Tuesday, November 17, 2009

Bishops Assert Moral Imperative in Healthcare


Chicago Cardinal Francis George, the conference president, said that the prelates must ensure that "issues that are moral questions before they become political remain moral questions when they become political." Roman Catholic prelates believe that "everyone should be cared for and that no one should be deliberately killed," he said.

The second part of the red-highlight is unexceptionable except to the Brave New World Progressives of Planned Parenthood (and Red China).

But as we pointed out below, the first part is a bit more problematic. The Bishops attempt to transfer a personal moral obligation to the State, which requires making the State an actor. However, being 'an actor,' strictly speaking, requires free will, which is not a property of the State.

Consistent with this transference, the Bishops also ignore the principle of subsidiarity with their eagerness to bless a Federal plan.

I'm sure that USCC will issue a paper which justifies their position through a right application of moral theology.

Just as soon as USCC issues a paper justifying its love of Alinsky operations.


Anonymous said...

"The right application of moral theology" states the fundamentalist theocrat. Congratulations on sharing that honor with your Islamic jihadist brethren.

“Is is possible to make a COHERENT argument that government-provided healthcare is a moral obligation?"

Yes. There is no governmental body that represents both the people of the Untied States AND the people of Argentia. Political authority rests only upon people living in specific geographic boundaries. The arena of legitimate moral authority cannot exceed the arena of legitimate political authority if political authority is to have any specific context (i.e. the moral authority of, for example, Gambia is not consulted when law making in Mississippi. The moral voice consulted, if any, rests solely with this country.)

Within the context of our political system, morals are not absolutes. Our political system treats them as “values” which operate in a pluralistic fashion, interacting with competing moral codes. People may choose to think of the moral code they observe as absolute and universal, but our political system is under no such obligation.

Dad29 said...

Two observations:

1) Catholic Bishops should be able to make a Catholic moral "case" if they claim "moral" justification. Your moral relativism is irrelevant to the post.

2) Learn to tighten up your prose before posting. Incomprehensibility does not assist you when making your "case."

Anonymous said...

I'm sure Fox News reported this story.

176 House Republicans joined with 64 Democrats in voting for the Stupak amendment, which “could effectively stop many employer-provided health insurance plans from covering abortions for tens of millions of Americans” and restrict any private plan in the insurance exchange from offering abortion coverage. However, Politico reported that the RNC’s own employee health care plan has covered elective abortion since 1991 — “a procedure the party’s own platform calls ‘a fundamental assault on innocent human life’”.

Federal Election Commission Records show the RNC purchases its insurance from Cigna. Two sales agents for the company said that the RNC’s policy covers elective abortion.

Apparently, the health insurance plan used by Focus on the Family also covered “abortion services.”

Update--The RNC announced it will no longer offer employees an insurance plan that covers abortion.

But...they got it "right" (finally). Hypocrisy at its finest.