On Health Care, Listen to the Nuns (Guest Voice)
Mar 18th, 2010 | 13 responses
WASHINGTON — One of the tragedies of the viciously politicized battle over health care reform is the defection of the nation’s Roman Catholic bishops from a cause they have championed for decades.
Indifferent to political fashions, the bishops were the strongest voices in support of universal health coverage, a position rooted in Catholic social thought that calls for a special solicitude toward the poor.
Yet on the make-or-break roll call that will determine the fate of health care reform, bishops are urging that the bill be voted down. They are doing so on the basis of a highly tendentious reading of the abortion provisions in the Senate measure. If health reform is defeated, the bishops will have played a major role in its demise.
The provisions they dislike were written by two Democratic senators strongly opposed to abortion, Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Bob Casey of Pennsylvania. Pro-choice groups condemned the Nelson-Casey language from the start.
Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, called their amendment “anti-choice,” “outrageous” and “inexplicable.” Planned Parenthood and the National Organization for Women were equally critical.
But the Nelson-Casey language still didn’t go far enough for the bishops. Earlier this week, Cardinal Francis George of Chicago, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, claimed the flaws and loopholes in the bill’s abortion section are “so fundamental that they vitiate the good that the bill intends to promote.” As a result, he said, “the Catholic bishops regretfully hold that it must be opposed.”
Fortunately, major Catholic leaders — most of them women in religious orders — have picked up the flag of social justice discarded by a bishops conference under increasing right-wing influence.
On Wednesday, a group representing 59,000 Catholic nuns plus more than 50 heads of religious congregations issued a strong statement urging “a life-affirming ‘yes’ vote” in support of the Senate bill. “While it is an imperfect measure, it is a crucial next step in realizing health care for all,” the statement said, adding that the bill’s support for pregnant women represented “the real pro-life stance.”
“We as sisters focus on the needs of people,” said Sister Simone Campbell, a spokeswoman for the group. “When people are suffering, we respond.”
No one was more troubled by the bishops’ decision than Sister Carol Keehan, president of the Catholic Health Association. She loyally refuses to criticize the bishops but argues that their interpretation of the abortion language is simply wrong. She, too, released a forceful statement in support of the Senate bill.
“We looked at the bill. We spent a lot of time with Senators Casey and Nelson,” she said in an interview. “We agreed to support it because we believe it meets the test of no federal funding for abortion. Perhaps the language is not the way I would write it, but it meets the test. … I was not going to take a little bit of abortion (in the bill) to get federal funding.”
She added: “I can’t walk away from extending coverage to more than 30 million people.”
Rather astonishingly, the bishops’ statement misrepresented the view of the CHA, whose members include 600 Catholic hospitals and 1,400 nursing homes.
Cardinal George acknowledged that the bishops’ “analysis of the flaws in the legislation is not completely shared by the leaders of the Catholic Health Association.” Then he said: “They believe, moreover, that the defects that they do recognize can be corrected after the passage of the final bill.”
But Sister Carol, as she is known, said the latter assertion was flatly not true. “We’re not saying that,” she said. Her organization believes the bill as currently written guarantees that there will be no federal funding for abortion and does not need to be “corrected.” Why the bishops would distort the position of the church’s major health association is, to be charitable, a mystery.
House members voting on health care will be representing primarily their positions as Americans and as agents of their constituents, though many will also be influenced by their faith. Those with a special affection for the Roman Catholic Church have an extra reason for voting in favor of the health bill.
By passing it, they would save the bishops from the moral opprobrium that would rightly fall upon them if they succeeded in killing the best chance we have to extend health coverage to 30 million Americans. My hunch is that many bishops would be quietly grateful. In their hearts, they know the nuns are right.
This column is copyrighted and licensed to run on TMV in full. (c) 2010, Washington Post Writers Group
13 Responses to “On Health Care, Listen to the Nuns (Guest Voice)”
http://jammiewearingfool.blogspot.com/2010/03/m…
Why does the Catholic Church continue to be tax-exempt, when it so obviously sticks its nose into politics????
interestingly twisted blog you posted…
Here is the real deal…
http://www.networklobby.org/press/3-17-10Health…
“Nearly 60 nuns from orders they say represent 59,000 Catholic sisters, signed on to a letter urging House-passage of the Senate health care bill and declaring, “the Senate bill will not provide taxpayer funding for elective abortions.”
“The health care bill that has been passed by the Senate and that will be voted on by the House will expand coverage to over 30 million uninsured Americans. While it is an imperfect measure, it is a crucial next step in realizing health care for all,””
Nearly 60 nuns from orders they say represent 59,000 Catholic sisters
By what authority do the 60 speak for the nearly 60,000, and what methods did they use to ascertain what the rest of the nuns would or would not sign onto? Of course the Church isn't a democracy, so that's part of the point- but any individual or small group can claim that they are speaking for other Catholics and it does not justify an acceptance that that claim is accurate.
The bishops, on the other hand, do have authority. People outside the Church, and some within, don't think they should be able to speak with authority but that is actually the nature of the Church (again, it's not a democracy.) Theology doesn't derive it's authority from majority public opinion.
I think, but am not sure, that jeainnj is speaking ironically in the comment above yours…and it's a valid point: why do we hear criticism of the bishops injecting the Church into politics but so far I'm seeing nothing but positive reviews from liberal quarters about the support for the Senate HCR bill from CHA and this liberal nun's group. It's particularly ironic since one of the articles mentioned that the nuns stated that they 'worked closely with Sen Nelson and Casey' on the Senate's abortion amendment (which is what has been loudly criticized here with regard to the bishop's having met with Congressman Stupak over the wording of his amendment in the House.)
I just wanted to point out that the blog GC linked to was being dishonest.
I don't think anyone should assume that these nuns speak for the church, nor all 60,000 nuns they represent. I think the quote is honest. These nuns do represent a larger group of nuns. Had all 59,000+ nuns e-signed the letter, it would have much more impact.
Side note…I got a little freaked out and disappointed a couple of days ago and did not return to a couple of postings. Sorry if I offended you.
No offense taken though I appreciate and accept the apology. It was over a very contentious issue and I get that we have a different perspective on it (I can even understand why my viewpoint would anger you.)
the blog GC linked to was being dishonest
I wouldn't agree that it was dishonest, just that all the pieces presented here are slanted. The blog he linked to wanted to make a certain point so it included information to make that point. The link you provided was something more like a primary source, the website of the lobbying group that produced the nuns' letter- but that's still very biased because you're pointing people to a source that strictly backs up that one side of the story. The rest of the story is that the USCCB, which is the only group that has the authority to speak for the Church on these matters, has come to the opposite conclusion about the Senate bill.
I heard about this on the radio this morning, and I knew the lighter-weight Left would seize on it.
Dionne is right on cue. [snicker]
No, people, that doesn't “mean” Stupak “should” now vote yes without thinking on all Dem legislation.
This is such a shallow and obvious one-time thing we don't even have to laugh about the missile-silo “peace” activists and “sanctuary” immigration-law-defying Religious Left activists are back.
“By what authority do the 60 speak for the nearly 60,000, and what methods did they use to ascertain what the rest of the nuns would or would not sign onto?”
***********
Conversely, by what authority does the Chicago bishop speak for all the bishops? Is it that men can speak for other men without question but women cannot?
Interesting..
I'll take the primary source over an opinion on the primary source
OK, but that particular primary source was also an opinion piece- the opinion of the liberal Catholic lobbying group. It has weight because it was a link directly to their statement without further commentary or editorializing by others- but it's completely one sided as it presents only their opinion without the context of the rest of the Church and what their role is in speaking for other Catholics.
Conversely, by what authority does the Chicago bishop speak for all the bishops? Is it that men can speak for other men without question but women cannot?
No, the authority is vested in him by virtue of his position with USCCB. I'm sure there are some who will agree with your gender argument but his authority isn't from being male (and that's certainly a rationale for dissenting from the Church on male-only priesthood), it's from being in a certain position which makes him a mouthpiece for the Church.
On Wednesday, a group representing 59,000 Catholic nuns plus more than 50 heads of religious congregations issued a strong statement urging “a life-affirming ‘yes’ vote” in support of the Senate bill. “While it is an imperfect measure, it is a crucial next step in realizing health care for all,” the statement said, adding that the bill’s support for pregnant women represented “the real pro-life stance.”
“We as sisters focus on the needs of people,” said Sister Simone Campbell, a spokeswoman for the group. “When people are suffering, we respond.”
**************
And the nuns? Are they not also mouthpieces for the Sisterhood? Are they not also capable of discerning the intent of God? Or do their vaginas somehow impede that ability and disqualifiy them as spokespeople?