Thursday, March 11, 2010

Fair Warning to the USCC's "Rights" Crowd

Roeser is right, you know.

...I come now to the injunction a good many Catholic prelates use: “The right to health care” where they sanction its passage by justifiable might. None other than one of my favorites used it the other day—Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver. He spoke at Houston Baptist University.

Most of what Archbishop Chaput said made good sense—but like many other prelates of good will, when he turned to the subject of health care. He said this: “First, while access to decent health care may not seem to be a `right’ in the same sense as our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, the Church does see it as a right.


Well, yes. There is no such teaching in Church doctrine. (The Beatitudes have no language specifying Statism, for the information of the LeftOWackies who inhabit rectories, chanceries, and all the other usual-suspect places....)

And Tom's not done yet.

Make no mistake: I thoroughly support the efforts of prelates and the USCCB to keep the evil of abortion out of universal health care. But at the same time I believe that it is also incumbent on the Church and its churchmen to emphasize that state assumption of private functions runs the risk of incurring a collectivist theory of morality.

Finally, it occurs to me that maybe our prelates are so cavalier about “rights” they urge the state to assume stems from the fact that their dioceses and they themselves in contradistinction to all of us, are tax exempt. I guarantee you this: If they keep this up, there will be enough backlash in this country to insist that they too share the burden of the rest of us taxpayers.

That’s something for them to ponder and ponder well. They may then reflect on how many state mandated “rights” are required.

The "collectivist theory" Tom mentions is quite au courant--a variant, "liberation theology" was smacked down hard by JPII, who was partially successful. It's a category-error class mistake, essentially confusing personal responsibility with State responsibility; an extension of "welfare" to the Nth degree.

It's about time that Bishops with common sense (such as Bp. Nickless of Sioux City) start a vigorous campaign to assist their brother-Bishops in understanding Church teaching and Statism.


Joe of St. Thérèse said...

The only Bishop I've seen avoid this statism is Bp. Nickless from Sioux City, IA.

This is by far the best analysis of deathcare reform I've seen from an American Bishop...I can dream this guy will replace Mahony right?

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Dad29 said...

I delete remarks which are not productive, Anony.

Dave said...

No, anonymous. One may still believe in a right to decent health care, and yet differ in how that right is to be implemented. Historically, the Church has run hospitals and clinics for the poor, and did it very well, independent of government intervention.

Anonymous said...

The comment that was deleted was "Dad 29 = Cafeteria Catholic"
I do not believe that it was "not productive" but that it was to the point. Dad 29's thinking as exemplified over time in his blog shows that he is very conservative and it is that which determines his position on issues not the principles of his Catholic faith.
While, I's sure his positions on abortion and same sex marriage would agree with the statements of the Bishops; I surmise that his positions on healthcare reform, capital punishment, immigration reform would all discent from the principals laid out by the statements of the United States Catholic Conference of Bishops.

Dad29 said...

would all discent from the principals laid out by the statements of the United States Catholic Conference of Bishops.

How're things in California, Anony?

The word is "dissent."

NONE of the USCC's ponderous prattle is doctrinal. It's opinion. They have theirs (it's usually wrong) and I have mine.

Anonymous said...

So only doctrinal statements need apply and only they have any claim on faithful Catholics? "Sentire cum ecclesia" (St.Igantius Loyola) holds no weight with Dad 29?

Dad29 said...

It's 'sentire cum ecclesia,' not 'sentire cum USCC.'

The USCC has NO, zero, zip, nada, teaching authority.

You could read up on that. It's not even in Latin.