Quote of the Week: Pope John XXIII
November 9, 2009
11. But first We must speak of man’s rights. Man has the right to live. He has the right to bodily integrity and to the means necessary for the proper development of life, particularly food, clothing, shelter, medical care, rest, and, finally, the necessary social services. In consequence, he has the right to be looked after in the event of ill health; disability stemming from his work; widowhood; old age; enforced unemployment; or whenever through no fault of his own he is deprived of the means of livelihood. (8)
PACEM IN TERRIS
ENCYCLICAL OF POPE JOHN XXIII
ON ESTABLISHING UNIVERSAL PEACE IN TRUTH,
JUSTICE, CHARITY, AND LIBERTY
APRIL 11, 1963
22 Comments
Comments are closed.
I agree with Pope John XXIII here. To say that man has a right to medical care, however, is not to say that this right should be legally enforceable. Indeed, making a right legally enforceable may actually impair a person’s enjoyment of that right.
Some would make the same observation about papal calls for the right to life.
You may have addressed this issue before, Blackadder, and if so I apologize; you left before I became a contributor. However, could you maybe explain how such a right could be guaranteed without some sort of governmental participation? I’m not being snarky here (and I apologize if I come off that way…I’m operating on about two hours of sleep today). I’m genuinely curious to hear a “conservative” view on health care that is intelligent and rooted in no ideology other than Catholic Social Teaching, and it seems like you’d be the best person to provide that explanation for me. Though I am somewhat of a “progressive,” I honestly have no ideological commitment to one solution or another; I just want to see the uninsured given the ability to participate fully in our health care system.
Great quote and timely.
I don’t understand the Church’s conception of rights. I think it’s not the same as the classical understanding (who owes what to whom and why). If it is, then it seems to the me the Church teaches something that is unjust or at least totally incoherent. I do not believe this can be true, so I must misunderstand things.
Is it the opinion of the contributors to this website that the Catholic Church teaches that liberal political philosophy is immoral and wrong? Is advocacy of limited government immoral? Does it contradict any binding teaching of the Catholic Church to believe that health care should not be provided by the state?
I’ve been told the answer is no by many reputable sources (bishops, priests, theologians) but the persistence of the argument on this website makes me ask these questions.
Blackadder: I like what you say, but have a hard time getting a sense of what that empirical or theoretical case would be and how/why.
Kurt: Yes, of course. So what is the point exactly? Do you dispute this. As I see it, it is entirely up for grabs when it comes to hermeneutics…
Zach: I am not a good person to reply to this—I do not know what rights are exactly. Plus, I find that the Churches position on it all is a bit hard to grasp too. Even more confounding is its recent sympathy for democracy and liberal republic in general, which I also wonder about.
“Is advocacy of limited government immoral?”
“Limited” in what way?
Making that right enforceable to provide for one person, takes away the right for another person.
A plans with B to solve a problem for X who is suffering. A & B pass a law that requires C to pay for the suffering of X. A & B did not discuss that C could afford to pay for X.
Government intervention may have provided for X but at the expense of C who may no longer be able to provide for his family.
So is government required to provide and/or control the food, shelter, clothing and rest that are my right?
It gets to the heart of what “rights” are in this context.
Sam,
“Even more confounding is its recent sympathy for democracy and liberal republic in general, which I also wonder about.” Confounding indeed.
I fully agree with you here I certainly would prefer the sympathy of some in the church for monarchy or not too far back for fascism. Those systems go much nicer with the top down hierarchy really – wouldn’t you agree?
Democracy on the other hand – so messy and untidy.
And would you believe it even the heathan
Standmickey and Sam,
Since you both are asking basically the same question, I think, I will address my response to both of you together.
I’ll admit that my point is a bit counter-intuitive (one of the problems with the Church’s recent embrace of rights talk is that, at least in the American context, we tend to think of rights as being something that is legally enforceable, so that when there is talk of the right to medical care the mind jumps automatically to some kind of government provision). If you take another look at John XXIII’s list, however, I hope you can see that that’s not quite right. In addition to medical care, Blessed John lists food, clothing, and shelter as being items to which there is a right. Yet we don’t conclude from this that the government ought to be involved in the production or distribution of food, clothing, and housing. Government does play a role, I certainly wouldn’t deny that, but it tends to be a limited one, available only as a last resort (actually, in the case of clothing it’s not clear that the government plays much of a role at all).
Second point: while you might think that making health care or whatever would improve people’s access to health care, experience shows that this is not always the case. I’ve been reading up lately about the horrendous conditions that exist on many Indian reservations. Unlike most Americans, American Indians actually do have a legal entitlement to health care, and American Indians who live on reservations or trust lands are eligible for a wide variety of government assistance in terms of food, clothing, housing, etc. Yet instead of leading to a social paradise, Indian reservations are filled with poverty and disfunction, with the result that the health of the average American Indian is considerably worse than that of the average American generally. So not only is government fiat not a necessary means of protecting rights, but at least in some cases government action may lead to a decreased enjoyment of the right in question, as strange as that may sound to our ears.
I’m interested in the last statement of this post by Pope John XXIII:
” …;or whenever through no fault of his own he is deprived of his means of livelihood”
This is my problem with large government when it comes to social welfare programs. How can they determine whether it is the fault of the person themselves? I understand the need for compassion and people who are “deprived of his means of livlihood” thru their own willful acts needs spiritual help. This is what no large bureacracy can ever provide.
Blackadder,
Please. Are you seriously claiming that the plight of the American Indians is even *partly* a result of their receiving free health care? As opposed to say, the long history of abuse and deprivation they suffered (and continue to suffer) so as to enable America’s economic and political expansion? A better example is, say, the Germans: who enjoy state-sponsored guarantee of health care but who are not, so far as I can tell, driven to drink clorox and commit suicide at high numbers as a result of this burden.
I am about to give a few replies, but, before I do, I want to be very clear that I will be heavier handed in editing comments that are too angry or ad hominem.
Firstly, sorry for the spelling mistakes. Secondly, I definitely have a conservative/libertarian mind but as I learn more about the Catholic faith through prayer and studying I see there is much for me to learn and understand about this human journey. Thanks for the blog.
Is there any level of public welfare which it is appropriate for the state to provide?
I only ask because, once again, the conservative arguments would seem to hold against every form of public assistance.
Are you seriously claiming that the plight of the American Indians is even *partly* a result of their receiving free health care? As opposed to say, the long history of abuse and deprivation they suffered (and continue to suffer) so as to enable America’s economic and political expansion?
Yes, emphasis on the partly. American Indians have suffered a long history of abuse and deprivation by the U.S. government. That history, however, applies to American Indians who live on reservations as well as to those who do not. Yet the poverty rate among the former is much higher than among the latter. If you read accounts of reservation life such as this one from the Philadelphia Inquirer, it’s hard not to conclude that government welfare programs (all well intentioned, I’m sure) are a big part of the problem.
By the way, the German health care system is very different from the Indian Health Service. Germany mandates that you have health insurance is you make less than $50,000 a year, which you pay for with a percentage of your income. If you make more than $50,000 a year you needn’t have insurance at all, though most do.
Blackadder,
Point taken. But the larger issue has to do with reservations per se and their isolation from “normal” American society. For example, if Native Americans living *off* the reservation were equally entitled to free health care at the local VA hospital (just a hypothetical), then I would seriously doubt that the structural problems you see on the reservation would manifest themselves among the integrated Native American populace. Surely it is not government assistance itself, but rather the limitation and seclusion of such assistance to those living in isolated and impoverished reservations; this combines, I agree, to bring forth a variety of ills. But you can’t isolate the free health care component in what is a much more complex and tragic social situation for Indians on the reservation.
Blackadder,
I think this issue turns on the fact that you seem to find it objectionable for a state to provide basic necessities to its citizens.
So, let’s say that there was a state where everyone was given food, shelter, medical care, clothing, and a network of provisos and laws that protected them from exploitation (working too many hours and such) or crime in general (a legal system).
What is your problem, in principle, with this state?
Is it merely an issue of fiscal possibility?
Or, is it something like your sociological point that is out of principle based in the human condition (sloth or what have you)?
Or, is it based in some hybrid of the two that in principle doesn’t see the compulsory taxation needed to provide such a state as justifiable, all things considered?
Or is it something else altogether?
Sam,
My problem with having the state providing basic necessities to its citizens is that it does such a poor job of it. I don’t generally have a principled objection, if that’s what you’re asking.
Surely it is not government assistance itself, but rather the limitation and seclusion of such assistance to those living in isolated and impoverished reservations.
This begs the question of why the reservations are isolated and impoverished. Suppose that the government were to stop government assistance to the reservations. Better yet, suppose that it were to get rid of them as distinct legal entities, and place tribal territory under the ordinary jurisdiction of the relevant state and federal government. Would the American Indians who lived in those places still be as isolated and impoverished? I suspect not.
Actually I more than suspect it. What I’m describing actually happened to some Indian lands during the early part of the 20th century. This was stopped during the New Deal, but due to a fluke in the law privatization continued in Alaska until the 1970s. So if you want to see the effect that what I’m proposing would have, you can compare the poverty rate on reservations to the poverty rate on former reservation land that was “privatized” (called “tribal designated statistical areas”).
Look at figure 1.6c from this NCES report. The poverty rate on reservations is nearly double what it is in tribal designated statistical areas. In fact, there doesn’t appear to be any real difference between the poverty rate of American Indians who live on former tribal lands, and the poverty rate for Indians who don’t live on reservations generally.