I noticed this interesting article on today's Vatican Information Service. I'm posting this specifically so our reader and my friend Gene (formerly pin) will notice it and comment on it. I'll post it in its entirety below with some of my comments embedded Fr. Z style.
Here is the teaching set forth quite plainly in Rerum Novarum:THE CHURCH IS COMMITTED TO UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE COVERAGE
Vatican City, 24 May 2012 (VIS) - Archbishop Zygmunt Zimowski, head of the Holy See delegation to the sixty-fifth World Health Assembly, yesterday delivered an address before that gathering, which is being held in Geneva, Switzerland, from 21 to 26 May. Speaking English, the archbishop reaffirmed the Holy See's support for Resolution WHA64.9 on "sustainable health financing structures and universal coverage", which urges member States to aim for affordable universal coverage [Quod Apostolici Muneris and Rerum Novarum, where art thou?] and access for all citizens on the basis of equity and solidarity [and what about subsidiarity, the third pillar of Catholic Social Teaching?].
He also recalled how Benedict XVI has emphasised the importance of establishing "real distributive justice which, on the basis of objective needs, guarantees adequate care to all. [Absolutely - that is certainly one of the Church's goals. However, it is a goal historically acheived through Church run hospitals and clinics, not through the State.] Consequently, if it is not to become inhuman, the world of healthcare cannot disregard the moral rules that must govern it". [And what of the moral rules regarding Socialism? Leo XIII had this to say about this sort of "equality": "Their habit (Socialists, that is), as we have intimated, is always to maintain that nature has made all men equal, and that, therefore, neither honor nor respect is due to majesty, nor obedience to laws, unless, perhaps, to those sanctioned by their own good pleasure." That teaching is juxtaposed with the doctrine that "there underlies a dictate of natural justice more imperious and ancient than any bargain between man and man, namely, that wages ought not to be insufficient to support a frugal and well-behaved wage-earner."]
Archbishop Zimowski noted that "more countries, especially those with emerging economies, are moving towards universal coverage", thanks also to "good policies that promote equity. ... Therefore my delegation strongly believes that in the endeavour to promote universal [universal = Socialist] coverage, fundamental values such as equity, human rights and social justice [ugh!] need to become explicit policy objectives", he said.
The archbishop made an appeal for high-income countries to show greater solidarity towards poorer nations in order to overcome funding shortfalls in health. In this context he quoted the Encyclical "Caritas in veritate" in which Benedict XVI writes: "More economically developed nations should do all they can to allocate larger portions of their gross domestic product to development aid, thus respecting the obligations that the international community has undertaken in this regard". [The Church teaches charity, not redistribution. Again Leo XIII: "[T]he Church, with much greater wisdom and good sense, recognizes the inequality among men, who are born with different powers of body and mind, inequality in actual possession, also, and holds that the right of property and of ownership, which springs from nature itself, must not be touched and stands inviolate."]
In conclusion the head of the Holy See delegation affirmed that "progress towards universal coverage [There's that word "universal" again] cannot be the effort of State machinery alone. It requires support from civil society. ... With over 120,000 social and healthcare institutions worldwide, the Catholic Church is in many developing countries one of the key partners of the State in healthcare delivery, providing services in remote areas to rural low-income populations, enabling them to access services that would otherwise be out of their reach. The efforts and contribution of such organisations and institutions towards universal access, merit the recognition and support of both the State and the international community, without obliging them to participate in activities they find morally abhorrent" [Well, there's something about conscience clauses at least].
[I]f a family finds itself in exceeding distress, utterly deprived of the counsel of friends, and without any prospect of extricating itself, it is right that extreme necessity be met by public aid, since each family is a part of the commonwealth. In like manner, if within the precincts of the household there occur grave disturbance of mutual rights, public authority should intervene to force each party to yield to the other its proper due; for this is not to deprive citizens of their rights, but justly and properly to safeguard and strengthen them. But the rulers of the commonwealth must go no further; here, nature bids them stop.
The first and most fundamental principle, therefore, if one would undertake to alleviate the condition of the masses, must be the inviolability of private property. This being established, we proceed to show where the remedy sought for must be found.
My comments:
Basic healthcare is important and should be provided to those who need it. Catholic social teaching indicates that such services should first be provided by those who are wealthy and own capital - that is, employers. Indeed, in American society, this is the case. Moveover, hospitals and doctors routinely offer their services for free or at a reduced rate. That is the basic charity called for by that profession. In America, if one needs healthcare, one gets healthcare even in the absence of a State-run system.
I am unqualified to say whether this is the case in developing countries, but I would guess that it is not. Therefore, the State may have a duty to "force" such charity from employers and medical professionals.
That said, universal healthcare as envisioned by Socialists (including those running America these days) is not in accordance with Catholic social teaching. It may behoove those making public speeches on behalf of the Holy See to stop using phrases like "universal healthcare" because of its Socialistic implications...
15 comments:
If the Church wants the state to get involved in providing health care tho a high degree, then it will of necessity have to accept that the state will also do so on its own moral terms, which will probably differ greatly from Catholic morality. In short, more state involvement means more state interference.
This doesn't seem to have sunk in yet for those in the Vatican.
That's a good point. If you read Rerum Novarum, it is shot through with the idea that the State provides resources with the Church as the moral compass for the operation.
The underlying problem on modern society is the perceived change in the Church's teaching on religious liberty and a denial of the social reign of Christ the King. Perhaps the Vatican will at some point realize that the Church is higher than the State...
Look, there isn't much to say. I have said before that the Church...and particularly the Vatican...being European, are far too comfortable with Socialistic and Communistic venues in spite of what the Catechism and certain Dogma may say. I do not believe they wil ever get over it. Just look at the history of the Church with the European State...they have had a centuries long marriage, complete with spats, plate tossing rages, storming out on one another, and even a divorce or two. Yet, they always make-up or re-marry and everything is just hunky-dory. Meanwhile, their offspring, legitimate or otherwise, continue to thrive...collectivism, progressivism, statism, and an insane, recurrent love for tyrants, decadent monarchs, and failed social experiments run by political hacks with gorgeous women on their arms and driving Maserati's while clothed in Armani and Gucci. What did you expect?
Did I mention economic insanity? At what point do we draw a line between our duty to provide for the poor and under-priveleged and our God-given common sense? The poor are one thing, but "under-developed nations?" Where did Jesus talk about those? There is a distinction between feeding hungry families or giving Joe Dumpster your coat and supporting entire rat hole economies. Take Haiti for example...we are constantly giving millions to Haiti. St. Jo's is even bonded with them in some mammary relationship or other. But, seriously now, in one-hundred years Haiti is going to look just like it does now. They burned every tree on the wretched island to make charcoal, for Christ's sake. Haiti is the absolute bottom of the dreg nation barrel. Run by gangs and thugs, it is hopelessly lost except for the hope of US military intervention which seems remote since they have no oil. Yet, we keep pouring money there. Is there not a Scriptural injunction against poor stewardship? Is Haiti, and other nations like it, not really a bushel under which we are putting our financial lamp? Please...
I agree. The difficult thing is to attempt to understand actual social doctrine in the realm of healthcare. Clearly, Christ intended for the Church (and her people) to provide people with those things necessary for their souls to reach eternal salvation. That involves healthcare to at least some degree.
The idea that seems to be underpinning a lot of this universal healthcare nonsense is an earthly utopia where everyone has all their needs met. That flies in the face of Catholic doctrine and is semi-Pelagian.
Forgive my denseness, Marc, but what has physical health to do with my soul gaining eternal salvation? There is some kind of Aristotelian/Platonic confusion here...Let's see...things necessary for eternal salvation..right belief, Baptism, worshipping in the Catholic Church, Confession, penance...uh, I missed the part about good health...
People need to live long enough to be baptized.
People need to live long enough to be able to hear the Truth of the Gospel in order to have right belief, be baptized, and confess their sins.
OK, so you mean we don't really need to support them their whole lives and prop up the countries where they live...good. So, really, in the Catholic Church, that isn't very long. We need to support them maybe for a few days or a few weeks.
So, I propose that the Church cease all financial support once a person is Baptized or Confirmed. Then it becomes a matter for the State, which still is not good, but this clearly falls under Caesar's realm.
I don't think we could say that it is a blanket rule that we owe no duty to provide healthcare to people once they're baptized. I think we owe a duty to all people to care for them - that is the call to charity. The question is to what extent it is the duty of the State to do that by reapportioning resources.
Interestingly, in America, the State would prefer to close the traditional means of supplying healthcare to the poor - Catholic and religious hospitals - in favor of State run "universal" insurance coverage.
I mean, let's get real, the question about universal healthcare is really out the window as soon as ideas like health insurance are thrown in the mix. The question has changed from: to whom do we owe a charitable duty of bodily care (which is everyone) to: to whom do we owe insurance coverage. These are two different questions.
The problem isn't healthcare, the problem is insurance.
So, really, it boils down to this: who do you want making decisions about health insurance: the State or a private company?
The situation was better when healthcare was run by religious institutions.
I would caution against the idea that the body is somehow seperable from the soul for purposes of salvation. Christ came to save us entirely, body and soul. Both must be tended to in order to obtain salvation.
Where is it written?
Well, there's a lot about it.
Let's see Matthew 10 where is taken what in Latin is "Euntes docete et curate infirmos" (Go, teach and heal the sick):
1 - Then he (Jesus) summoned his twelve disciples 2 and gave them authority over unclean spirits to drive them out and to cure every disease and every illness.
(...)
7 - Cure the sick, raise the dead, cleanse lepers, drive out demons. Without cost you have received; without cost you are to give.
11 Whatever town or village you enter ....
Hoping you will read more about it. It could be surprising as your comments were to me.
Anonymous: Good citations there. I would add that the Scripture you have provided shows us the connection between the well-being of our bodies and the eternal salvation of our souls.
Surely Christ did not intend for his disciples to go forth and become physicians... Christ intends that all people have the material goods and well-being necessary to their state in life in order to attain the eternal salvation of their soul.
Christ became Man in order to redeem us entirely. He ascended (on a Thursday!) to Heaven bodily, placing our human-ness in the realm of the divine. We cannot forget the body - this is important, particularly for Catholics where we use our bodies during Liturgy because we understand the body is the Temple of the Holy Ghost when we are in the state of grace.
Anonymous, you missed my point. I was suggesting that there is a difference between healing the sick, feeding the poor, and ministering to those in need and supporting whole nations and classes through programmatic health care. That is what I meant by asking where does Jesus talk about supporting "underdeveloped nations."
I have "read more about it" for years. Jesus taught a highly individualistic ethic based upon our relationship with each other and those in need. Secularists and libs have been trying to base some kind of collectivist politic on the sayings of Jesus for a long time. It just won't wash.
Marc, there is no essential connection between physical well-being and salvation...please. Yes, Christ came to redeem the body and soul, the whole man, but
1)redemption is an eschatological concept in terms of salvation history and, 2. Christ and Paul address the body as the source of temptation and sin and, therefore, a hindrance to salvation unless sanctified by grace through faith. You may also remember that the Church has a long history of subduing the body and chastening it through various physical means, some most unpleasant. I believe even JPII confessed to self-flagellation. So, this business of glorifying the body in this life is not quite so simple. It is certainly tenuous to try to base universal health care on it. Why can't the Church and all you folks with guilty consciences just leave socialism and communism alone? Why don't you guys go and get yourself tempted by a beautiful woman or a fifth of good scotch, or maybe strangle a neighbor you hate. At least, that way you'll only be wrecking your own life instead of destroying a Republic.
Gene, there is a connection between the body and salvation, though. You pointed it out yourself when talking about bodily mortifications!
I guess my take on this is the same as yours to a large degree. People need to have the level of health that allows them to obtain salvation. In the underdeveloped world, that might include raising the level of healthcare on a state-wide scale. In the West, I would argue that the level of "healthcare" and medical science might be reaching such a "high" level that it is actually becoming a hindrance to salvation for some.
So, I agree that Catholic doctrine, as it is currently developed, does not seem to hold that wealthy states must care for underdeveloped states. On an individual level, the collective "we" of the Church have a duty that springs from charity to provide care to the poor. Why was Mother Teresa caring for the poor in Calcutta? Surely it was not simply for the sake of making them well physically - that is a work of mercy that moves them closer to God. That sort of movement closer to God does not come about as a result of states or peoples being forced to provide care to the poor - it only comes about through true charity.
Remember - solidarity and subsidiarity. The state is not the lowest level at which this task of healthcare can be accomplished...
Marc, then you and I have no essential disagreement. Universal healthcare is unobtainable, just as Heaven on earth is unobtainable.
Now, before everyone goes ape dung and says I am indifferent toward the poor, I am not. But, Christ and Scripture teach that there is no justice in this world. The only people who are so nervous and desperate to bring some universal order of justice about are those who have lost their faith. In the best of all possible worlds (which this is if you believe Spinoza), babies will still die, good people will die tragically and far too soon, and evil men will live while bringing great harm to others. Suffering will continue to be widespread, killers will go unpunished, and I am sure there are far worse evild than we ever dreamed of inthe future. So, feed the hungry, clothe the poor, care for the widow and the orphan...then, perhaps we will be allowed a peek over the precipice of Glory to see the true justice of Christ the Righteous Judge being wreaked below.
Anyway, I digress...it is stupid and a waste of money to try to provide universal healthcare. Everybody already has to be seen in an ER. My best friend is an ER physician in Atlanta. The ER is filled with little Obamanites with runny noses, big Obamanites with drug habits who want a prescription, and scores of chronically ill or crazy people who want attention. Why don't you ask some docs how that system is working out?
Finally, lawyers, I used to hear it argued that health care is not even a Constitutional right. What happened to that discussion? I think a good argument could be made that it isn't. Is the Constitution just a big blank check for anything anybody wants? Looks like that is what the morons running the country want it to be. I can't wait 'til the money runs out and the Dem constituency burns every major city in the country. God, will it ever serve them right or what...LOL!
Post a Comment