It has been a number of days since the Supreme Court
ruled to uphold the HealthCare Mandate.
Many were surprised by the outcome, especially in Chief Justice John Roberts’
decision to uphold the mandate and also being the swing vote in what caught
many by surprise. Many assumed that
Chief Justice Roberts being one of the conservatives, appointed by a Republican
president, would not uphold the mandate.
Chief Justice Roberts reasoning was that the mandate
was a tax and that the Federal Government has the right to tax. I am not a constitutional lawyer or an expert
in the health care field. I trust there
are many more able individuals than I who can offer their expertise and
rebuttals against those Justices who upheld the mandate and to comment on
whether or not the mandate is beneficial or harmful, in regards to its
political framework.
I never thought once that the Church was against the
mandate in regards to there being some type of benefit for all, especially the
poor. All can agree, something needs to
be done with the health care system in the United States. It is not the position of a cleric to
denounce or advocate political positions, though sometimes we all do (even us
priests), there is no helping it, we are political animals, all of us have it
in our very blood. Anyway, the Church
leaves the political nature of a bill, mandate, law, to the body politic, i.e.
law makers and those they represent. The
Church advocates or denounces law only when it violates natural human rights,
is harmful, or keeps the poor down trodden.
The Church’s concern and objection to the Health Care Mandate rested in
the Mandates’ definition of Church. It
understands Church only as the worship building, viz. the building with the
Cross and Steeple. Hence, all the employees
within the “Church” will be exempt from carrying healthcare that provides for
abortion and contraceptive use.
The problem now rests in the dilemma we have with
other Catholic institutions that do not fit this very narrow definition of
Church, e.g. Catholic Universities, such as The Catholic University of America,
Notre Dame, St. Jospeh’s, etc. as well as all Catholic Hospitals. All of these employees will carry insurance
that pays for contraceptive use and the coverage for abortions. The Catholic Church cannot accept this since
our very definition of Church extends to all our institutions, i.e. there are
chapels in these hospitals and universities, they also have priests and
religious who staff them, they live out a particular charism either that of the
Universal Church or the religious community to which they are affiliated and or
founded by.
Granted if the mandate would have been banned then
the argument or point is moot. I am sure
that is what many in the Church hoped for.
There are also “civil liberty issues” at stake, because from some folks
point of view they ask the following questions, i.e. why can’t I buy the
insurance I want, if I own an insurance company why can’t I offer the insurance
I want, are we not a capitalist society where we allow for free markets and
competition between sellers/owners/consumers?
The Supreme Court did not think so and has upheld the mandate as a tax issue.
What does this mean for Catholics in the
United States? Well, the issue is not
over, a new administration may repeal it if successful. However, if people in Washington will repeal
it then they have to offer an alternative, for as I said before, something
needs to be done with our health care and President Obama was right in putting
the wheels in motion towards that end, though I disagree with him in the
definition of Church and his personal opinion regarding abortion and marriage. The other option is that the current law
suits by the Church's institutions against this administration gain victory, on the
grounds that the administration’s definition of Church is faulty, then no
Catholic institution will be required to offer benefits that have abortion and contraceptives
paid for by the insurance companies.
That will be a victory. Though I
personally believe and hope that no insurance company will pay for abortions or
contraceptives since the use of such means are immoral.
In regards to the “civil liberties” questions concerning
the mandate and the nature of politics, e.g. is the thing capitalist or
socialist by nature I leave to you to reflect on. The job of the priest is to speak on the moral
nature of the subject. If the law is
unjust, as in this case it is on the following grounds, it offers to pay for
the destruction of human life and it pays for the un-natural participation with
contraceptives. The law “COULD”
also be unjust if it disproportionately taxes its
citizens. Though one must understand
that if “we” do something so that every American is covered then we all have to
chip in, the question and challenge is how do we do that without raising our
taxes too high and still provide people with decent insurance? That’s why we have smart democrats,
republicans, and independents whom we have put in office, most of whom went to Ivy League
Schools, are well off themselves, have many successful business friends, if
they only put their minds to it without worrying about being reelected then just
maybe they might actually get it right! AMEN!
Picture is from the movie “A Man For All Seasons”,
the scene is that of King Henry VIII pressuring St. Thomas More to accept Henry’s
divorce from Catherine of Spain and to marry Ann Boleyn, as well as revealing beginning
hints of Henry taking on the Supremacy of the Church in England. As you know, More did not budge on grounds of
conscience in both matters, something all of our politicians need to reflect on
when making decisions, for they are the King’s good servant, but God’s First.
FJ
No comments:
Post a Comment