Catholic values can exist in politics
/ The State News
Dan Faas
From an early age, we’re taught the value of compromise. Whether it’s learning to share in kindergarten, conflict resolution in elementary school or mastering the give-and-take relationship in marriages, society expects us all to come to a compromise on a number of issues.
So when a certain organization or group refuses to compromise its principles, critics are quick to cry, “Foul!” We’ll label these groups as stubborn or childish, and society as a whole is quick to convict those who are unwavering in their convictions.
One such group that lately has been the subject of much ire in the media is the Catholic Church, most specifically the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, or USCCB, the Church’s governing body in the United States. These “meddling” bishops, as they’ve been called, have inserted themselves smack-dab in the middle of the health care reform debate, and people — from civilians to lawmakers, Republicans to Democrats — are pissed about it.
Maybe you’ve heard the story, but if not, I’ll recap. A few weeks ago, the U.S. House of Representatives was still frantically trying to pass its version of the health care bill. At the eleventh hour, an amendment was introduced by the pro-life Democrat Bart Stupak, D-Mich. The “Stupak Amendment,” as it’s called, prohibits any federally subsidized health insurance plan from covering abortions. The bishops worked closely with Stupak (a Catholic) and other lawmakers to ensure the language of the amendment was sound and that it was included in the final version of the health care bill.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., knew the only way to pass the bill was to allow representatives to vote on the Stupak Amendment. By doing so, Pelosi (also a Catholic) was able to get another 41 votes on the health care bill, mostly from pro-life Democrats. On the evening of Nov. 7, the health care bill passed by the narrow margin of 220 to 215. Essentially, the health care bill passing in the House came as a direct result of the Stupak Amendments’s inclusion.
But why did the Catholic Church have so much influence in the matter? Why not a wealthy pro-life lobbying group, or some right-wing evangelicals? Surely there are plenty of political and religious groups that oppose abortion.
There certainly are, but it’s important to note that the Catholic Church is one of the precious few groups that remain vehemently pro-life, while also strongly supporting health care reform. In fact, bishops have been pushing for health care reform for decades, ever since Pope John XXIII’s 1963 encyclical, “Pacem in Terris,” which classified health care as a fundamental human right.
Naturally though, there are those who have accused the Church of going too far, even saying its tax-exempt status should be removed if it continues to engage so conspicuously in the public sphere. The pro-choice contingent obviously is beside themselves as well. Laurie Rubiner, vice president of public policy for Planned Parenthood, said when speaking of the Catholic Church, that she was surprised “an entity that purports to be a supporter of health care reform and an advocate for the poor and low-income women would take such a hard line and refuse to compromise.”
Never mind the fact that all of the Church’s services — support for health care reform, helping the poor, etc. — all spring from core convictions and principles that the Church can never change. For Catholics, these principles extend to protecting the dignity of human life from conception to natural death.
So when the bishops say things such as “abortion is not health care” and “no one should be deliberately killed,” they are speaking out of firm convictions, not stubbornness. How can statements such as these — and the principles behind them — possibly be compromised? And how can we really expect those who hold such profoundly important moral convictions to just stand idly by and not engage in public policy?
The Church’s stance on abortion and health care is one crafted out of principles, not politics. It’s myopic to expect religious leaders to compromise their principles for the sake of social or policy changes. Politicians do that plenty well as it is.
It’s unclear how the Stupak Amendment will fare in the Senate, but one thing is clear; The bishops aren’t going away or shutting up any time soon. By refusing to check their moral convictions at the gate of the public square, Catholic bishops helped the House get a health care bill.
In the end, the House traded public funding for abortion in exchange for the most authentic and necessary health care reform that our nation has seen in decades.
That, to me, seems like a very acceptable compromise.
Dan Faas is the State News opinion writer. Reach him at faasdani@msu.edu.
11/17/09 @ 9:05pm
Way to go Saint Paul! Very well said! I couldn’t believe when you’re article came up as a result of a google search. You made some great points. Keep up the good work!
Take care and God bless,
Joe
11/18/09 @ 9:06am
“The bishops aren’t going away or shutting up any time soon. By refusing to check their moral convictions at the gate of the public square, Catholic bishops helped the House get a health care bill.” No. They interfered to push their own agenda which is based on dogma and not evidence – or democratically expressed public opinion – and have it enshrined in law. A law that affects the rights of people who are both members, non-members and escapees from their particular cult.
Precisely what part of ‘separation of church and state’ do you not understand, Dan?
11/18/09 @ 11:19am
Nice article, Dan!
David, you are not correct in your analysis. How can you accuse the bishops of “interfering…for their own agenda.” and not say the same about Planned Parenthood’s advocacy for abortion (or any other pro-choice group)? Surely, they “interfered” through lobbyists and political pressure…Are all who agree with you politically astute but all who disagree radical interlopers? Sounds a bit hypocritical. As far as “no evidence” again, you are incorrect. Pop over to the Biology Dept. some time and ask any one of the professors when life begins. As for “democratically expressed public opinion” you are wrong again. Just check out the latest Rasmussen poling on abortion and health care reform. The majority of our country does not want health care reform that include abortion coverage. It is being pushed by a small, powerful MINORITY that is lead by Speaker Pelosi. Rumor is that President Obama will veto or have the Stupak amendment removed. That would certainly go against the wishes of “democratically expressed public opinion.”
11/18/09 @ 11:21am
The question regarding Stupak’s amendment, and hence the involvement of the Catholic Church, is why was it necessary at all? This particular issue, a law prohibiting the use of federal money, under any circumstance, to pay for abortions, was covered by The Hyde Amendment of 1976. To quote Stupak, from an interview in The Atlantic,
_“Current law, which is my amendment—it’s the Hyde language—says no public funding for abortion, no public funding for health insurance policies that provide for abortion coverage…
Federal law right now, federal employees, the Department of Defense, Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, Indian Health Service—none of them can use their federal funds to pay for an abortion. That’s always been the law, and we go no further…
NPR has a site that says nothing changes, PolitiFact has a site that says the Stupak language doesn’t change anything, it’s current law…”_
http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/11/stupak_on_the_stupak_amendment.php
Stupak’s redundant amendment was a waste of time and resources. Perhaps he has been thinking too much about the loss of C-Street’s tax exempt status and the possible increase in the cost of his D.C. fraternity membership.
11/18/09 @ 11:45am
“Precisely what part of ‘separation of church and state’ do you not understand, Dan?”
Its not clear from the article what Dan doesn’t understand, but it is very clear from the comment what David doesn’t understand. The courts have long held that the doctrine of separation applies to state originating religion. That is, the state cannot compel you to belong to a religion (which, by the way, was the case in England at the time the Constitution was written- the King was the head of the state church). However, the courts have not taken the position that membership in a church, or even a leadership position in a church, eliminates your First Amendment right to petition the government or to free speech or assembly.
What part of this do you not understand, David?
11/18/09 @ 2:09pm
Supreme Court is right about Dave and Dan. A far better debate is whether or not the Catholic Church should maintain their tax exempt status in light of their rather vocal political pressuring. Seems an awful lot like lobbying.
11/18/09 @ 2:33pm
This amendment isn’t simply denying public funding for abortions, Dan. That’s what the 1976 federal statute, the Hyde Amendment does. The Stupak/Pitts amendment goes far beyond what is already allowed/disallowed by this statute and does not allow women on partially subsidized PRIVATE INSURANCE to get this legal procedure done unless they purchase a special abortion rider option. As if they are expecting to have abortions in the future! Really, who plans to have abortions? And don’t say Mr./Mrs. Garrison from South Park.
11/18/09 @ 2:43pm
David, and what part of the Estalishment Clause from the 1st amendment do you help with?
In Harris v. McRae, the Supremes stated, it does not follow that a statute violates the Establishment Clause because it happens to coincide or harmonize with the tenets of some or all religions.
Get back to the Good Books! Nice work, Dan.
11/18/09 @ 4:10pm
Hmm, Rye seems to be correct. Stupak apparently is playing fast and loose with the truth in Atlantic interview.
11/18/09 @ 5:35pm
Excellent Article Dan! I always look forward to them. Keep up the excellent work.
Re: Above, he’s not playing fast, federally subsidized insurance is still utilizing federal (tax) money – if you didnt ban it, it would essentially be saying using an accounting gimmick would enable you to get around the law. Sadly, the ammendment was needed because thats exactly what people would try to do.
11/19/09 @ 9:27pm
Legislate a change in law on abortion or shut up. I am weary of reading about moral degenerates who have only one issue: abortion. Nothing about war, poverty, prostitution of children, slavery, hunger, disease. Just abortion.
11/20/09 @ 10:31pm
Jason: “[the] debate is whether or not the Catholic Church should maintain their tax exempt status in light of their rather vocal political pressuring. Seems an awful lot like lobbying.”
Hmm…I don’t recall a similar uproar when Fr. Fleger and Rev. Wright were doing much more than “lobbying” from the pulpit. Of course, that was FOR Obama, so I guess that is different…The Church can be a tax-exempt group and still have “freedom of religion.” Don’t you DARE try to handcuff her free speech because you disagree with it. That is childish. The Bishops know their rights more than you do. Take some time this weekend and read the constitution. While you are at it, let me know when you get to the “separation of Church and state part.” I am curious to read it in context and in it’s entirety.
Typee: you mention some good points…war…poverty…etc. Keep in mind that they all have the same fundamental foundation: the dignity of all human beings. You can’t have the “pursuit of happiness” without “liberty” and you can’t have “liberty” without “life.” These unalienable rights are endowed by our Creator and listed in a hierarchical order. So, your issues are all good, but they all are subordinate to the abortion issue. To say otherwise is either ignorant…or insidious.
11/22/09 @ 5:12pm
Another excellent article, Mr. Faas! Yes, this is a bright chapter in the Church’s long and proud history of advocacy for the poor and the weak.
Praised be Jesus Christ, the King of glory!
11/23/09 @ 2:12pm
Tom-
Your reading comprehension skills are woefully lacking. And your self-righteous indignation is laughable. I specifically said this isn’t an anti-establishment issue. The IRS tax code regarding tax-exempt status has nothing to do with the the Establishment Clause.
It’s fascinating to see yet another example of right wing hypocrisy as they support telling private insurers what they are allowed to offer.
It wasn’t long ago when Republicans voted against forcing defense contractors to allow employees to sue for rape. Their defense? Government shouldn’t get involved in private contracts like that.