I think Mr.Wiegel has made a good point in his commentary.  If the Obama administration can manipulate public perception so that Catholics, even those who consider themselves well catechised, believe there is more than one answer on abortion then they have much less work to do on other issues.  Encouraging the idea that you can have a split between what you profess at Mass on Sunday and what you do the rest of the week will serve to greatly weaken any Catholic influence in the public square.  The Bishops and all people in teaching positions in the Church need to speak loudly and clearly against this trend.  And we all need to pray for their courage in doing so as well as raise our own voices whenever the opportunity arises.

See this interview with Archbishop Naumann on the National Catholic REgister site as well:
http://www.ncregister.com/daily/archbishop_naumann_on_sebelius/

I don’t think that the Sebelius nomination is primarily about a strategy to mess around with the Catholic/life issues debate by the Obama administration. Her nomination is mainly just political payback. She was one of the first major female supporters of Obama and obviously was going to get some kind of position for her support.

However, Kmiec and other leading Catholics are certainly engaging in the type of campaign described by Wiegel. Not like it is a new idea; it just has some new leaders. Also, while the social justice angle of this whole debate on private/public morality has been around for awhile, it definitely has taken on a very specific form in the call for universal health care.

What is truly disappointing in the Sebelius nomination Catholic drama for me is Senator Brownback’s position. He is going to be supporting her confirmation. I am beyond saddened by this fact. He has always been such a committed supporter of the pro-life cause and seemingly a deeply, devoted Catholic that I cannot fathom that he is truly going to vote for this rabidly pro-choice woman for a position that is so influential on life issues.

The bright side of the Sebelius drama is that her Archbishop is handling it very well. He is strongly and clearly preaching the Truth. We need more leaders like him in the Church.

I agree with Maria.  I can’t imagine that the Obama administration is giving any thought whatsoever to an anti-Catholic strategy or picked Sebelius to undermine Catholic leadership.

The progressive pro-life movement… I have mixed feelings about.  I don’t believe Catholics fit well in either political party, so I am sympathetic to their attempts to get the Democrats to court pro-life Catholics.  I have problems with the Republicans getting all the Catholic (pro-life) votes by default when they oppose many things that we should be supporting as Catholics.  But, I get disappointed when Kmiec et al seem to have knee-jerk support for Democratic policies and candidates.  There can be proportionate reasons to support a pro-choice candidate or policy, but certainly not in every instance.

The part of the discussion that I wish wouldn’t get lost in all this is: with respect to health care, what is it our responsibility to advocate for, as Catholics?  The abortion issue is one aspect of it, but what about the larger issue?  It’s my understanding that access to health care is a fundamental right, as a part of respecting human dignity.  And our country?  We have this basic right seriously screwed up.  If the Republicans could put together a decent pro-life, equal access health care plan, Kmiec & co. would have no argument.

We need to protect the unborn, and everyone should have access to health care.  It’s frustrating to me that these two things rarely align in the same person or policies, so it’s difficult to discern what is the Catholic thing to do.

Laura!  Health care and the abortion issue rarely align in the minds of Catholics—because they don’t align at all.  Health insurance is a construct of our economic and political system.  Yes, it’s a morass.  Surely, many people are doing without.  But there is no over-arching Bigger Issue that encompasses Abortion and Health Care, which ought to be our main concern.  That’s the Kmeic philosophy.  Our main concern, I believe, is mass murder, and it’s eradication.  Once our right to life is secured, we can working on making that life more comfortable.  What’s more, as for the Republicans co-opting the Catholic pro-life vote—not so!  Sadly, Barack Obama got the majority of the Catholic vote in this country.

Health care and government regulation do overlap with abortion/Catholic conscience in an important way.  Many Catholic (and other Christian) doc’s do their best to provide free and reduced health care - when the system will let them.  Many times, however, the system will not allow charity.  If this decision about conscience and about the Gov. reduce the number of Catholics able to practice family/ob/gyn medicine in a viable way we will feel the difference in both these issues as well as in charity.  I really believe that government interference is going to be a bad thing.  Dr’s are not allowed to accept a chicken for payment from the poor anymore - everything is too regulated.  I am worried that her appt. as HHS will have an even bigger impact than we expect.  I believe this is less anti-Catholic and more an attempt to weaken society and grab control.

Regina, I respectfully disagree.  My understanding of Catholic teaching is that we are to adovocate for universal access to comprehensive benefits:

http://www.usccb.org/sdwp/national/brochure1.pdf

I didn’t say (and don’t believe) that a single-payer (government) approach is the only option.  But we can’t continue with the current system.  I’m sad that progressive pro-lifers seem to be conceding the abortion issue in favor of universal health care access.  But we also can’t ignore the fact that there is real suffering happening because of our country’s broken health care system.  We can’t wait for the abortion issue to be resolved to address this very real problem.  It doesn’t have to be either/or. 

Fortunately, our Bishops do speak out on this, and USCCB’s “Cover the Uninsured Week” is coming up March 22-28.

Rebecca and Danielle, I hope Faith & Family Live will give this event some attention. While the pro-life issue is key, it’s not the only one on which our Church is speaking.  In January, the USCCB asked us to write to Congress in support of SCHIP the President signed it into law last month.  Given this ostensibly pro-Catholic development, I was disappointed that there was no mention of it here.

I agree with those who have said there shouldn’t be conflict between finding a way to provide health care for all and outlawing abortion at the same time.  It’s so sad that in this country Catholics do not have a political party whose platform both stands for Christian social teaching expressed by the Popes in various encyclicals and the life/family issues.

We tend to always see issues such as health care from a Democratic or Republican lens, meaning it either has to be socialized medicine with abortion coverage (Democrat) or whatever the free market is currently doing which is what we have now (Republican).  As though there were no other choices or ways to do anything.  This is one of the reasons we have national bishops conferences—to sort out how Catholic teaching should apply to specific domestic issues.  Read about this issue.

Most practicing Catholics know that abortion cannot be a part of health care no matter what. Nor can contraception.  But that doesn’t mean we can’t work for universal health care.

Laura and MM,
I definitely agree that abortion and healthcare access/other social justice issues are not an either/or question.  Rather, they’re a this/and question.  Meaning abortion is the “this” that must always be addressed as an intrinsic evil and the other issues also need addressing as social justice issues about which there can be more than one moral approach.  Addressing all the other issues (which neither party does fully either) doesn’t make up for failing to get the abortion issue right.  If only we had a political party that encompassed the breadth of our faith’s social teaching.  But we don’t and not getting the foundational issue of abortion right only serves to distort and weaken any response on other issues.
Paraphrasing Mother Teresa (I think) A country that kills it’s children cannot last and also there is no greater poverty than placing other things before life.

I agree, Maureen, and I think disagreements come in when it comes to defining what it means to “get the abortion issue right.”  This was the subject of many comment threads here around election time, so I won’t re-hash them.  Suffice to say that Catholics all over the political spectrum believe they’re getting the abortion issue right.

With respect to the Sebelius issue, I would like to think that her Catholic supporters do believe they’re getting the abortion issue right.  I can’t get on board with it, but I’m not going to question their motives.  And maybe that’s really the root of Rebecca’s question: what are the motives of Sebelius’ Catholic pro-life supporters?  Are they undermining Catholic leadership?  I don’t know the answer to that, and to be honest, I’m not sure it’s something about which we can charitably speculate.

Abortion and health care are an apple and orange in terms of their relationship to Catholicism, as Laura has already pointed out.

That life begins at conception and abortion is intrinsically evil is both self-evidently true and a matter of faith and morals on which the Church teaches infallibly. There can’t be compromise on that position (even though, as Laura rightly points out, there can exist circumstances where it could be acceptable to vote for a “pro-choice” politician. That too is a matter of Church teaching).

There are any number of ways to deliver health care, however, and there is no “Catholic” means of delivery that we must all get behind, except in the sense that the Church will demand that any system fully respect individual human dignity.

Bishop Naumann puts it well at the link above: “President Obama has made a top priority for his administration health care reform. The Church certainly supports the objectives of such reform: to make quality health care accessible and affordable for everyone. Of course, there is vigorous debate on how to best achieve this important goal. I claim no competence or expertise in this area.”

I wish to put this as delicately as possible, meaning no disrespect to the teaching office of our bishops, and echoing Bishop Nauman’s point: the bishops as a body have no special expertise in most public policy areas (although of course any bishop may have a specialty). 

We lay people neglect our proper role if we look to bishops to tell us how to solve health care (and any number of other public problems) rather than vice versa! Vatican II couldn’t have made this more clear, and Benedict XVI reiterates this role of the laity in defending reason and the human person in the public square in both his encyclicals to date.

It is up to Catholic health care providers, insurance professionals & economists to bring their expertise, experience and insights to bear on the matter of health care. They must work with others of good will to find solutions that fully respect individual human dignity, present their findings to their fellow citizens and try to persuade us. That is the sense in which we’ll ever achieve “Catholic” health care—through the participation, direct and indirect—of a well-informed Catholic laity.

Rebecca, I don’t think anyone (including myself) claimed that the bishops are expected to “solve” the health care problem, merely that they said we need to find a way to make it possible for all to have health care.  They have not set forth specific legislation or said there is one acceptable way to achieve universal health care. Please don’t react in a knee-jerk right-wing way to the bishops.  They have something to say and we need to listen.  They are not advocating socialized medicine.

MM, what I meant was that it won’t be up to the bishops to “baptize” a plan as it were. There won’t be a “Catholic” health care solution as such. Rather, there will be various solutions which Catholics with sufficient expertise can help create and the rest of us have the duty to evaluate according to our principles: respect for life, for human dignity, preferential care for the poor…and of course sound economic principles as well. We shouldn’t be waiting to see what happens, we should be in the thick of things, helping our country come up with a solution that is respectful of life and dignity.

I don’t think my knee was even twitching, much less jerking

Although, since you bring it up….how would you characterize the USCCB advocacy of S-CHIP?

I find this conversation in the comments fascinating!

I admit, I often feel frustrated in conversations with fellow Catholics - because there is SO much more to our faith than one (albeit one VERY IMPORTANT!) issue.

I may have clapped with glee when I read Laura, “While the pro-life issue is key, it’s not the only one on which our Church is speaking.” 

We’re watering down our faith and our Church when we limit our Church that way. We offer so much more!

For example, http://www.justiceforimmigrants.org, a Catholic campaign for immigration reform, is an another excellent example of our religious leaders working for a more compassionate world!

Rebecca, first I want to again clarify that I do not look to the bishops to “baptize” a specific overall all plan.  First, I think it highly unlikely they would get behind some specific overall health care plan.  However, they might advocate certain smaller pieces of legislation such as SCHIP.  The USCCB supports all kinds of legislation including pro-life legislation.  Obviously we are not bound to support any proposal they support, not even pro-life ones.  We are bound to be pro-life but how to achieve that legislatively is up to individual Catholics to discern.  The same thing goes for SCHIP.  You are free to disagree with this program.  It would, however to be tougher to disagree with their premise that there should be universal health care.

It seems you were hinting that SCHIP is part of some dreaded socialist agenda.  If so, I think you are overeaching.  You can support some government programs without thinking all of health care needs to be government-run.  I don’t think the bishops think that either and are simply putting out principles that any plan should include.  I’m a Republican who believes in less government but there are some goverment programs I and other Republicans support.  In fact, I have a friend without health insurance but at least her child with many health problems has insurance due to some government program.

Though I identify myself more in the Republican camp than Democratic (primarily due to the life/family issues but also on economic issues), I really try not to see everything in terms of whether it is Republican or Democrat.  I try to see things as whether it best expresses my Catholic beliefs.  I do this in terms of each piece of legislation.  I don’t have a problem with SCHIP but again, you can agree or disagree with the bishops on this.  Would be pretty dicey though to say we don’t need to worry about children’s health care.

But then maybe you are a libertarian that would disagree with the very existence of government and you certainly have a right to that opinion.

We all have different opinions but the bishops opinions count for more than yours or mine.  If I didn’t know an issue enough to have an opinion I would feel safer following their recommendations than, some secular public policy think tank, either liberal or conservative.

Just a note: I don’t know the particulars of referring to priests, clergy, bishops, etc., but he is Archbishop Naumann, rather than Bishop, of the Archdiocese of Kansas City in Kansas.

[Thanks! Corrected above—RT]

MM: With respect for you (and a smile on my face as I write) I have to say you’ve misread me entirely, probably due to my own lack of clarity.

Let me try again. My point is much simpler: that our comments so far have trended in the direction of looking to the USCCB for guidance on health care policy, when it is us lay people who should be in the trenches solving the problem: this is our precise task. To put it more clearly, where are the faithful Catholic physicians, hospital administrators, insurers and economists and their innovative—and life-respecting—proposals?

Here’s Benedict in Deus Caritas Est: “The Church cannot and must not take upon herself the political battle to bring about the most just society possible. She cannot and must not replace the State. Yet at the same time she cannot and must not remain on the sidelines in the fight for justice. She has to play her part through rational argument and she has to reawaken the spiritual energy without which justice, which always demands sacrifice, cannot prevail and prosper. A just society must be the achievement of politics, not of the Church. Yet the promotion of justice through efforts to bring about openness of mind and will to the demands of the common good is something which concerns the Church deeply.”

And later…
...“The direct duty to work for a just ordering of society, on the other hand, is proper to the lay faithful.”

In other words, the Bishops’ role is to form consciences—as they are doing in the link Laura provides at #7.

Whether it’s wise for them to directly advocate for S-CHIP is another question, and that’s what I was asking you about. My view is that the bishops actually dilute the power of their teaching office when they move from forming consciences about principles to advocating specific policies. (Bishops of course have the right as individuals to say what they really think about issues, and some of them will have professional expertise and experience to bear on various issues; I am speaking of whether the USCCB as a body should do so.) If “the Church” takes a stand on every issue, when in fact we are bound in conscience on only a few issues, is it surprising that our message gets diluted?

Advocating specific policies is the lay duty: working for the civilization of justice and love in concert with all people of good will is our precise vocation.

In short, my comment was not in the least political; it was pointing to the remnants of clericalism that exist in all of us—even all these years after Vatican II.

Rebecca, I guess we have to agree to disagree on some things.  I do think the bishops have the right to speak on public policy issues and advocate legislation.  They do not take a position on every little issue, that would be impossible.  But major issues like abortion, health care and immigration, yes they take positions.  Right now they are taking a position on FOCA and through both direct lobbying and grassroots lobbying they are deluging Congress with anti-FOCA sentiments.  Thank you bishops for standing up for life!  I completely disagree that this is clericalism.

By the way, our bishops have almost all been appointed by either John Paul the Great or Pope Benedict and they are wonderful pastors.  They are not perfect of course but today’s priests and bishops are heads and shoulders above what we had 20 years ago.

MM, nobody questioned our bishops’ courage, orthodoxy or pastoral wisdom. I love our bishops, pray for them daily, and count quite a number of them among my heroes.

But it is in no way inconsistent with love of bishops and faithful obedience to their teaching to question the prudence of certain acts of the bishops’ conference. To suggest otherwise shuts down the free exercise of our reason to which as lay persons we’re not only entitled, but called by God.

Opposition to FOCA binds in conscience because abortion is intrinsically evil and FOCA, if passed, will costs hundreds of thousands of lives.

The conference is on very different ground supporting FOCA than it is supporting S-CHiP, because that recommendation doesn’t bind in conscience—but some Catholics will try to argue it does, thereby shutting down the very exercise that is the unique vocation of the laity.

Understand, I am not saying that it is un- or anti-Catholic to support S-ChiP. I’m saying that the point is debatable, and our responsibility to evaluate the issue goes beyond knowing the USCCB is for it.

Rebecca, again I think we have to agree to disagree on the role of the bishops on public policy.