive branch of government to be mindful of its obligations. It is charged to protect eh citizens from the tyranny of government.  to compel health care providers to provide medical treatments and products that are contrary to their religious beliefs is itself a violation of the Constitution – as my discussion has clearly articulated.

 At one time, physicians used to take the Hippocratic Oath, although I understand that this practice has fallen out of favor. There are still many health care providers who remember and believe in the passage that roughly translates as ‘do no harm’. There are many health care providers who believe that abortificants and surgical abortions are indeed doing harm to a life – the unborn child in the womb. While the medical community may continue to debate and seek the scientific threshold of life, for the Roman Catholic physician, the answer lies in the Magisterium – the teachings of the Church. Life begins at conception. Pope Pius IX stated this ex cathedra in 1869, and it has been part of the Catholic Canon sine – although writings as early as the first century condemn abortion. How can the state require health care providers to use techniques, pharmaceuticals, and practices that violate the rights of the unborn child?  This ethical argument dovetails nicely with the first argument. It is not only morally wrong, it is a violation of First Amendment rights.

 Finally, the cost to society would be catastrophic. It is not commonly recognized, but the Roman Catholic Church provides a significant amount of health care in this nation. According to the USCCB – the United States Council of Catholic Bishops – the Roman Catholic Church operates – and largely funds – over 404 health care centers and some 1,500 homes. Twenty states report that more than 20% of their citizens are admitted to Roman Catholic hospitals. Roman Catholic hospitals report over 15.4 million emergency room visits. The service that Roman Catholic hospitals provides is significant and could not easily be replaced by local, state, or federal governments. Catholic Charities provides services from addiction recovery, shelters, psychiatric counseling, and other assorted health services that surpass government services in some states. To force Roman Catholic health care providers to administer treatments that are contrary to our moral and religious beliefs is criminal. I – and many other Roman Catholics who support Catholic Charities – would find other used for our money. I could not in good conscience support hospitals and clinics that were providing abortions and other objectionable practices. I think that many bishops would agree. In fact, several have openly stated that without this protection, the may ‘close shop;’. I don’t see how state and local governments could absorb the crushing influx of the sick and injured that would no longer be served by Catholic Charities and the Catholic Health Care Association. Not only would the number of patients increase dramatically, millions of patients who are indigent would no longer have their care subsidized by the charity of Roman Catholic Americans who support the good works of he Catholic hospitals.

I live in Connecticut, a state where the Speaker of the General Assembly – a Mr. Amman – threatened the Catholic hospitals over such an issue. I don’t want to see this tactic repeated nationwide – and this experience leads to the final point. On the basis of the constitutional arguments alone, the remedy that is proposed by this regulation should be meaningless and unnecessary. Nowhere in the Constitution does it state that the government – on any level – has the power and authority to force a man or woman to act against their conscience. Indeed, the Constitution expressly limits the power of government and openly asserts its purpose as a bulwark to defend the rights of the sovereign citizen. It is a sign that we live in a nation that has so grossly subverted the wisdom of our founding fathers that I have to take the time to write this letter.

 I urge the Department to accept this regulation, to protect the rights and liberties of physicians and health care providers to practice ethical medicine. No one should be compelled to choose between two mastes. No one should be forced to leave their vocation because of ther moral beliefs. This past week, a Dr. Dean O’Dell argued on national radio that moral and religious beliefs should not be a factor in their practice – anyone who would not provide abortions over issues of conscience should not have entered the medical profession. This it he tyranny of the minority - in this case, one person – seeking to subjugate the moral principles of thousands of men and women who have honed their talents, passions, and God-given gifts to the treatment and care of the sick.

Senator Biden has been tapped as the Democratic Party’s VP nominee. According to the Associated Press and the Obama campaign, his selection will ‘cover the Catholic base’. But is this true? Should it be?

Senator Biden has – uncharitably – threatened to “to shove his rosary down the throat of the next Republican who tells him he isn’t religious.” (AP story). Well, sir, I have a problem with that on two counts. The rosary is not an object to be subjected to such use – you should know better than that. The more pressing issue is the imperative need to be in communion with the Holy See, even if you are a politician. Actually, ESPECIALLY if you are a politician.

Being a Roman Catholic is not a birthright. While many are born into the families who are Roman Catholic, are ushered through the sacraments, and perhaps attend church regularly, this is not sufficient. Every week in Mass, Roman Catholics affirm their willingness to abide with the teachings of the church. Many don’t, and for the private citizen, this is a matter between them, their confessor, and God. For the public citizen, this is not the case. Politicians and public officials who are Roman Catholic must – I repeat MUST – act in a manner consistent with church teachings or they should be denied the Sacraments. One’s faith is not the same as one’s allegiance to a football team; it is not a casual relationship. If you are Roman Catholic, you affirm that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ and that the teachings of the Church are the foundations of our faith. Unfortunately for the politician, words and intent are not enough. Christ calls us to be active in expressing our faith in our daily lives. Indeed, Christ would argue that the two are commingled…or should be.

In America, Roman Catholic politicians have had a long and infamous history. For decades, Roman Catholics were persecuted as having greater loyalty to the Pope than the United States. As late as the 20thcentury, John Kennedy swore publicly that he would never let his faith influence his politics. What a pity. He was perhaps the first – certainly the most famous – of politicians on the national stage who forswore their faith in the name of political expediency. Joseph Biden is the latest.

As early as the first century, the Church forbade abortion. The Didache, also known as the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, clearly addresses this issue. Pope Pius IX in 1869 declared that the doctrine of ‘fetus animus’ and ‘fetus inanimus’ to be no longer valid. Life begins at conception. Perhaps Senator Biden was not present when Pope John Paul II articulated the Church’s commitment to this policy.

“I do not hesitate to proclaim before you and before the world that all human life—from the moment of conception and through all subsequent states—is sacred, because human life is created in the image and likeness of God. Nothing surpasses the greatness or dignity of a human person. . . If a person’s right to life is violated at the moment in which he is first conceived in his mother’s womb, an indirect blow is struck also at the whole of the moral order, which serves to ensure the inviolable goods of man. Among those goods, life occupies the first place…And so we will stand up every time that human life is threatened. When the sacredness of life before birth is attacked, we will stand up and proclaim that no one ever has the authority to destroy unborn life.” (Homily on the Capitol Mall, Washington, D.C., October 7, 1979 )

Tertullian, Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas…all have written extensively on this subject. Too much to include here, but I will work on a post addressing this issue in the detail and depth it deserves.

You cannot set aside the moral dictates of your faith when they are inconvenient, despite John Kennedy’s protestations, despite the practices of Catholic politicians who support causes contrary to the faith. Luke 16:13, “No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or he will hold to the one, and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon.” Does this mean that religious authority trumps civil authority. No, it doesn’t. Once again, to the Bible. Matthew22:21 “Then he saith to them: Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s; and to God, the things that are God’s. ” Contradictory? Not at all. We are encouraged to be active in the world. We are encouraged to apply the teachings of our faith to our civil life. Our religious teaching should guide us. The moral precepts postulated on the pulpit should not be forgotten when you leave the parking lot. The church teachings on abortion are clear. A politician chooses to run for office, the people elect him. It is incumbent that the politician not lie – he should proclaim his Catholic background and beliefs when running and demonstrate how the teachings of the church is not incompatible with public life. This is what the first quote implies. It has nothing to do with seeking public office, it is a charge that one must stay true to the Magisterium throughout life – and that includes public office. Politicians – like Senator Biden- who have sold their faith short by supporting policies contrary to the Magisterium are not in communion with the Holy See and therefore not eligible to receive the Sacraments – save Reconciliation, of course.

So is it impossible to be a good Roman Catholic and public servant? Absolutely not. In fact, the First Amendment protects people of faith from the tyranny of government interference. Contrary to popular belief and secular interpretation, a careful reading of the amendment clearly demonstrates that the disestablishment clause is to keep the government from imposing a particular religion to the populace. It says absolutely nothing about ‘protecting’ the government from people of faith. The Roman Catholic church in America is already the most active social service agency, spending more time, money, and other resources than most states. This is the finest example of Roman Catholics involved in civic life. Political service is another that could be used for the betterment of all. There is nothing wrong with Roman Catholics applying their beliefs to civic life. If this is contrary to the beliefs and practices of other people, it is imperative that the politician is prepared to defend his position using compassion, tolerance, and arguments based on the Magisterium. If this is not acceptable to the people, then the politician – however well meaning, is much better off not securing the office. I would wager that the politician who ran on Catholic principles would find a tremendous amount of support – not just from Catholics, but with other religious groups with similiar values.

There are those who claim that the Obama campaign is premised on Catholic social teachings. This is far from true. The teachings of the Roman Catholic Church is not a smorgasbord. You cannot pick and choose what is convenient or palatable and claim that the part you have chosen is the whole of the thing. The Obama campaign supports abortion. As clearly explained in this post and repeatedly in homilies and the Magisterium, abortion is contrary to Roman Catholic teaching. Period. Even if the Obama campaign endorses many policies that are compatible with Catholic teachings, by supporting a platform based on abortion, they cannot claim that they are consistent with the Church. Roman Catholic citizens who support abortion are ’serving two masters’ – actually, they are forsaking the obedience and loyalty that should be rendered unto God. By supporting abortion, they are choosing to serve Caesar over the teachings of the Church. There is an organization known as Roman Catholics for Obama. On their website, they articulate several Obama platforms that are consistent with the church. How do they deal with the abortion issue? They claim that “Senator Obama will be most effective in nurturing a socio-economic environment and providing a safety net that will make abortion increasingly unnecessary and rare.” This is contrary to his performance as a senator, and contrary to the Magisterium. Unfortunately, Catholics for Obama have lined up at the buffet, unwilling to acknowledge that their support is leading others into immoral action. It is interesting that they often use Just War language and often allude to the precepts of Moral Reasoning. Pity that they are not applying those disciplines to the examination of their candidate’s platform. I give them credit for ‘tweaking’ the US Bishop’s statement on “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship”. Perhaps I need to reflect and refute their arguments in a future post.

The Catholics for Obama claim that their candidate’s platform is in line with many of the values promulgated by the USCCB “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship”. I am sorry to have to tell these people, but there is a passage that is a ‘deal-breaker’. In the section titled ‘Doing Good and Avoiding Evil’, page 13, section 1.8, item 22, the Bishops exlain that some positions are intrinsically evil and cannot be countenanced.

There are some things we must never do, as individuals or as a society, because they are always incompatible with love of God and neighbor. Such actions are so deeply flawed that they are always opposed to the authentic good of persons. These are called “intrinsically evil” actions. They must always be rejected and opposed and must never be supported or condoned. A prime example is the intentional taking of innocent human life, as in abortion and euthanasia.

-USCCB ‘Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship

  In the light of this statement, any Roman Catholic who reads this tract is compelled by the teachings of the Bishops not to support Mr. Obama. Unfortunately, many Catholics have not read this or are unwilling to accept that the Magisterium must shape our civic lives. Even more disturbing are the Roman Catholic priests who support Obama and the Democratic platform. They are men who should know better and in continuing to support candidates who advocate abortion, they are violating their vow of obedience. Father Pleger is a perfect example of a defiant priest. Many of his statements are contrary to church teachings but he continues to remain in his Office as pastor of St. Sabina. Why his bishop has not taken action is a question I have asked and received no answer. While Fr. Pleger’s defiance is the most glaring example of Roman Catholics who are forsaking their faith, many communities have Roman Catholic Priests and Religious who support candidates who do not promote Catholic teachings. Just as there are many well-intentioned laypeople who support political positions that are anathema to the Magisterium, there are a number of priests who are unable or unwilling to accept that one cannot compromise on certain principles. While Fr. Pleger revels in his apostasy, many priests espouse that the ‘good outweighs the bad.’ This is unacceptable in the ordained, who should have received a sound education in moral theology and the doctrines of the church.

  Just today, I heard Nancy Pelosi argue that abortion is a contemporary issue that the ‘Church hierarchy’ itself is hotly debating. Nonsense. The liberal-leaning Catholic may wish this was true. I am shocked and dismayed that the Speaker of the House has such a flawed knowledge of the Magisterium. It is appalling that she actually spoke – with authority – with such blatant disregard for the truth. In a supposedly educated woman, this is unforgivable. I would urge the Speaker to read this post – and check back for the teachings of the Church Fathers on abortion. If you still don’t understand it, please feel free to email me and we will talk. The offer goes to you as well Senator Biden – as long as you check your rosary at the door. I just don’t trust you.