La Civilta Cattolica on American Healthcare Reform
First came L’Osservatore Romano. Then came 30 Days. And now we a third journal with close ties to the Vatican – La Civilta Cattolica - refusing to toe the line on Obama. In this case, the journal praises Obama’s healthcare reform, even though the USCCB refused to endorse the final version. This is significant. As David Gibson notes, the Vatican Secretariat of State reviews every edition of the Jesuit journal. Or as Sandro Magister puts it, this is a magazine “published by a group of Jesuits in Rome which, by statute, reflects the views of the Vatican Secretary of State – and, by extension, of the Pope”.
And what did they say? Here is CNS:
“The health care reform law passed in the United States marked “a needed and long awaited beginning” of bringing greater justice to all citizens, especially the most vulnerable, said an influential Jesuit journal.
“Limited access to health care compromised in many ways the health of citizens and the country,” said the journal, La Civilta Cattolica…
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, signed into law by President Barack Obama March 23, is a continuation of efforts by U.S. presidents to introduce “measures that aim for greater justice for all citizens and, in particular, for the most vulnerable,” the journal said…
The article praised the substance of the law, especially its aim of making the health care system less expensive, more efficient and more dedicated to the needs of the people, especially the estimated 15 percent of the population with no current heath care coverage.”
It also addressed the divisiveness, singling out the Republicans and their fellow-travelers:
“However, the Jesuit magazine lamented the extreme divisiveness that built up during the debate on the measure, saying that “the monolithic opposition of the Republican Party was surprising,” especially given that some innovative projects for providing universal health care coverage had been promoted by some notable Republican leaders in the recent past.
“The degree of division and political and partisan opposition that crystallized during the months of debate before the reform was a source of concern for whomever takes to heart the common good of the neediest citizens and for the whole of the nation, and for whomever is convinced that the promotion and safeguarding of heath are precious assets for nations and all of humanity,” it said.”
On the USCCB:
“It explained the position of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, which was against the measure because its provisions on abortion funding and conscience protections were morally unacceptable.
However, some pro-life members of Congress eventually supported the bill, the journal said, when they felt ambiguities in the proposed law concerning abortion would be resolved, specifically with a presidential executive order promising to ensure no federal funds would be spent on abortion.
The article detailed the three major religious associations that came out publicly in favor of the final version of the proposed law: the Catholic Health Association, led by its president and CEO Daughter of Charity Sister Carol Keehan; the national Catholic social justice lobby, Network, led by its director, Sister Simone Campbell, a Sister of Social Service; and a group of religious women representing numerous women’s congregations.
“Beyond the novelty of a female voice with a social and ecclesial commitment, the discussion that accompanied the reform’s passage the past months showed how it is possible to find at different levels in today’s ecclesial reality the common and shared determination that the Catholic church’s social doctrine be at the forefront of asking for a consistent and long-term dedication to justice and a clear preferential option for the poor,” it said.
However, when such a strong commitment to Gospel-based values is translated into action, the usual result is that “the diverse ways of actualizing that prophetic commitment clash,” it said.
The article said that the March 24 presidential executive order “Ensuring Enforcement and Implementation of Abortion Restrictions in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,” demonstrated that the president had taken into account the bishops’ concerns and supported the demands concerning abortion made by the religious women who supported the reform.”
Yet again, a voice of calm from the Vatican, showing yet again the risk of an increasing rift between global Catholicism and those American Catholics trapped by a particular American worldview.
Right on.
Amazing. This is a much needed perspective for those of us who are Catholic in the United States. It is so easy to forget that the Church is universal and not “American” (and certainly not “Republican”.)
Great!!
I look forward to when the the fine Jesuits in Rome appears in front of my State’s Legislative committee and give their input as to what Vital services (often to the poor) will have to be cut to pay for the States parts of the bill on this. That is the hidden cost of the Helath Care bill that does not appear in the national papers and I pretty sure Rome is not aware of.
jh,
Could you explain that in more detail? Like you, I too have looked at all of the “hidden” parts of the health care bill and don’t find what you are asserting.
“what Vital services (often to the poor) will have to be cut to pay for the States parts of the bill on this.”
The military.
Kurt:
My state legislature has started a series of hearings on implementing the provisions of the bill and one thing is certain – it will cost the state a great deal. I am not saying that this makes the new law bad, but the costs to the states are definitely there.
Unfortunately, in the mindset of many legislators the new expenditures will have to come from existing programs, particularly those in human services. It is always the poor who get hit, not roads or education.
“Unfortunately, in the mindset of many legislators the new expenditures will have to come from existing programs, particularly those in human services. It is always the poor who get hit, not roads or education.”
No problem. Private charity will fill the gap. It always does.
jh and ctd,
Could you explain which provisions of the health care bill are requiring what expenditures in your state?
“those American Catholics trapped by a particular American worldview.”
So because a worldview is “particular” — in other words, because it is a minority viewpoint on the world stage — it doesn’t deserve a fair hearing? That is sickeningly close to the idea that truth is determined by the majority. And it is extremely condescending to describe conservative dissenters from the rest of the world’s love affair with quasi-socialism as “trapped”: it used to be called thinking for oneself. Those who opposed the health care bill out of sheer partisanship, shame on them. Those who opposed it because of their worldview did so because they believe their worldview is the truth, and they should never, ever back down from that simply because their view is a minority and unpopular. I should hope that those who supported the reform bill did so out of a similar concern for truth, and not merely because it happened to fit better with the worldview of much of Europe.
Kurt: Mostly required medicaid expansion, but the National Governors Association and the National Conference of State Legislatures is talking about the possibility of other state costs.
Ah the health insurance farce. The means by which people such as myself are deprived of our access to health care.
Yes, this new scheme deprives me of affordable health care options while making politicians and their corporate and union cronies a nice profit.
Its like Robin Hood in reverse for some of us.
Thank you all for that.
No problem. Private charity will fill the gap. It always does.
Disgusting lie. Disgusting worldview. Disgusting distortion of Catholic social teaching.
ctj,
The health reform law expands Medicaid to all individuals with incomes below 133 percent of the federal poverty level. The law provides 100% federal financing for newly eligible individuals until 2016 and then gradually decreases the federal matching rate to 90% from 2020 and beyond. It gives the states broad discretion in the implementation of the program.
This does not seem to me to be something that costs the states a “great deal” and seems to honor the principle of subsidiarity by leaving administration to the states while only asking them to pay a small part of the costs.
However, I am interested in alternative proposals about how people living at less than 133% of poverty are to obtain health insurance or if they should do without because of their economic situation.