The Debate Over Health Care

With Senator Obama elected as the 44th president of the United States, Americans can expect that a Democratic president and Congress will push for comprehensive health care reform. The debate over universal health care coverage is underway and is being led by Senator Edward Kennedy. I think it's a debate and reform that is certainly going to be welcomed by many Americans.

Kennedy to Move on Health When Obama Gives Go-Ahead
By Aliza Marcus

Nov. 6 (Bloomberg) -- Senator Edward Kennedy's staff is holding regular meetings with interest groups to translate President-elect Barack Obama's health-care plan into legislation that can be passed by Congress, an aide said.

Kennedy, a Massachusetts Democrat, will take his "cues from the Obama White House'' and expects that Congress will act on a measure in Obama's first term, said Michael Myers, staff director of Kennedy's Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, at a conference today in Washington.

Obama has proposed expanding government health programs, giving subsidies to low-income families and requiring that insurers cover everyone, regardless of their medical condition. Kennedy, who is under treatment for brain cancer, told the Democratic convention in August that providing "decent, quality health care'' to everyone is "the cause of my life,'' and he pledged to return to Congress in January to achieve it.

"The question is no longer whether we will pursue health reform, but when and exactly in what form,'' said Myers, speaking at a forum organized by the Washington policy group Families USA. "It's the first, second and third item on our committee's agenda.''

Kennedy's committee, trying to avoid repeating Hillary Clinton's failed attempt to rework health care in 1993-94 during her husband Bill's first term as president, is talking with different advocacy and interest groups to produce a plan with broad support.

Change Anticipated

Health-care providers and policy groups know the status quo isn't acceptable, said Ron Pollack, Families USA's executive director.

"There is an effort to find a common ground,'' Pollack said. "I have never seen such interest in getting to 'yes.'''

Obama has estimated that making affordable coverage available to all Americans would cost up to $65 billion annually, with another $250 billion over five years to develop computerized health records throughout the country.

Congress last year insisted that any new legislation be paid for with revenue from other sources, such as tax increases, or spending cuts, to avoid increasing the budget deficit.

Kennedy's staff is looking for ways to save money in the $2.2 trillion health-care system. There's also the possibility that not "every penny and every dime'' spent will be paid for in advance, Myers said.

"All of these discussions are just beginning,'' he said.

Baucus's Proposals

Senator Max Baucus, a Montana Democrat and chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, is expected to release his proposals next week about how to provide universal health-care coverage. Some 15 percent of the U.S. population is uninsured.

Baucus's committee has jurisdiction over government health programs such as Medicaid, for low-income people, and the chairman held hearings this year on the high cost of care and how to make health insurance markets more efficient.

The proposals will be an "important contribution to the debate,'' Myers said, even as Kennedy plans that his committee will produce the sole legislative measure to change the health system.

Kennedy has "articulated a strategy that he calls the one bill strategy,'' Myers said. "We've learned from the lessons of the past.''

Catholic Social Teaching and Healthcare Reform

In Matthew 25, Jesus paints an image of His return in glory. On the Day of Judgment, Christ will separate His sheep from the goats. The sheep are those that cared for "the least" of Jesus' brothers: the hungry, the thirsty, the naked, the stranger, those sick, and those in prison. The goats didn't remember "the least" among them and as Christ foretold, "in all truth," they have "received their reward," in this life and will not in the next. Jesus’ teaching is unavoidable.

This message is especially relevant to the injustice of the American healthcare system. To call American healthcare—as a system—immoral makes no judgment on healthcare professionals or hospitals, but rather on the design itself. Many have advocated for universal healthcare in our country and have been rejected for proposing so-called "socialized medicine." I am personally a proponent of a universal healthcare system. We have the medical care, the financial resources, but we seem to lack the moral will to acknowledge that we are our brother's keeper.

Does the United States have the best healthcare in the world? It depends. In reality, there are at least five different co-existing healthcare systems in our country. They can be described as follows: first, at the top of the system are the wealthy and well-insured, particularly those with indemnity, fee-for-service health insurance. In this case, the United States has the highest quality, most technically advanced medicine in the world; second from the top is the private, employer-based insurance for the middle class, usually with some features of "managed care" and some restrictions on what the insurance company will cover; the third layer consists of insurance for lower-income workers in the form of tightly managed health maintenance organizations (HMO), substantial out-of-pocket payments and moderate restrictions on the doctors that can be seen and treatments covered; the fourth layer is Medicaid, Medicare, and the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), which are grossly underfunded systems of federal and state insurance for the lowest of middleclass families, the poor, for children, the disabled, and the elderly. This group faces severe restrictions on doctors that can be seen and on treatments covered; the bottom of the ladder is "charity care" and emergency room care, which is available to those who have no medical insurance.

The American healthcare "system" translates into a socio-economically based distribution of medical care, which is fundamentally more of a medical caste system than a healthcare system. This hardly seems compatible with Jesus' teaching in Matthew 25. The results aren’t either. In virtually every form of basic statistics measuring days of illness, death rates, and life expectancies, the United States ranks behind almost every other industrialized nation. The U.S. ranked last in 2007 of every industrialized nation in terms of the citizens dying from preventable disease; France ranked first. In France 64 people died from preventable disease, in the U.S. approximately 101,000 died from preventable disease. The difference couldn't be starker, particularly given the fact we spend more on healthcare than any other industrialized nation in the world and for us it is only partial, not universal coverage as in other countries.

The "every-man-for-himself," radical individualist strategy of American healthcare not only is disastrously irresponsible, it seriously violates basic Christian teaching. Make no mistake, this is not an endorsement to eradicate personal responsibility and moral virtue (communism, in other words), but an observation that a private sector dominated healthcare system is bad business without some sort of minimal regulation. The Catholic principle of subsidiarity is an organizing principle that calls us to allow the smallest, most local institution to handle matters if it can be done more efficiently than or just as efficiently as would be done at the national level (or state level in America). But, if the task cannot be done efficiently at this level, then the national (or state) government has an obligation to have some sort of role to ensure the common good.

Any healthcare system—in my view—that is based on private insurance with no government intervention is fatally flawed. The incentive of private insurance is upside down. After premiums are paid, the less care they provide, the higher their profits—this is undoubtedly their goal. Hence, all the horrid stories one hears about insurance companies searching for the smallest technicality to not cover something. Thus, public health and human welfare is not the incentive, but rather profit. Profit over health and dignity is not a Christian value. Fundamentally, health and wellness should not be treated like any other consumer-based industry.

The problem with healthcare costs is hard to deal with in the current system. With thousands of different private health insurance plans, it's virtually impossible to negotiate consistently lower costs with healthcare providers and drug companies. A universal healthcare system, on the other hand, has the potential to rein in costs. More importantly, private insurance is a colossal waste of money. Administrative costs for Medicare, for example, which is government-financed (not government-run) are 2-3% of the total cost. Approximately 30% of private insurance premiums go to overhead, profits, and executive salaries. Overall the administrative costs of private insurance exceed $400 billion dollars in a year. That is arguably sufficient to cover all the uninsured without raising taxes.

Many conservative-leaning thinkers are concerned about the loss of freedom and the efficiency of a national healthcare plan. Ironically, the freedom that many people fear will be loss at the implementation of a universal healthcare system is already gone. Many choices in healthcare are at the discretion of the private sector insurance companies. They choose what doctors you can see, whether you are qualified to be covered (if you have a history of illness, good luck—you cost too much), what they will and will not cover and how long you can receive treatment, and this is all if they don't find some small technicality on which they can drop coverage all together to preserve their profits. It seems that we fail to realize how much is already controlled by large corporations—at least government officials can be voted out of office.

Even more so, we already pay for people to get medical care. When people go to the emergency room to receive medical treatment without health insurance, the cost is spread amongst everyone else. This is one reason why insurance premiums skyrocket and we're also taxed, since hospitals can receive government grants to offset some of their losses. Wouldn't we rather have paid for the preventative care than wait until it is much more expensive?

Additionally, it is nothing unusual for a hospital to have to bill more than 700 different payers and insurers--HMOs, PPOs, MCOs, IPAs, and an alphabet soup of other organizations. Each one has its own set of rules for what services are covered, the level of reimbursement and the kinds of documentation and pre-approval required. It is an administrative nightmare. And for this mess, we Americans shell out $2.2 trillion a year (more than any other nation) and all this inefficiency costs patients tens of billions of dollars each year. Billing, collection, and payment administration represents some 20 percent of that $2.2 trillion we spend on healthcare. There is nothing even remotely "conservative" about this—it’s nothing but “big spending” and for what results?

To consider this again in Christian thinking—we have a call from the Lord to give preferential option to the most vulnerable among us. Poverty and ill health travel often together. Poverty puts one's health in jeopardy, ill health with its attendant high medical bills, impairment of working ability, and days lost from work, make it difficult to find and hold a good job. This is a terrible and vicious cycle. The current healthcare system is evidently not accommodating.

Now there is a "safety net" of charity healthcare that ought to be commended. The Veterans Administration healthcare system, the Indian Health Service, state and local departments of public health, public hospital emergency rooms, community health centers and clinics, faith-based clinics for the poor and homeless, and the list goes on. Despite their tireless work and efforts, many lack the funding and the resources to address the problem at hand—they adequately cannot overcome the effects of the lack of good, regular access to mainstream healthcare.

Hispanics, African Americans, people with less education, part-time workers, and foreign-born persons have the highest rates of being uninsured. Guess what? They also are the same people who have more abortions. 1 in 2 African American pregnancies end in abortion. African American children are born into this world more often than not with the odds against them—the black community is experiencing a terrible crisis of missing fathers, thus single parent households. Statistically, children that grow up in such environments are inclined to have a weak parent-child relationship, prone toward committing crime, drugs, alcohol, sexual promiscuity, more likely to repeat a grade, less likely to graduate high school, and are often victims of abuse and neglect. And single mothers, particularly young ones, face a long, uphill battle toward economic self-sufficiency and the current healthcare system does little to help those in this sort of situation.

The elderly have limited economic productivity and healthcare is getting exponentially more expensive; we have a moral obligation to see that their needs are met, particularly for a group that often has very dire medical needs. While there is Medicare, it faces problems in providing long term care of chronic conditions, incorporating new technology, and lacks the financial resources needed.

Much of this may be slightly more "liberal" than one's own political perspective, but Catholic Social Teaching is beyond "left" and "right" politics. If we subjectively identify with one side of the political spectrum more than the other, we must do so as Catholics, which entails crossing party lines. We cannot continue to allow our politicians to cover unborn children in the children’s healthcare program to encourage women not to have abortions only to denounce expanding coverage, or redirect funding from the program. This isn't all "liberal" either. We need to heed the Bishops advice on the both/and approach. There is another side of this debate that conservatives need to win. That debate is in regard to much of the content of American healthcare and this debate involves religious freedom, Catholic and private hospitals, abortifacents, emergency contraception, patients rights', and the full range of so-called "reproductive health services," in vitro fertilization, genetic manipulation, etc.

The Democratic Party is currently the natural home of legislative proposals for healthcare reform. I firmly believe that universal healthcare is going to come sooner or later and if Catholics aren't sitting at the table, our values will be off the table. I see this fundamentally as a "life issue" in its own respect and from a pro-life perspective, the status quo is not acceptable. We may not agree on the details, but on fundamental principles of human dignity, basic civil rights, and the end goal of, in some way or another, providing universal access to quality and affordable healthcare, there should be agreement. No one should be left out. That’s the ideal goal.

Back to the fundamental question: does America have the greatest healthcare system? Not at all and I don't even think it's debatable. And reform is not only necessary, it is required.

The Genocide in Darfur

The conflict in Darfur has been going on since July 2003. The conflict centers mainly on the part of African rebel factions, the government backed janjaweed and Sudanese government itself. The conflicted originated with black African rebels began demandign more political power within the government. As a result, the government let loose the militia called the "janjaweed" who have been attacking black villages: burning houses, and killing and raping innocent civilians. Though the Sudanese government claims no associationw with the janjaweed, they have given money and assistance to the militia who are responsible for ethinic massacres. Currently, the struggle has progressed into an even more violent power struggle for rebels, the janjaweed and government forces for control over resources and money. The Sudanese government renewed its bombing campaign in late 2006 and 2007 upon areas said to be "under rebel control" on a daily basis, resulting in even more deaths and displacement.

The situation in Darfur has spread far beyond the region. Neighboring countries have become involved by taking in refugees as as well as other areas of Sudan. Many of those displaced as well are now living in camps, completely dependent upon international aid. Those in need of assistance amounts to roughly 4 millions, which is approximately two-thirds of the population of Sudan.

A more subtle player in all of this, is China. China is the main oil trade partner with Sudan (they buy somewhere around 40% of its oil). The trade agreement between these two has caused China to consistently vote against U.N. sanctions against Sudan. Even worse, the U.N. has refused to declare the situation in Darfur as a genocide.

More information about Darfur can be found here.

Why The Catholic Church Condemns Torture

By now we have all heard of the Middle Eastern religious and political “dissident” taken captive by a Western government, interrogated, ridiculed, made to endure denigrating postures, beaten and eventually killed.

His name? Jesus of Nazareth.

Two thousand years later, Christ remains with us, and so does torture. Meditating on the sufferings of Christ ought to help bring Christians to call for an end to torture, particularly in America. The painful scourging, the mocking crowning with thorns, the carrying of the cross, and the crucifixion were carried out with state sanction.

This relates directly to the controversy of interrogation (torture) at Guantanamo Bay. It is shameful to see many Catholic politicians, including pro-life Senator Sam Brownback, in favor of this horrendous endeavor and the continual existence of Guantanamo.

The safety of the American people is fundamental. Nevertheless, every human being is made in the image and likeness of God and their dignity—and the rights that flow from it—is inviolable. Torture violates the basic dignity of the human person that all religions, in their highest ideals, hold dear. It degrades everyone involved—policy-makers, perpetrators and victims. It contradicts our nation's most cherished ideals. Any policies that permit torture and inhumane treatment are shocking and morally intolerable.

Catholics, especially politicians, should stand with the Church and not with the arbitrary, and at times unjust will of the State.

The Consistent Ethic of Life and the GOP

From the National Catholic Reporter:

One of the most prominent Catholics in the Republican Party says that it is time for his party to stop conceding the social justice message to Democrats. Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., a Catholic convert who ran for his party’s nomination for president last year, told NCR that his party is still hesitant to passionately embrace some aspects of Catholic social teaching.

“There is a bit of a philosophical difference,” Brownback says of his party. “Catholics really are more given to the whole life view. But I see that changing.”

The GOP has embraced Catholics themselves as part of the faith-based leadership, Brownback says. Despite his own short run as a presidential hopeful -- Brownback pulled out before the first primary -- he says there’s no doubt a Catholic could be a Republican president.

“It could happen now,” Brownback says. “I don’t think there’s any blockage there.”

For most of the 20th century, the faith-based movement within the Republican Party was dominated by Protestants and especially by evangelicals the last half of the century. Catholics were reliable Democrats, especially when the majority was middle-class urbanites and often members of unions.

That has drastically changed. In the 2004 election, George W. Bush won the Catholic vote over John Kerry, a Catholic, by a sizable margin, 1.6 million votes. Many give credit to Bush’s chief strategist, Karl Rove, for courting Catholics by placing issues such as opposition to abortion, gay marriage and euthanasia at the top of the agenda.

Delegates bow their heads for benediction at the Republican National Convention Sept. 4.Brownback says he strongly agrees with his party’s position on all of those issues.

“You have to have life for there to be social justice,” Brownback says. “You can’t begin a social justice mission without defending the life of the unborn first.”

He also strongly supports his party’s position on other issues that go away from the church’s stated position. The war in Iraq is the most notable, where Brownback says there is moral ambiguity.

“It think it does cause legitimate concern,” Brownback says. “That’s a prudential judgment issue.

To me it was the right prudential judgment at that time (to invade Iraq). You can look back and say, ‘Where are the weapons of mass destruction?’ But at the time, we thought they were there. And I don’t think any Catholic would say now we should pull out of Iraq and have it go into anarchy.”

Capital punishment is another ambiguous issue for Brownback, who held hearings in 2006 to examine it. In beginning those hearings he said, “So each generation may -- and good citizens should -- consider anew the law and facts involving this solemn judgment. I believe America must establish a culture of life. If use of the death penalty is contrary to promoting a culture of life, we need to have a national dialogue and hear both sides of the issue.”

But there is a list of issues, once considered the domain of progressives, that Brownback says his church could teach his party to better embrace without equivocation.

“I want to say, (Democrats) are wrong on life and marriage,” Brownback says, “and here is our social justice agenda. We haven’t gone that distance. We’ve said, you get the social justice agenda, we get the life and marriage agenda. And I’m pushing at this cloth of being pro-life and whole life, and that applies to the immigrant, the person in prison, to those is poverty and those in Darfur.”

One example of how this plays out in the Senate is last year’s collaboration with vice presidential nominee Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.) to strengthen laws against human trafficking.

Brownback said at the time, “Human trafficking is a daunting and critical global issue that often victimizes the most vulnerable among us.”

He says it’s a good sign that John McCain has been an advocate for several of these issues.

“So here’s a guy that is opposed to torture,” Brownback says. “He is for immigration reform, has a heart for the developing world.

But it’s not always been easy for McCain. Taking on President Bush over the issue of torture and, on the other hand, taking up the president’s cause on immigration reform nearly derailed his candidacy.

If that left some Republicans leery of McCain, it is because the party is just now starting to understand that its agenda can broaden without losing focus on core issues. And Brownback says the Catholic agenda is making inroads.

“I see that growing within the Republican Party,” Brownback says. “And if you want to talk philosophy, I say, these are sacred people. And they started sacred.”

********************************************

My Comments: Senator Sam Brownback is one of the most commendable Catholics in the United States Congress and in the whole of the American political scene. He allows his Catholic faith to inform his political thinking. Unlike many other Catholics in public office, Brownback has a keen awareness of the magnificent body of Catholic Social Teaching and he does not distort it in order to maintain some partisan commitment to a secular school of thought, i.e. pro-choice Catholics hiding behind the veil of a flawed version of the consistent life ethic, wanting to reduce abortions without changing its legal status.

Though, I must say, I am not honestly as optimistic as Sen. Brownback is in this regard. I personally tire of Catholics who quote the Bishops on abortion, euthanasia, stem cell research, and marriage and disregard or diminish their teaching on immigration, on labor unions, on economic justice, on pre-emptive war and militarism, and a whole range of issues. Brownback seems to tire of it too. Maybe not. It benefits his party. But, he at least notices that it is problematic if we’re going to call ourselves pro-life and be morally coherent.

We might as well say we're pro-birth—not pro-life—if we save the unborn child, but leave that same child to grow up in a broken home, in a inner city school with little funding and underpaid teachers, without healthcare, socially at a disadvantage to prosper and rise out of the conditions he finds himself in. Certainly, a child in that situation can still come out on top. I did. But I have one dead brother, the other (younger than I) has two children already, and I am the first person in my family to go to college and in fact, the only Catholic. I can honestly say the majority of people in that situation don’t fall in love with Jesus Christ, to the point of becoming Catholics, particularly African Americans nor do they necessarily find the means to receive the education I have nor the resources to live out their ambition. It breaks my heart. Yes, sometimes life deals us cards and we have to do the best we can, but that is not acceptable when the system is clearly unjust. We’re not here to accept the status quo.

Again, I commend Sen. Brownback for trying to infuse the Catholic tradition of the common good into Republican ideology. But I am profoundly skeptical about the viability of this proposal, at least in the short term. As Brownback notes, Bush won Catholics by placing issues such as “abortion, gay marriage, and euthanasia at the top of the agenda.” I respectfully disagree with Brownback here. I think those issues were placed at the top of their rhetoric, not the top of their agenda. The phrase “Culture of Life” has become a political slogan rather than a Catholic-minded vision for a social order that promotes human life and dignity. Or even just this past April, Bush used the phrase “dictatorship of relativism,” which was coined by Pope Benedict XVI in his writings. I personally found it ironic that Bush would be using that term, discretely applying it to the Left, as if the very utilitarian thought that lingers on the Right—particularly in regard to economic and foreign policy issues—isn't inherently relativism because if morality is judged solely by the consequences of moral acts, since there is no objective standard to measure those consequences, it is fundamentally moral relativism wearing a different mask.

Again, it is a matter of lip service and appearance rather than substance. I have no problem with Catholics who are Republicans. But I cannot stand the assertion that the Republican Party is our friend and ally. I am not convinced that a party with such little diversity in its base has the common good at heart. Perhaps, I’m wrong. But the convention was attended by the richest and whitest delegates in history. And just maybe the perspectives of, say, minorities may not be fully taken into account when they are underrepresented. I’m not saying the Republican Party is racist, that would be absurd.

Nevertheless, the fact that the GOP has a difficult time stealing constituencies from the Democrats—namely African Americans, Hispanics, blue-collar middleclass workers, people in labor unions, etc—is not that their rhetoric needs fine-tuning, not that people buy into Democratic lies, but because people aren’t fond of their capitalist-leaning policies that are arguably unjust. I think Brownback knows this and its why he talks about social justice, which I think may be termed here as "compassionate conservatism." I am curious as to how he’s going to get fiscal conservatives to go along with this because they seem to benefit very well from current policies.

This is hardly a minor ethical consideration. In Catholic terms, it is a support of an unjust distribution of resources. And these abuses should not be glossed over and misrepresented by rhetoric about a consistent ethic of life. It shouldn’t be done on the Left either. And I am confident Sen. Brownback is above such things and I wish him the grace of God in His endeavors. If the Republicans make inroads on the Democrats in regard to social justice matters—and it is more than lip service—I may as well just switch political parties. Perhaps, I won't. Perhaps, the Democrats will become pro-life.

A Message to GOP Catholics

Michael Novak’s article, Catholics for Obama?, is a well-written and insightful look at Catholic political engagement and abortion. Though, I don’t disagree with what he says, there are a few criticisms I think Novak and other Catholics should at least consider—not that I think my “two cents” really count for much.

Novak is right-on when he says that many Catholics try to avoid calling abortion what it is—murder—and they will tirelessly say or do anything to justify their insatiable partisan desire to vote for Democrats. He is also right that many Catholics on the Left have an incorrect understanding of the “consistent life ethic,” and often equate other issues to abortion.

Nevertheless, Novak displays a flaw that I can’t help but notice. There is a lack of criticism of the Republican Party in Catholic circles. Yet, there is ready (and certainly warranted) criticism of Democrats particularly on the sanctity of life issues and dissenting Catholics on the left side of the political spectrum who hide behind pro-choice rhetoric. I’m not saying that there shouldn’t be criticism of Democrats; I’m saying that there is a double standard.

Catholics of all political persuasions often cite the U.S. Bishops’ document “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship.” The document provides a rich understanding of Catholic Social Teaching, but as a voting guide, it proves to be a disaster. Catholics are given a crash course of natural law morality applied to politics, told to consider a litany of issues, adhere to Christian principles, and make a judgment based on their conscience. Given all these priorities, what good Catholics ought to do is often lost in a sea of heated opinions. The Bishops, for example, clearly say that Catholics cannot vote for a candidate who advocates an intrinsic evil, e.g. abortion, if one is motivated by a desire to advance that evil. By that logic, taken in the context of considering a broad set of issues, a Catholic can come to the conclusion based on their reading that they have “room” to vote for a pro-choice candidate, if abortion is not their reason for supporting that candidate. Or at the very least, there are “proportionate” and morally grave reasons, given certain circumstances that Catholics may vote for a pro-choice candidate. The problem is that the Bishops don’t say what those reasons may be nor do they take the counter extreme of saying, in no uncertain terms, that Catholics cannot, absolutely, whatsoever vote for pro-choice candidates. Therefore, it becomes a matter of (often heated) debate.

Certainly, there are non-negotiable issues that Catholics cannot disagree on and all other issues of “prudential analysis” (like the best way to deal with immigration) permits legitimate disagreement among the faithful. It is obvious that a Catholic who adopts an unacceptable position, e.g. a pro-choice position on abortion, and advocates those policies would be in a state of mortal sin. Interestingly enough, I find, particularly among Catholic conservatives, that the issues that aren’t non-negotiable, that call for “prudential analysis” leads to a sort of relativism. The fact is “prudential analysis” only implies that such issues are not grave enough to bar a Catholic from receiving communion. It does not mean that any position on other matters is morally equal, i.e. whatever the GOP position is because they are the pro-life party nor should are these issues irrelevant. More often than not, one position is arguably more consonant with the Gospel and in fact, true social justice. I personally happen to think the Democrats are more often than not closer on a lot of those issues.

Despite the fact that I am a Democrat, I am voting against Barack Obama in November because I’m pro-life, but abortion is not the only issue in the scope of my concerns. Yet in my discourses with other Catholics, it concerns me that they don’t really care about—or are totally ignorant of—other issues besides life issues and gay marriage. The global food crisis that arose from making ethanol from the once-cheapest food on the market, corn, has disproportionately affected third world countries with rising costs of food. Is this not a pro-life concern to at least think about? Another issue is the genocide in Darfur, in which, the Bush Administration has yet to fulfill its two year old promise of intense diplomatic efforts in the region and to rally the U.N. to join them despite the nearly half a million death toll.

Another issue that is very important to me, not only as a Catholic but as an African American because it affects so many people in my family who borderline or sink below the poverty line, is the healthcare system—or medical caste system—that is direly in need of repair. Public health is dominated by consumerism and there are little safeguards ensuring public interests and respect for human dignity. The healthcare lobby, by and large, is a conservative constituency. I think it is fair to say that the GOP had an opportune time (1994-2006) to attempt to fix the broken healthcare system and provide a just system where more Americans had access to basic, quality healthcare. But rather millions of tax-payer dollars went to funding the Clinton scandal witch hunt and instead of ensuring the common good, Republicans made politics into a circus.

Now there are in fact Republicans who support a reform in healthcare (cf. Republicans for Single Payer), even a single-payer universal healthcare system and they demonstrate how it would not handicap the free-market economy. I believe, ultimately, this is a pro-life issue in its own respect, particularly when the current “pro-life” Republican President is vetoing bills to expand healthcare coverage to socio-economically disadvantaged children and the fact that this crisis is overlooked or dismissed by other Catholics is very problematic in my view. To have concern for these social justice issues doesn’t require you to be a Democrat or that you vote for one. It means that you are Catholic. By all means, show the GOP that its pro-life base has social justice concerns.

Moreover, the GOP does not give abortion the primacy it deserves though their rhetoric would surely have everyone think the opposite. And I’m not saying that the Democrats are the solution to that problem. Seven of the nine on the Supreme Court were nominated by Republican presidents after Roe v. Wade, yet only four are pro-life—obviously their commitment to overturning Roe v. Wade could not be as pressing as even the most die-hard pro-life Americans would like to believe. Even in the Republican-controlled Congress from 2000-2006, The Right to Life Act, The Human Life Amendment, and other pro-life bills never once made it to a vote on the floor. Not once. I honestly doubt the GOP's credibility and only the action of the party in the coming years will change or solidify my skepticism. But it remains that the credibility of the GOP at large does not change the debate over whether or not Catholics can vote for a Democrat in this election or at all.

Recently, I criticized “Roman Catholics for Obama ‘08” for the inherent flaws of their pro-Obama arguments, but even more so because they are not even critical of their candidate nor the Democratic Party. I hold the same disapproval for Catholics who turn a critical eye to the Democrats, but not to the Republicans and their failures. I contended (and still do) that those Catholics advocating Obama could gain credibility by acknowledging his terrible position on abortion and demanding change through a large-scale campaign for more pro-life policies, rather than ignoring the matter—after all, uncritical support of pro-abortion candidates will not reap any change on the Left. Other Catholics, including me, will disagree with them, but they wouldn’t seem as dubious. Nevertheless, Catholics who consistently cast their ballots for Republicans ought to expect that the GOP will take advantage of them and ignore their most pressing concerns if they expect they can do it and receive a mindless stamp of approval on all their other policies as long as they promise to be pro-life on abortion, euthanasia, and embryonic stem cell research.

To another point: there is an unspoken understanding among many that no good Catholic can vote for a Democrat and we must vote for Republicans. I disagree with that assessment and I’m not endorsing the idea of campaigning for and fully supporting pro-choice candidates without so much as a blink. The current strategy, it seems, is to elect only Republicans both at the federal and state level, so they will elect anti-Roe judges so that we can position ourselves to overturn Roe v. Wade. I’m all for overturning Roe v. Wade. Yet, I’m not at all sure if that’s the best strategy. I have a negative view of one-party controlled government and particularly with President Bush’s abuse of his presidential powers and the GOP going along with it. For example, I firmly oppose the absurd notion that the United States has some right to detain people for years at a time, on the basis of “suspicion,” without any substantial and credible enough evidence to even give a reason as to why they are being detained. This is a clear violation of human rights. You don’t arrest someone and hold them for years when you have no proof that they did something, don’t tell them what they did, and won’t give them a fair trial with some means of protecting American intelligence. And it was the four “conservative” judges of the Supreme Court who disagreed with everything I just said. I’ll flip the script here and say that I’m sure they’ll hide behind the banner of “prudential analysis,” but judgment on a not-so-grave matter does not immediately equal a morally-right or even morally-neutral position. Moreover, just because other issues do not carry the same moral weight as abortion and other attacks on human life does not mean that we can call ourselves morally coherent when we put those all other concerns—all important in their own right—on the back burner or passively allow legislation that is not just, all in the name of prudential judgment.

In Matthew 25:31-46, Jesus paints an image of his return in glory and he separates the goats from the sheep. The sheep are those who served “the least” of His brothers: the hungry, the thirsty, the naked, strangers, those sick and in prison. The goats repeat the sin of Cain by not acknowledging we are our brother’s keeper. Catholic Democrats often cite the “consistent life ethic” as the reason why they are voting for the Democratic candidates and they often receive a lot of criticism. Those in the GOP while criticizing them (and it’s often warranted) never own up to their party's failures on the “consistent life ethic” and over-emphasize the hierarchy of issues so much that we neglect many of Jesus’ brothers and sisters despite what the Lord told us.

Catholics can and must be fully pro-life and support initiatives that produce a social and economic environment that is ultimately pro-life—a culture of life—founded upon the family. I have never understood why Catholics divided between the right and the left insist on having it one way (change the law) or the other (change the culture). This means that Catholics who consider themselves to be Republicans—and this applies not only to them—should be breathing a firestorm on the Right because if we are pro-life and pro-family, and are going to include “the least” of our Lord’s brothers in our social vision, all of them, we must oppose continual cuts in funding to education, weak maternity-leave laws that enable pregnant women—who sometimes by their socio-economic status are statistically inclined toward abortion—to lose their job and healthcare, neglecting our obligation to find innovative ways to reduce the poverty rate that doesn’t always include social programs, not finding a real solution to the healthcare problem, and the list goes on.

I believe if Catholics demanded results on abortion, more would be done by Republicans. Surely, other aspects of their agenda have been carried out with fervor—weakening the social-safety net, privatizing, deregulating, lowering the influence of labor unions, belligerent foreign policy, anti-immigration legislation—that I think the GOP, if serious about abortion, could repeatedly introduce the same bills over and over again, meet with pro-Roe Justices and talk to them about abortion, bring scientists into the debate, etc. Anything would do. Show more effort.

Ultimately, I think that the lack of Catholic criticism to the right is the source of some of the problems that we are facing today. If we demanded results on the life issues and demonstrated that other policies need to be moderated or more inclusive to the concern for the weak and vulnerable in society without handicapping the free-market economy I think it would do a number of things: (a) it would be incredible witness to dissident Catholics who put partisan politics before their moral obligations (b) the Democrats could not argue that their policy positions are more reflective of the social justice teachings of the Church and more Catholics would join the GOP without fear of other critical issues being ignored, (c) it may inspire change on the Left after a heavy loss of an already shrinking constituency.

Granted the purpose of Novak’s article was to question the legitimacy of Catholic support for Barack Obama, I still find that it unfailingly added confirmation to my conviction that there is a lack of GOP criticism by Catholics. One might get the impression that if we just vote Republican, everything will be alright. On the contrary, there is much work to be done and Catholics need to know that voting for GOP candidates still requires much more. Sure, not everyone is as skeptical as I am; I firmly believe that the GOP in large part puts on a pro-life façade every 4 years and forgets about efforts to end abortion after the elections. The fact that the pro-life voice is not on both sides of the political spectrum easily allows Republicans to make promises to the pro-life movement that it has no intentions of keeping because for many of us, this cause is so insurmountable that we will not vote for the other side under any circumstances, even if they put up a candidate like John McCain. Where else are we to go? We either sit at home or suck it up and vote to stop the pro-choice candidate from winning. Isn't that the situation Catholics are facing this election?

And because they have uncritical support of pro-lifers and coin themselves as anti-abortion, they can run the economy into the ground, implement bad foreign policy, support torture, support economic policies that are clearly an unjust distribution of resources, cut services to the poor, tell third world countries to be economically responsible for themselves while permitting America's greedy consumption of 70 to 90 percent of the world’s resources, run up our national debt from $5.63 trillion to a mind-numbing $9.5 trillion in only seven years, carry out unilateral pre-emptive wars before exhausting diplomatic efforts, ignore the health care crisis, and despite such injustices, they face absolutely no reprehension at all from their pro-life base (unless, and only if, they don’t put up a pro-life candidate), whatsoever just because they are against abortion. We just have to vote for them, throw our vote away on a third party, or don’t vote at all. This disturbs me greatly. The power they have is astonishing. They can ignore critical issues and still be protected from being held responsible for their faults.

The Democrats champion a great number of progressive positions that seem more "pro-life" to me and these positions are unpopular in the Republican Party and I think they're profoundly wrong about them. I could be wrong about them. I certainly don’t think everyone has to agree with me nor do I think all these "progressive" positions should just be legislated based only on my views. I think a key to progression is dialogue and debate over the issues. While other Catholics may disagree with me on social and economic policies, I pray that at least that we agree on principle that we must be critical of both political parties and more concerned about being Catholic than our commitment to any secular school of thought. And if this is so, it means that Catholics will have to call Republicans out on their failures with just as much concern for justice as when they criticize Democrats.

Catholic conservatives have no more hold on Catholic orthodoxy than Catholic liberals do—defending life, supporting the family, and pursuing the common good is what animates real Catholics of all political persuasions. I've often been told you can't be Catholic and a Democrat. I disagree. I’m a pro-life Catholic fighting in the trenches for the soul of the Democratic Party that has lost its natural law thinking and gone to war with its own principles of defending the most vulnerable among us. I believe that it’s a noble cause.

That’s my "two cents" for GOP Catholics. Take it as you will.

New Threats to Darfur Civilians

Violence in Sudan is escalating. The Justice and Equality Movement, a Darfuri rebel group, attacked Khartoum on Saturday in an attempt to topple the Sudanese regime. The government has reportedly stopped the attempt. In retaliation to the attacks, there is already news of widespread atrocities against Darfuri civilians.

Reports indicate that the government is detaining, torturing and killing Darfuris in and around Khartoum, and that janjaweed militias have commenced attacks in North Darfur. The international community must demand an immediate end to atrocities, speed up deployment of peacekeepers, and make clear to all sides that there is no violent solution to this conflict.

Please take the time to tell President Bush to immediately use all diplomatic and economic tools necessary to help end attacks against innocent Darfuri civilians.

The situation in Darfur is dire. Violence is affecting every aspect of life in Darfur, including food supplies. The U.N. has been forced to cut its food aid shipments in half because its trucks are often hijacked before they get to the people in need.

President Bush must immediately use the full force of American diplomacy to urge all sides to exercise restraint, protect civilians, and to begin a just and inclusive peace process. President Bush must also use the U.S. presidency of the U.N. Security Council in June to ensure full deployment of the UNAMID peacekeeping force for Darfur, and to punish those who attack civilians.

The international community is falling tragically short of our mandate and our moral obligation in Darfur. There is hope, but only if the most powerful actors on the world stage are serious about ending the genocide.

Thank you for your dedication to the people of Darfur.

Roman Catholics in the American Political Process

Better Citizens, More Faithful Catholics
ARCHBISHOP CHARLES CHAPUT

Here are ten simple points to remember as we move toward November. When we speak about a nation’s culture, we mean the entire fabric of its common life, from art and music to sports and schools. But since this is an election year, I want to apply the idea of Catholic witness specifically to our public life as citizens.

1. George Orwell said that one of the biggest dangers for modern democratic life is dishonest political language. Dishonest language leads to dishonest politics — which then leads to bad public policy and bad law. So we need to speak and act in a spirit of truth.

2. Catholic is a word that has real meaning. We don’t control or invent that meaning as individuals. We inherit it from the gospel and the experience of the Church over the centuries. We can choose to be something else, but if we choose to call ourselves Catholic, then that word has consequences for what we believe and how we act. We can’t truthfully claim to be Catholic and then act as though we’re not.

3. Being a Catholic is a bit like being married. We have a relationship with the Church and with Jesus Christ that’s similar to being a spouse. If a man says he loves his wife, his wife will want to see the evidence in his love and fidelity. The same applies to our relationship with God. If we say we’re Catholic, we need to show that by our love for the Church and our fidelity to what she teaches and believes. Otherwise we’re just fooling ourselves, because God certainly won’t be fooled.

4. The Church is not a political organism. She has no interest in partisanship because getting power or running governments is not what she’s about, and the more closely she identifies herself with any single party, the fewer people she can effectively reach.

5. Scripture and Catholic teaching, however, do have public consequences because they guide us in how we should act in relation to one another. Loving God requires that we also love the people He created, which means we need to treat them with justice, charity, and mercy. Being a Catholic involves solidarity with other people. The Catholic faith has implications for social justice — and that means it also has cultural, economic and political implications. The Catholic faith is never primarily about politics; but Catholic social action, including political action, is a natural byproduct of the Church’s moral message. We can’t call ourselves Catholic, and then simply stand by while immigrants get mistreated, or the poor get robbed, or unborn children get killed. The Catholic faith is always personal but never private. If our faith is real, then it will bear fruit in our public decisions and behaviors, including our political choices.

6. Each of us needs to follow our own conscience. But conscience doesn’t emerge from a vacuum. It’s not a matter or personal opinion or preference. If our conscience has the habit of telling us what we want to hear on difficult issues, then it’s probably badly formed. A healthy conscience is the voice of God’s truth in our hearts, and it should usually make us uncomfortable, because none of us is yet a saint. The way we get a healthy conscience is by submitting it and shaping it to God’s will; and the way we find God’s will is by conforming our lives to the counsel and guidance of the Church that Jesus left us. If we find ourselves disagreeing as Catholics with the teaching of the Church on a serious matter, it’s probably not the Church that’s wrong. The problem is much more likely with us.

7. But how do we make good political choices when so many different issues are so important and complex? The first principle of Christian social thought is: Don’t deliberately kill the innocent, and don’t collude in allowing somebody else to do it. The right to life is the foundation of every other human right. The reason the abortion issue is so foundational is not because Catholics love little babies — although we certainly do — but because revoking the personhood of unborn children makes every other definition of personhood and human rights politically contingent.

8. So can a Catholic in good conscience vote for a pro-choice candidate? The answer is: I can’t and I won’t. But I do know some serious Catholics — people whom I admire — who may. I think their reasoning is mistaken, but at least they sincerely struggle with the abortion issue and it causes them real pain. And most important: They don’t keep quiet about it; they don’t give up; they keep lobbying their party and their representatives to change their pro-abortion views and protect the unborn. Catholics can vote for pro-choice candidates if they vote for them despite — not because of — their pro-choice views. And they also need a proportionate reason to justify it.

9. What is a proportionate reason when it comes to abortion? It’s the kind of reason we will be able to explain, with a clean heart, to the victims of abortion when we meet them in the next life — which we certainly will. If we’re confident that these victims will accept our motives, then we can proceed.

10. The heart of truly faithful citizenship is this: We’re better citizens when we’re more faithful Catholics. The more authentically Catholic we are in our lives, choices, actions and convictions, the more truly we will contribute to the moral and political life of our nation.

The Catholic Church and Capital Punishment

I read this article in a philosophy course on Ethics. It illmuminates the moral nature of the death penalty and presents a coherent evolution of the Church's stance on the issue without undermining of Sacred Tradition. It is a valuable read; all too often are there situations where one person says, "I can't support him, he's pro-choice," and the counter-reply is, "Well, the other guy is in favor of capital punishment."

Though, I am direly opposed to capital punishment myself, the argument of "proportionalism" in regard to voting for a pro-choice candidate doesn't work in this situation. (And this is coming from a Democrat). The two issues, abortion and capital punishment, are not morally equal. Abortion was legalized in 1973 and since then approximately 50 million unborn children have died in 35 years. Capital punishment was reinstated in 1976 in only 37 states and approximately 1,100 criminals have been put to death. The massive margin between those two numbers demonstrate in one respect [frequency and scope] how abortion immediately trumps the death penalty. Moreover, the Church has consistently taught that the State does not have the right to kill, but it has the obligation to protect (i.e. self-defense) the citizens from harm and if there are no other means of maintaining the common good, the death penalty is morally permissible. Abortion, on the other hand, is the deliberate and intentional killing of unborn human life making it sustinctly murder whereas this is not the case of capital punishment, though it proves unnecessary today [the gravity of abortion is greater, i.e. murder vs. "needless bloodshed" as capital punishment isn't necessarily murder.]

Cardinal Avery Dulles, Catholicism and Capital Punishment

Anne Rice endorses Hillary Clinton

PERSONAL ENDORSEMENT

OF HILLARY CLINTON FOR PRESIDENT

To my readers:

Some time ago, I made an effort to remove from this website all political statements made by me in the past. Many of these statements were incomplete statements, and many were dated. And a good many of the emails I received about these statements indicated that they were confusing to my newer Christian readers. I felt, when I removed the material, that I was doing what was best for my personal vocation—which is, to write books for Jesus Christ.

My vocation at this time remains unchanged. I am committed to writing books for the Lord, and those books right now, are books about His life on Earth as God and Man. I hope my books will reach all Christians, regardless of denomination or background. This has become my life.

However, I have come to feel that my Christian conscience requires of me a particular political statement at this time.

I hope you will read this statement in a soft voice. It is meant to be spoken in a soft voice.

Let me say first of all that I am devoutly committed to the separation of church and state in America. I believe that the separation of church and state has been good for all Christians in this country, and particularly good for Catholics who had a difficult time gaining acceptance as Americans before the presidential election of John F. Kennedy. The best book I can recommend right now on the separation of church and state is A SECULAR FAITH, Why Christianity Favors The Separation of Church and State, by Darryl Hart. However there are many other good books on the subject.

Believing as I do that church and state should remain separate, I also believe that when one enters the voting booth, church and state become one for the voter. The voter must vote her conscience. He or she must vote for the party and candidate who best reflect all that the voter deeply believes. Conscience requires the Christian to vote as a Christian. Commitment to Christ is by its very nature absolute.

My commitment and my vote, therefore, must reflect my deepest Christian convictions; and for me these convictions are based on the teachings of Christ in the Four Gospels.

I am keenly aware as a Christian and as an American that the Gospels are subject to a great variety of interpretation. I am keenly aware that Christians disagree violently on what the Gospels say.

I am also keenly aware that we have only two parties in this country. Only two. This point cannot be emphasized enough. We do not have a slate of parties, including one which is purely Christian. We have two parties, and our system has worked with two parties for generations. This is what we have.

I feel strongly that one should vote for one of these two parties in an election. I suspect that not voting is in fact a vote. I suspect that voting for a third party, when such parties develop, is in effect voting for one of the major parties whether one wants to believe this or not.

To summarize, I believe in voting, I believe in voting for one of the two major parties, and I believe my vote must reflect my Christian beliefs.

Bearing all this in mind, I want to say quietly that as of this date, I am a Democrat, and that I support Hillary Clinton for President of the United States.

Though I deeply respect those who disagree with me, I believe, for a variety of reasons, that the Democratic Party best reflects the values I hold based on the Gospels. Those values are most intensely expressed for me in the Gospel of Matthew, but they are expressed in all the gospels. Those values involve feeding the hungry, giving drink to the thirsty, clothing the naked, visiting those in prison, and above all, loving one’s neighbors and loving one’s enemies. A great deal more could be said on this subject, but I feel that this is enough.

I want to add here that I am Pro-Life. I believe in the sanctity of the life of the unborn. Deeply respecting those who disagree with me, I feel that if we are to find a solution to the horror of abortion, it will be through the Democratic Party.

I have heard many anti-abortion statements made by people who are not Democrats, but many of these statements do not strike me as constructive or convincing. I feel we can stop the horror of abortion. But I do not feel it can be done by rolling back Roe vs. Wade, or packing the Supreme Court with judges committed to doing this. As a student of history, I do not think that Americans will give up the legal right to abortion. Should Roe vs. Wade be rolled back, Americans will pass other laws to support abortion, or they will find ways to have abortions using new legal and medical terms.

And much as I am horrified by abortion, I am not sure—as a student of history—that Americans should give up the right to abortion.

I am also not convinced that all of those advocating anti-abortion positions in the public sphere are necessarily practical or sincere. I have not heard convincing arguments put forth by anti-abortion politicians as to how Americans could be forced to give birth to children that Americans do not want to bear. And more to the point, I have not heard convincing arguments from these anti-abortion politicians as to how we can prevent the horror of abortion right now, given the social situations we have.

The solution to the horror of abortion can and must be found.

Do I myself have a solution to the abortion problem? The answer is no. What I have are hopes and dreams and prayers—that better education will help men and women make responsible reproductive choices, and that abortion will become a morally abhorrent option from which informed Americans will turn away.

There is a great deal more to this question, as to how abortion became legal, as to why that happened, as to why there is so little talk of the men who father fetuses that are aborted, and as to the human rights of all individuals involved. I am not qualified as a student of history to fully discuss these issues in detail. I remain conscientiously curious and conscientiously concerned.

But I am called to vote in this, our democracy, and I am called, as an American and a Christian, to put thought and commitment into that vote.

Again, I believe the Democratic Party is the party that is most likely to help Americans make a transition away from the abortion crisis that we face today. Its values and its programs—on a whole variety of issues—most clearly reflect my values. Hillary Clinton is the candidate whom I most admire.

I want to say something further. I am aware as a Christian writer that making a political statement like this is not a particularly wise marketing move. But my Christian conscience compels me to make this statement. My Christian conscience demands that I not lie in order to sell books. Lying to sell books, pandering to a Christian market—these things would mean the deepest betrayal of my vocation to live for and write for Jesus Christ. I repeat: I won’t lie to sell books.

I have felt a certain pressure of late to express my feelings here; that pressure is mounting. That pressure has come from watching political debate on church and state in the media, from private emails from strangers and friends concerning these issues, and from conversations, often heated, with my fellow Christians and Americans.

My commitment to Christ compels me to respond to that pressure and to speak out on issues that I think are of crucial importance: whether or not we vote, and how we vote, and how our vote reflects our deepest moral concerns.

I repeat: I am a Christian; I am a Democrat. I support Hillary Clinton for President of the United States.

If I receive emails on this issue, I will do my best to answer them.

Anne Rice
August 10, 2007

Anne Rice talks about being Catholic, pro-life, and a Democrat.