The Denver prelate’s latest:
“If the defective Senate version of health-care reform pushed by congressional leaders passes into law—against the will of the American people and burdened by serious moral problems in its content—we’ll have “Catholic” voices partly to thank for it. And to hold responsible.”
Fair enough. But by the same token, if this bill fails, then I could say that the Catholic voices (I will not use scare quotes around the word Catholic) are partly responsible, given the exceptionally rigid opposition, for those who will suffer and die in the future for lack of healthcare.
But this is ultimately a fruitless line of argument. Every day, we make prudential judgments based on incomplete information. Chaput clearly thinks that this healthcare reform will lead to a big spike in abortion rates, and these abortion rates will be financed by taxpayers. I don’t buy it. My reading of the bill is that taxpayer funds cannot be used for abortion. I don’t believe for an instant that the Community Health Centers would have either the ability or inclination to get into the abortion business. I believe that many states will ban all plans with abortion from accessing the exchange, prohibiting even those without subsidies from purchasing a plan that includes abortion – something the Stupak amendment does not do. And given the need for separate payments, I can’t imagine many people desiring such a policy, and hence the “market” will not provide such policies.
Furthermore, I also believe that universal healthcare is a contributing factor to lower abortion rates. After all, if an insured woman finds herself pregnant, what are her choices? Pay $25,000 in childbirth costs, or pay $400 for an abortion? As Cardinal Hume put it, “If that frightened, unemployed 19-year-old knows that she and her child will have access to medical care whenever it’s needed, she’s more likely to carry the baby to term. Isn’t it obvious?” Not to everybody! As T.R. Reid wrote recently, “All the other advanced, free-market democracies provide health-care coverage for everybody. And all of them have lower rates of abortion than does the United States.” There is certainly some evidence that abortion declined under the Romney reform, which is uncannily similar to the Senate bill in many aspects. It is true that correlation does not provide causality. You might also argue that abortion rates were trending down anyway, and that is true, but we certainly didn’t see a jump in abortions. Some of the responses to this claim are just silly. For instance, Michael New argues that “The United States has a far more racially diverse population than many of these European countries, and statistics show that a number of minority groups have higher-than-average abortion rates.” To which my answer is – exactly! Abortion the United States is primarily a problem with poor minority women, highlighting the link yet again between poverty and abortion (I talked about this before) and healthcare and abortion.
Anyway, these are all empirical questions, prudential questions. Archbishop Chaput’s judgment may be more correct than mine, but I personally do believe that to be the case. Nonetheless, I don’t want to cast aspersions on him, or any of the other bishops who take this position. I believe they want healthcare reform, and are disappointed not to be able to support it. I think they are wrong, and I think they are naive, and I find their stance frustrating, but I still respect them. I just wish Archbishop Chaput would extend the same courtesy to those equally earnest Catholics who take a different view, as did Bishop Lynch.
(The people I don’t respect are those who oppose healthcare anyway, even if abortion was not an issue, and are using the bishops’ position as a fig-leaf for their hyper-Calvinist stance. We all know who they are).
And we should believe you over the bishops why?
I do want to take into consideration the idea of Planned Parenthood somehow being available to use these funds though. It does make you take step back and weigh that thought. I see your points too, and I want to agree with what you are saying. I think that is where the fear and concern comes in to play. Could they get this money and claim that their business is part of healthcare? If the loophole is there, as many are saying it is, then one has to consider it.
You say:
…if this bill fails, then I could say that the Catholic voices (I will not use scare quotes around the word Catholic) are partly responsible, given the exceptionally rigid opposition, for those who will suffer and die in the future for lack of healthcare.
But this is ultimately a fruitless line of argument. Every day, we make prudential judgments based on incomplete information. Chaput clearly thinks that this healthcare reform will lead to a big spike in abortion rates, and these abortion rates will be financed by taxpayers.
You make a false analogy.
If this bill passes, then there will be taxpayer dollars allocated to abortion services. This is the direct meaning of the bill’s language.
If the bill fails, the health care situation remains as it is. No one will lose coverage or be denied health care who is not already losing coverage or being denied health care. Rejecting this bill is not a rejection of health care reform.
We cannot be fooled by the consequentialist red herring that “improved health care will reduce the number of abortions.” Of course it likely will, taken of itself. Likewise, providing funds for abortions will, of itself, increase the number of abortions.
But neither of these consequences changes the moral situation. The fact remains that abortion is not health care: it is murder. And there is no need to include a provision for murder in this (or any other) health care bill.
As a Canadian with a very poor understanding of the American health care and political systems I have basically kept my mouth shut and prayed through this. I truly hope the US will get health care reform soon and that it will not expand abortion. The difficulty, of course, is that I have read very good arguments from people on both sides and I really have no way to make a judgment for myself.
All of this aside, however, this post is right on in pointing out that Catholics with incomplete information can and will come to different conclusions on this issue and that doesn’t make any of them “Catholics.”
Archbishop Chaput’s judgment may be more correct than mine, but I personally do believe that to be the case.
Truer words you’ve never said ;)
I do question you assessment of the bishops as “naive.” “Naive” as to what? If anything, the idea that these Community Health Centers & the Democrats have no desire to expand abortion coverage is the most likely “naive” idea. If not trusting the Democrats on abortion is naive, then sign me up for naivety!
I am also a Canadian who looks onwith no little bewilderment at the situation in your country. There is more than one reason why I think healthcare reform is urgent but surelyu one of them is to bring down those frauds with their fig leaves.
It seems too bad that the bishops haven’t done more to distance their opposition, which is based on sound moral principles, from the right wing fanaticism which seems to have gripped so many Americans.
Whether the CHC $11 Billion will go for your abortions is not a matter of “belief,” yours or anyone else’s. The law doesn’t prevent it. Hyde doesn’t prevent it. The regulations don’t prevent it because they only are authorized by the Hyde bill. The courts will mandate it because ObGyn money must go to abortion if it doesn’t exclude abortion. HHS will gladly give it for abortion. Planned Parenthood already wants the money and currently contracts with CHCs to the fullest extent possible. CHCs oppose even obeying existing conscience laws for their pro-life workers. There is not one shred of evidence in favor of your “belief” about this money.
Speaking of the Romney reforms, one has to wonder if the exact legislation we have on the table today was presented during a Romney administration, if Chaput & Co. would find it more palatable? Also, I’m curious how other countries originally crafted their universal health systems. Were their bishops heavily involved in the process? Were they even consulted? If tax-funded abortion is included (and I believe it is) are the bishops of these countries out front protesting and/or calling for repeal of universal healthcare? And if not, why not?
Hyper-Calvinist stance?
I believe that the average Catholic picks and choose what part of Catholic doctrine they want to believe.
MM: “I don’t believe for an instant that the Community Health Centers would have either the ability or inclination to get into the abortion business.”
I should provide some context so that readers can judge what MM says here. One of the items included in the current bill is that it will provide billions of dollars in funding to Community Health Centers (CHCs). The Hyde Amendment simply would not apply to the funding, and so the CHCs would be entirely free to choose to use the funding to perform abortions. This fact is well understood by many of those voting for the bill — changes to the legislation to prevent the funding from being used to perform abortions have been refused. It is also well understood by outside organizations, who had already been taking steps to encourage CHCs to prepare for adding abortions to their services. For example, look at this.
From a Catholic point of view, if some proposed legislative bill will fund abortion (even just a single abortion) it is impossible to vote for such a bill no matter how many other good things are included in the bill. It doesn’t even matter whether such a funded abortion ever subsequently actually takes place — simply knowingly permitting the funding kills the bill morally. This is why the US Bishops have been so concerned about the contents of the bill — they generally favor the health care parts of it, but don’t want to see it poisoned by inclusion of items with fatal moral problems.
MM claims that the CHCs don’t have the ability to get into the abortion business. Why he claims this is not at all clear — they perform all kinds of other more complicated medical services, and abortion is not remotely beyond their abilities. As for their inclination how can MM (or anybody) possibly expect us to believe that he can somehow speak with complete exactitude for each and every CHCs — there are over a thousand of them! And they already provide all kinds of family planning services. How is reasonable is it to suppose that — financed by additional billions of string-free dollars — none of them ever decide to perform an abortion?
MM: “Anyway, these are all empirical questions, prudential questions.”
Certainly not. There are simple questions here that have obvious answers:
Can the funding from the bill be used to perform abortions? Yes.
Do the supporters of the bill know this? Yes.
Are they willing to change the bill to forbid the use of funding for abortions? No.
Those answers kill the bill morally. Prudence and empirical judgment aren’t required.
I think I’ve figured something out. At first, I didn’t understand the obsession with the community health centers, a mere $8 billion out $1 trillion in spending. The CHCs themselves said they do not provide abortion, and did not plan to. And since these entities already receive ample funding under HHS, and the new funding will be co-mingled with the old (there is no way to segregate funds here, and no attempt to), Hyde applies.
But then I realized I was missing the point. The point is that a potential loophole was found. And since the “most pro-abortion president in history” and his nefarious cohorts are really trying to use the cover of healthcare reform to foist taxpayer-funded abortion on the people, then this is clearly how the plot would work. How did I miss that?
I’ll re-post a point made by Peter Nixon from dotCommonweal:
“I worked in Washington DC for ten years and am familiar with… “worst case scenarioism,” where opponents of legislation come up with increasingly bizzare predictions of how a particular bill could lead to disastrous unintended consequences. The idea that the Senate bill will enable CHCs [community health centers] to perform abortions falls into this category. It comes across as a desperate ploy rather than reasoned legislative analysis.”
From a Catholic point of view, if some proposed legislative bill will fund abortion (even just a single abortion) it is impossible to vote for such a bill
That is NOT a Catholic point of view. For example, if one looks at the status quo and it is funding millions, but a new bill will eliminate millions so only one person gets funded as a loop hole, and not directly intended and it is a very indirect funding, this bill could indeed be supported. Indeed, if a bill is proposed to limit but not exclude many which are available now, since it is an incremental improvement, it can be supported. Or, there are issues where a bill could have some very remote material cooperation with abortion, very remote — there, once again, the Church does not say you have to vote against the bill. Indeed, Cardinal Dulles pointed out one could vote for bills which included abortion in them. The fact of the matter, Paul, is you did not state the Catholic view. If it were, most bills today, because of the remote material cooperation with abortion, would not be accepted. And there are other intrinsic evils which would also stop bills — for example, why is the military budget never contested despite the material (and often very direct) cooperation with intrinsic evils?
Harry,
A bishop’s interpretation of a legislation is not Catholic doctrine.
Minion, the CHC $11 Billion for abortion is not a “loophole.” It’s not optional. The courts mandate that the money be available for abortion. CHC’s don’t do abortions now ONLY because Hyde language applies to their funds–otherwise they openly work with Planned Parenthood as much as possible. You are not responding with rational arguments. You are wishing away this abortion funding by once again just sneering at the idea that we should protect the preborn from government funding of abortion.
There’s another attitude in Washington DC besides “worst-case scenarioism.” It’s called “La, la, la, I can’t hear you!” denial of facts that abortion is being promoted. Cite for me one single time when this blog mentioned much less opposed Obama’s NEW funding of abortions in DC (Obama, the man who isn’t really pro-abortion and doesn’t really want to federally fund them).
I’ve been keeping my head down about this issue too, not really getting into the fray. This is probably the first article I’ve read about it, honestly. And it is very good. Thank you, MM!
If people pay taxes how are we not paying for everyone else’s healthcare to some degree anyway? Are we not doing it on the back end anyway? If people have insurace policy through their employers and if those same policies coverage abortions, and if those same employers are federal workers, and tax payers pay for federal worker benefits, then are we not currenty paying for abortions anyways? So in the end, not supporting this healthcare bill you are asking people not to support something they are already paying for anyways. Right?
Please forgive my spelling errors, as I was in a hurry. But we are all already paying for abortion coverage through the back door anyways. Up until 2 months ago the RNC had abortion coverage through their insurance plan. Taxpayers have already been paying for abortions and not just by paying federal worker benefits, but also by contributing to the RNC just up until a few months ago. Yet, one has to consider how many federal insurance policies cover abortions? So the taxpayer is already paying for them just through the back door.
Henry Karlson: “A bishop’s interpretation of a legislation is not Catholic doctrine.”
The Church does have the ability to decide whether a particular piece of writing contains propositions that go against its teaching, and condemn them. (This was made quite clear at the time of the Jansenist heresy.) Since Chaput is a member of the Church’s magisterium, his opinion is actually very weighty — and similarly for all the other Catholic bishops who have been speaking on this issue.
Cindy: “But we are all already paying for abortion coverage through the back door anyways.”
There are currently ways in which some abortions are funded by taxpayers. That does nothing at all to counter the moral evil of adding in billions of dollars which can fund abortions.
Henry Karlson: “… loop hole … remote material cooperation … not directly intended …”
I used words in an ordinary sense, and you are objecting in a special sense that simply doesn’t apply to the current situation. If a proposed piece of legislation adds money to the funding of abortion, that kills the legislation morally, no matter how much other good is done by the legislation.
(Your objection amounts to saying that, for example, if a prior bill had allocated $8 billion for abortion, and a subsequent bill comes along that proposes to reduce that to $4 billion then Catholics — under certain precise conditions — might be able to vote for the second bill. That’s because we can easily figure out that the effect of voting for the second bill would in reality be to defund some abortions, and not to add funds.)
Paul
The Church has the authority to determine things; the Church has not determined what you suggest. What we have are bishops who, with their own understanding of the legislation, have indicated that they do not support it. They do not say, however, that one cannot have a different interpretation and therefore think it fits our principles. There has been no authoritative interpretation of the bill offered, which would be necessary to make it more than a prudential declaration. I highly suggest you read Cardinal Dulles on engagement with the Magisterium. Your lack of precision, such as is found in your equivocation of bishops authority, making it all one level of authority when it is not, is connected to your lack of understanding simple moral theology where it have various levels of cooperation with evil. Thus, even if a Catholic businessman offered to pay someone an amount of money to work, and the worker did the work and then said “thank you, I needed that money for an abortion,” what would you tell that businessman? Would you tell them to not pay as promised? Of course, then if we move beyond direct knowledge, it is clearly known people who get paid money for work will have abortions. Should we stop paying people for work, because then we know less people would have money for abortion? Is work just an evil which allows for abortion? Should we outlaw money and work? Where does the trail end?
And we should believe you over the bishops why?
I don’t think you should feel you must. But I do think you have an obligation of charity and respect to those of us who read the text of this legislation differently than how you or the bishop’s advisors do.
I read and write legislative text as part of my job. That is part of my craft and profession and how I make my living. If I got an order from my workplace superiors to say legislative text means something different from what I understand it to be, I could not, out of professional integrity, obey that order. And it would be no different if some prelate ordered me.
The Senate language does not use federal funds for abortion. I have read the text and I am confident of that conclusion.
@ Cindy…
Great point on our current taxes… in fact our current taxes also pay for 2 wars that the Vatican has deemed unjust, the continuance of the military industrial complex, abortions, in some states our taxes pay for the execution of prisoners on death row, and in other states our taxes pay for euthanasia. Furthermore, one has to wonder how many of our tax dollars have gone to the production of bombs dropped on Afghanistan and Iraq that have “accidentally” killed pregnant women… (the Progressive had a great interview with an Iraqi Christian about this very issue a few months ago. If I can find the interview, I’ll post it here on VN).
It seems to me that a TRUE Catholic position would be one that would allow American Catholics to decide what their tax dollars should go to on a case by case basis. I know I will once again be moaning and groaning about my tax dollars come April 15th. Will they go to more drones that kill innocent victims, or will my dollars go to toward education and the war on poverty? It’s hard to say, because we just don’t know…
For my money we shouldn’t just hold the government accountable on taxes and abortion, but on any tax dollars that go toward promoting a culture of death.
Unfortunately, many Catholics have once again not listened to the official documents of the USCCB. Faithful Citizenship is quite clear that we are not a “ONE ISSUE” Church nor is abortion the only “intrinsic evil”–it is one among many intrinsic evils, which is why I’ve asked the USCCB to clarify if taxes supporting abortion are more important than taxes supporting nuclear build-up. (I’ve received a response from the USCCB, which I’ll be talking about here on Vox Nova).
Furthermore, we as “holistic Catholics” should be concerned about tax dollars that promote the destruction of God’s creation. In his last encyclical, Pope Benedict seemed quite clear that Catholics are not supposed to participate in anything that destroys God’s creation. So, I think we also deserve to know if our tax dollars are going to support programs that violate what the Pope has said.
Finally, I’m as anti-abortion as they come, but I think we must realize that this is all bigger than just simply abortion. So many things in our country are contributing to a culture of death over a culture of life. We can’t pick and choose, we must address everything that promotes death equally… and that even includes how we use our words and and how we treat our sisters and brothers on VN.
David
Henry Karlson: “The Church has the authority to determine things; the Church has not determined what you suggest.”
Established:
- the Church teaches that abortion is an intrinsic evil;
- the proposed legislation adds funding which can be used for abortion;
- the pro-choice supporters of the legislation act to emphatically reject any modification that forbids the use of the funding for abortion.
Given that, everyone can use entirely ordinary reasoning to conclude that the legislation can’t be supported. To somehow conclude that we can’t be sure of how to act in such a situation, and have to wait for some vaguely specified authoritative teaching to be quite sure of the situation, it to abdicate an important component of personal responsibility.
Henry Karlson: “They do not say, however, that one cannot have a different interpretation…”
Look at the link right at the top of the original post by MM. Does it remotely look like Bishop Chaput thinks that every Catholic is entirely free to form their own opinion of the legislation? All those other opinions are exactly what he is complaining about.
Henry Karlson: “…various levels of cooperation with evil…”
I do not see that your point about remote material cooperation with abortion has anything to do with the current proposed legislation. It is entirely practical and possible for a government to legislate whether a particular source of funding can be used for abortion or not — and it has huge power to back its legislation up by force. Such an option is extremely rarely possible in the case of a business paying a wage to its workers. The situations are not comparable.
Kurt: “If I got an order from my workplace superiors to say legislative text means something different from what I understand it to be, I could not, out of professional integrity, obey that order. And it would be no different if some prelate ordered me.”
Firstly, your claim is hard to evaluate because you don’t quote the exact and precise wording of the legislation to support your point. Secondly, you need to look carefully at the history of Jansenism, where such issues arose. The proponents of Jansenism at one point claimed that the Church (i.e. the teachings of the bishops and/or the Pope) had no ability to authoritatively define what a particular text meant. The Church emphatically disagreed with them.
Kurt, the CHC $11 billion can be used for abortion (and according to the courts, will have to be). The funding for abortion-covering insurance will give abortion access to women who don’t now have abortions because they can’t afford it. Government isn’t restricted in making conscience violations. HHS can declare abortion as preventive care.
At a certain point, someone’s “interpretation” isn’t reasonable *as something pro-life Catholics can accept*, especially when said interpretation just so happens to be consistent with their affiliation with party leaders and a President who are otherwise so thoroughly pro-abortion, and just so happens to be inconsistent not only with everything that pro-life people are saying but also with everything the non-partisan non-tunnel-vission Bishops’ conference and individual bishops are saying.
[...] Chaput is Right, Chaput is Wrong at Vox Nova [...]
Henry Karlson has drawn some crucial distinctions. Morning’s Minion repost of Peter Nixon’s point is spot on.
Paul asks: “Does it remotely look like Bishop Chaput thinks that every Catholic is entirely free to form their own opinion of the legislation? All those other opinions are exactly what he is complaining about.”
He DOES seem to be leaving that impression? And that is what prompted my own questions probing whether or not he really intended to leave THAT impression, in which case he would be manifestly wrong because, as MM pointed out, these are empirical and prudential questions. I tease out these implications here:
Abortion & the Senate Healthcare Bill – a prudential judgment
Excellent post, MM.
John Sobert Sylvest: “as MM pointed out, these are empirical and prudential questions.”
Under Catholic teaching, support for abortion is not an empirical or prudential issue. MM understands that, and so does Chaput. The main issue with the proposed legislation is: does it support abortion? In that one particular way, it’s an empirical issue. So, what did the Catholic bishops do? They turned to experts to read the legislation and get their opinion on what the legislation said. Having done that, they thus decided that the legislation could indeed support abortion, and was hence fatally morally flawed. (If the opinions on the legislation had been divided, this would very likely have made no difference, because even unclear legislation in support of abortion can’t be tolerated.) So they insisted that the legislation had to modified.
Given that, several questions arise:
Is it permitted to have a different technical opinion of the contents of the legislation? It is. Though of course, one would have to be somewhat expert on the issue in question, and one would have to be extremely clear and very precise on what grounds you were disagreeing with other experts. (As I indicated, anything merely adding to the unclarity in the intent of the legislation would be unlikely to change the bishops’ decision.)
Is it permitted to publicize the grounds on which a different technical opinion is held? By itself, that is likely to be harmless. (Though, obviously, if you possess such expertise, the first people to promote it to are the bishops.)
Is it permitted, based on having a different technical opinion of the legislation, to thereby publicly oppose the bishops’ decision? No, because that undermines the Catholic witness. Like it nor not, the bishops have a role within the Catholic Church of not only teaching in general what is moral and what is not, but also of authoritatively deciding whether specific actions — particular actions in a particular context and at a particular historical time — are permitted or not.
Paul
You are wrong about authority — when the bishops rely upon outsiders who have no charism to interpret data, one can disagree with the bishops when they base their information with that data, and one can do so — it does not undermine the Catholic witness, indeed your argument here undermines the Catholic witness because it rejects what a Catholic can do: http://www.vatican2voice.org/8conscience/dulles.htm
Henry Karlson: “You are wrong about authority — when the bishops rely upon outsiders who have no charism to interpret data, one can disagree with the bishops when they base their information with that data, and one can do so…”
Huh??? I explicitly said that it was possible to disagree in some respects with the bishops. (To the question: “Is it permitted to have a different technical opinion of the contents of the legislation?” I gave the answer “It is”.)
I do notice that you seem to be making some very explicit claim about exactly how the charism works for Catholic bishops. Where did you get this knowledge from? From my point of view, I can see no reason whatsoever why the charism might not easily work, in part, by ensuring that the bishops form their opinion by directing their attention to good sources of information. Apparently you know definitively otherwise. How so?
Henry Karlson: “it does not undermine the Catholic witness, indeed your argument here undermines the Catholic witness because it rejects what a Catholic can do: http://www.vatican2voice.org/8conscience/dulles.htm”
If one were to read Dulles’ text (which refers back in part to the Catholic bishops’ earlier pastoral letter Human Life in Our Day) one would find that he lists three conditions for the exercising of responsible dissent:
(1) if the reasons are serious and well founded;
(2) if the manner of the dissent does not question or impugn the teaching authority of the Church;
(3) is such as not to give scandal.
All three of those conditions have been broken by numerous sources professing to be Catholic, and each one of those problems has thus worked to undermine the Catholic witness. Responsible dissent is indeed permitted — but an enormous amount of the current dissent offends against one or more of the listed conditions. Hence Chaput’s complaints.
Paul
1) the reasons are well founded. Different interpretations of the bill
2) there will be some people who say any disagreement impugns the teaching authority of the Church. However, that is not the case. Indeed, that is the point. You are arguing #2 for any #1. That is the problem
3) scandal is a technical term; again, some can say #1 is always a scandal.
But you fail to note Cardinal Dulles makes it clear there are a time when one has not only a right but a duty to speak up. Some would say it causes scandal to talk about the child abuse we have had, and it undermines the authority of Bishops to question their actions. As Dulles pointed out, it is not good to just use authority to silence people. Which is what you are doing.
As for my knowledge on authority? I’ve done much work on it. Ecclesiology is one of my areas of theological study. I have worked with some of the leading theologians who have dealt with and deals with ecclesiology and questions of episcopal authority. I study these matters and take them seriously. If you would like to research it more, I would recommend Dulles’ Craft of the Theology and Sullivan’s Creative Fidelity as a good foundation.
The problem is, you are conflating many things, as is normal for you. I have explained many of the distinctions which you ignore. And you still say ‘but but but you must be silent.” NOT SO.
And some foundations:
All Christians must be aware of their own specific vocation within the political community. It is for them to give an example by their sense of responsibility and their service of the common good. In this way they are to demonstrate concretely how authority can be compatible with freedom, personal initiative with the solidarity of the whole social organism, and the advantages of unity with fruitful diversity. They must recognize the legitimacy of different opinions with regard to temporal solutions, and respect citizens, who, even as a group, defend their points of view by honest methods. Political parties, for their part, must promote those things which in their judgement are required for the common good; it is never allowable to give their interests priority over the common good.
—
The Church, by reason of her role and competence, is not identified in any way with the political community nor bound to any political system. She is at once a sign and a safeguard of the transcendent character of the human person.
The Church and the political community in their own fields are autonomous and independent from each other. Yet both, under different titles, are devoted to the personal and social vocation of the same men. The more that both foster sounder cooperation between themselves with due consideration for the circumstances of time and place, the more effective will their service be exercised for the good of all. For man’s horizons are not limited only to the temporal order; while living in the context of human history, he preserves intact his eternal vocation. The Church, for her part, founded on the love of the Redeemer, contributes toward the reign of justice and charity within the borders of a nation and between nations. By preaching the truths of the Gospel, and bringing to bear on all fields of human endeavor the light of her doctrine and of a Christian witness, she respects and fosters the political freedom and responsibility of citizens.
Paul wrote: “In that one particular way, it’s an empirical issue.”
Oh! Now I get it … ;)
Addressing the questions at hand, episcopal charism and competence, the late Fr. John Neuhaus once wrote:
“While individual bishops may be prudentially gifted or challenged, problems are multiplied when prudential judgments issue from the bureaucratic sausage-grinder of the bishops’ conference.
And, of course, the sex abuse crisis that broke open in January 2002 took its toll on the bishops’ credibility and self-confidence in issuing pronunciamentos on subjects beyond their self-evident competence. Catholics and others adopted a large and understandable measure of skepticism about what bishops had to say. If they had so gravely bungled the tasks that are unquestionably theirs—to teach, sanctify, and govern—why should people pay attention to what they say about matters beyond their ostensible competence? This is not to question but, on the contrary, to underscore episcopal competence on matters of faith and morals.
On most questions of domestic and foreign policy, it only compounds the problem to declare that they are “moral questions” and are therefore encompassed within episcopal charism and competence. Such overreach only invites critics to claim, putting it bluntly, that the bishops don’t know what they are talking about, or at least don’t know any more than is known by the well-informed citizen. Archbishop Dolan noted that, in recent years, the bishops in the conference have learned this lesson and have been focusing their attention ad intra rather than ad extra, concentrating on matters clearly within their competence and authority as teachers of the Church.” END of QUOTE from Aphorisms, Sartre, Bishops, and Prudential Judgment First Things | Sep 21, 2007
Fr. Neuhaus thus properly employed the distinctions, categories and defintions, which Henry & I are trying to elucidate. At the same time, I take a dim view of the way Neuhaus then (let me borrow phraseology from the Archbishop) “publically undercut the the teaching and leadership of [the] bishops” because that had the potential to “spread confusion, cause grave damage to the believing community and give the illusion of moral cover to” a WAR that was “not simply bad, but dangerous.” That, in my view, did not meet all the criteria of responsible dissent. In fact, I think I’ll search the First Things archives to see what Archbishop Chaput had to say about Fr. Neuhaus’ lapse.
Henry Karlson: “the reasons are well founded. Different interpretations of the bill”
As I found when trying to figure out why people had such different opinions about what the legislation meant, it is all too common for mere assertions to be made about the effects of the legislation. But “well founded” requires that some kind of concrete foundation is supplied that supports the assertions. This often completely absent.
A very common problem I found would be that person X might say something like: “The legislation clearly means [such and such]. This has been shown by person Y.” Then on tracking down what person Y says, all I would find is an assertion, and an absence of foundation for that assertion.
Merely having a different opinion, and merely claiming that is well founded, does not mean that the opinion must therefore be responsible dissent.
Henry Karlson: “Cardinal Dulles makes it clear there are a time when one has not only a right but a duty to speak up”
Of course. But that still has to be subject to those three conditions for responsible dissent.
Henry Karlson: “Some would say it causes scandal to talk about the child abuse we have had, and it undermines the authority of Bishops to question their actions.”
No doubt some would. But not me, and not you.
Henry Karlson: “As Dulles pointed out, it is not good to just use authority to silence people. Which is what you are doing.”
Those three conditions that Dulles (and the Catholic bishops) have listed seem just fine to me. But I see a lot of dissent out there that doesn’t abide by the conditions.
Henry Karlson: “And you still say ‘but but but you must be silent.” NOT SO.”
You can put quotation marks around things I haven’t said. And you can raise your voice. It still remains that I’m calling for responsible dissent. In the same way that the Cardinal Dulles text does that — that you approve of.
Paul, re: But I see a lot of dissent out there that doesn’t abide by the conditions.
It would be helpful, then, if you provided some concrete examples of responsible dissent to the bishops’ conference regarding the topic-at-hand, the so-called defective Senate version of health-care reform pushed by congressional leaders.