Mirror of Justice

A Day of Thanksgiving and Prayer

My Creo en Dios! blog post this morninig (which you can read in its entirety here) quote's Washington's 1989 recommendation that this day be observed “as a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favours of Almighty God.” Washington’s proclamation asked the American people to “beseech Him to pardon our national and other transgressions, to promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and to grant unto all mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as He alone knows to be best.”

Individually and collectively, we have much for which to give thanks. Among the people in my life for whom I give thanks are my MOJ friends, who continually help me grow.  Thank God and thank you.

Blessings to all of our MOJ friends on this Thanksgiving Day.

Petitionary Prayer

Unlike Merton (who I'm a big fan of) or Michael P., I find petitionary prayer neither the product of immature theology nor mind-boggling.  However, assuming the Notre Dame players were not simply giving thanks for the opportunity to play football on a beautiful fall day in Notre Dame, contray to Rick's suggestion, I don't read the Gospel as authority for what I suspect was the prayer of the Notre Dame players.

I talked about this in a blog post recently, in connection with Jesus' "Ask and you shall receive."  As i express in that post, my own view is that praying "let my team beat another team" is not a worthy object of prayer.

Update: However, praying (to use two examples Rick sent me via e-mail), "keep us safe" or "let us pray in a manner worthy of a young Christian athlete" seems to me an appropriate prayer for an athlete to make.

The Virtue of Enough

Today I participated in the St. John's University Vincentian Chair of Social Justice Poverty Conference, the Vincentian Center's 6th biennial povertty conference.  The theme was Extreme Wealth and Poverty and the Virtue of Enough.  I moderated the opening plenary session, Globalization, Development and Poverty: The Crisis of Ethics and Economics, which featured talks by Drew Christensen, S.J., Editor-in-Chief of America magazine, and H.E. Oscar de Rojas, fomer director of the Financing for Developing Office of the UN Department of Economics and Social Affairs.  That session was followed by a second plenary panel that presented international perspectives on globalization and the effects of the economic crisis on both the wealth and the poor.  The afternoon featured concurrent workships on topics ranging from the environment to mental health in stressful times to how we define poverty and measure progress in today's world.

I was captivated by the theme of this conference as soon as I heard it.  The virtue of "enough."  As Christensen pointed out in his talk, "enough" is not listed as one of the virtues.  However, it is implicit in much of Catholic teaching.  The goods of the earth, provided by our loving God, are destined for all and when are our needs are satisfied, we are obligated to share the rest.  If we all consume what we need and share the rest, there will be enough for all.  It is actually a pretty simple concept.

Christensen went on to talk about the various cultural forces that have contributed to a loss of a sense of enough, a loss of a willingness to modify our lifestyle for the sake of the common good...an unwillingness to have less so others can have enough.

What went through my mind as I was listening to both of the opening speakers this morning, but particularly Christensen, was the language of policital discussions over health care reform, in particular, the efforts to persuade those who currently have care that plans to secure universal access will not have any effect on their existing coverage.  In the short term, that may be a politically expedient message.  However, it seems to me that it is a message that feeds into an attitude of greed vs. generosity and of me vs. you.  Beyond the specific issue of how we deal with health care reform and much more broadly with respect to worldwide issues of hunger, lack of clean water, etc., I wonder from where might come the leadership to stand up and say: We have a human obligation to make sure everyone has enough.  And (more boldly) it just may be that some people have to accept less so that others may have enough. 

Allen on Subsidiarity and Health Care Reform

Prompted by a statement of  Kansas bishops Naumann and Finn, several MOJ posts in the last week or so have addressed the issue of health care reform and subsidiarity   John Allen takes up the topic in his NCR column this week, which you can read here.

Kristof on the Debate Over Health Care

"After Al-Qaeda killed nearly 3,000 Americans, eight years ago on Friday, we went to war and spent hundreds of billions of dollars ensuring that this would not happen again.  Yet every two months, that many people die becaue of our failure to provide universal insurance."

Read Kristof's op-ed here.  Among the anamolies of our system Kristof points out is that those without insurance who are sick would do better if they were in prison, because courts have ruled that prisoners are entitled to health care.  He gives an example of one 20-year old who refused parole because staying in prison was the only way she could get treatment for her cervical cancer.

We can debate methods, but Kristof is right that the central issue is a moral one. "The first question is simply this: Do we wish to be the only rich nation in the world that lets a 32-year-old woman die because she can't get health insurance.  Is that really us?"

Doing nothing is not an option.

A Market-Based Alternative for Health Care Reform

Michael Scaperlanda directs us to a recent WSJ op-ed and asks what problems there might be to the author's suggestion of a market-based approach and whether such an approach is inherently at odds with Catholic Social Teaching. 

I think the short answer is that if we could obtain a fully competitive private market and provide some back-up for those persons still unable to afford to purchase insurance in the now-more-competitive (and therefore presumably less expensive) insurance market, there would be no reason to complain from the standpoint of Catholic Social Teaching.  Let me say a few words about both pieces of that suggestion.

First, I think any hope of achieving a fully competitive market requires doing away with the tax-favored status of employer plans.  I suspect the author of the op-ed knows this and waffles on the issue because he knows how politically unacceptable such an idea would be.  As we all know from the debates on health care reform, significant numbers of those who are now covered under employer plans don't want to see health care reform that requires them to change their coverage.  Changing the tax provisions to put individual purchasers and employer puchasers on the same footing would mean changes in existing plans.  I think that is a good thing...in fact I'd like to see employers out of the business of providing medical coverage alltogether, but I don't think that is feasible politically.

Second, I'm far less confident that innovations such as guaranteed renewable contracts "would catch on quickly in a vibrant, deregulated individual insurance market," making it likely that even in a competitive market, some of what the author wants would likely require changes in state insurance laws. That means relying on 50 states having to change their insurance laws.  So the change would not be quick in coming.

Third, even in a fully competitive market, there will be some people who can't afford insurance.  I'm guessing that many of the same people opposed to government involvement in health care reform would balk at a substantial increase in Medicaid eligibility to cover the working poor who will not be able to afford coverage.  Relying on a private market and leaving substantial numbers of people unable to obtain medical care because they can't afford it is not acceptable.

The bottom line is that I don't think one can say that a market-based approach supplemented by some means of providing coverage for those who still can't afford insurance on the private market, is at odds with Catholic Social Teaching.  I'm just not convinced we can get there. 

Remembering 9/11

Thanks to Rick for posting Pope Benedict's prayer during his visit to Ground Zero.  I'm drawn particularly to the request for wisdom and courage to work for a world of peace.  In my Creo en Dios! post this morning (which you can read in its entirety here), I quote Martin Luther King, Jr.'s admonition that "returning violence for violence multiplies violence" and that only love can drive out hate.  King urged that we “must evolve for all human conflict a method which rejects revenge, aggression and retaliation. The foundation of such a method is love." 

On this day on which so many of us still mourn the loss of loved ones, let us pray that we may find ways to spread Christ's love to the hearts of all.

KC Bishops and Health Care Reform

I've become so depressed about the prospects of passing meaningful health care reform that I've refrained from posting on the subject.  I don't have time for an extensive response to the statement of Bishops Naumann and Finn, but since Rob Vischer was chiding me this morning about my silence on the subject, let me offer a couple of thoughts prompted by their statement and his post.

First, one of the things that is persistently ignored when people react with horror to government involvement in the health care area is that the failed system we have now did not grow up through operation of a free market unaffected by government law and policy.  The system that has developed is largely a result of federal tax law which encourages the provision of health care through employer plans by providing favorable tax treatment to those plans.  (And those plans started to come into common existence during a time when the governmetn imposed wage controls during WW2 and employers wanted a way to increase compensation without increasing wages.)  The dominance of employer-provided medical coverage is a significant part of what skews the insurance market, making purchase of insurance by individual so costly.  So when we talk about federal involvement in health care reform, we are not talking about the federal government stepping into an area that has been completely private, but rather helping to address a situation it helped create.  Add to that the existing government involvement in health care through, e.g., the VA.  (When have you heard anyone saying that subsidiarity means we should cease providing health care to veterans via the federal government?)

Second, I don't dispute the importance of subsidiarity, but subsidiarity doesn't mean there is never a role for the government, just that the government should not intervene when lower levels can be more effective to address the problem.  I don't disagree that subsidarity means that "we respect the inherent dignity and freedom of the individual by never doing for others what they can do for themselves and thus enabling individuals to have the most possible discretion in the affairs of their lives."  But the problem of the large number of uninsured and underinsured is largely one of affordability, not people making irresponsible decisions. Large numbers of people have no insurance either because their employer does not offer insurance or it offers it at a cost they cannot afford.  There is not a whole lot those people can "do for themselves" to rectify that situation. 

Third, subsidiary is not the only principle at play here.  The sad reality is that people die in this country because they cannot afford to go to the doctor when they are sick.  I would think that one thing we could all agree on is that it is unacceptable form the standpoint of Catholic thought for people to die because they can't afford to go to the doctor.  If someone has a good lower order solution to address that reality, fine.  I'm constantly reading people saying in general terms, that from a Catholic perspective the responsibility to provide for the health care of our brothers and sisters lies with individuals, not the government or that the fact that health care is a right does not mean the government has to provide access to that right.  But where is the concrete plan for fixing this broken system we have now without government stepping in?

Fourth, it is clear that some government involvement is necessary.  One could argue that subsidiarity argues for a preference for states to address the issue rather than the federal government and we have had some examples of states that have attempted health care reform.  I suppose we could wait a couple of decades to see if all of the states (including the poorest states) are able to enact successfor reform, but I've seen little from the experience of Massachusetts and some other states to suggest that is likely to be successful.

Finally, one of the comments in the bishops' statement is to the effect that many people are happy with their medical coverage.  I have heard various forms of this statement made as a reason we should hesitate about making changes.  One real problem with that argument is that most people have no idea of what their plans would actually cover if they were faced with a serious medical problem or even something out of the ordinary. Let me give an example of my emergency room experience this summer.  I experienced some strange symptoms one morning and called my doctor's office.  The receptionist put me on the phone with a nurse practitioner who, after hearing about the symptoms and their sudden onset, strongly recommended I call 911 for an ambulence to take me immediately to the ER rather than having my husband take me. The ambulence took me to the ER, where they peformed a head CT and various other tests to rule out the things my symptoms raised concern about (brain bleed, stroke, tumor).  The entire experience from call to the docor to return home lasted perhaps four hours.  Thus far, I've paid out-of-pocket somewhere beween $600 and $700 for the portion of this experience not picked up by my medical insurance (and who knows if the bills are finished coming in).  That amount was not a hardship for me, but it would be for many people.  I wonder how many of the people who claim to be satisfied with their insurance expect that a couple of hours in the ER might cost them $600 or $700 out-of-pocket?  I sure didn't. 

Another Response on Homosexuality and Church Teaching

I asked a close friend of mine who is in a committed homosexual relationship and who is a former priest what he thought of the exchanges between Greg and me on the issue of homosexuality and Christian teaching (here, here, here, here and here). After reading the various posts, here is what he wrote to me:

“Greg asks whether ‘a departure from traditional Christian teaching on sexual morality [might] set the stage for a broader disintegration, not only of church structure and world-wide communion, but of basic Christian doctrine?’ Like it or not, the ground on which we stand is shifting, roiling. Hanging tight isn’t a viable option. Perhaps it shouldn’t even be an option – at least among reflective, thinking individuals. We are in the midst of a profound and thorough cultural transformation. Do you think God might even have something to do with it? It took the Magisterium a couple of centuries to adjust to Newtonian physics. We haven’t seen anything yet! I don’t even know the quarks and scientific constructs (e.g., astronomy) and the new synthesis the Church’s tradition needs to incorporate.

“Greg also asks ‘what Christian group of any significance size and venerability has accepted a revision of traditional church teaching on sexual morality, thereby setting aside the complementarity of male and female as a guiding principle for sexual relationships, while still maintaining orthodox beliefs on the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Christ, on His Church, and on the Scriptures?’ Truthfully, I fail to see any imperative between core Christian doctrine and its moral teaching. Twenty years ago I could have made a pretty compelling philosophical case that it would be virtually impossible for the Magisterium (which I take to include a robust appreciation for the sensus fidelium) to infallibly define any moral teaching because morality by definition includes human behavior by autonomous moral subjects. Today, making such an argument simply holds little interest for me. As an old Baptist preacher was heard to say: ‘Sometimes your religion can be so heavenly minded it’s no earthly good.’

“Greg also asks whether it might ‘be that an assault on that dimension of the magisterial authority addressing sexual relationships is so revolutionary as to place the magisterial authority itself and generally at risk, so as to lead to an inevitable post-modern retreat from tradition…’, observing that ‘some on and off this list might welcome such a diminution of magisterial authority and a movement away from orthodoxy and tradition.’ I admit it. I’m one of them and thought it would happen with Vatican II. It seems from what we are seeing now that the principle historians describe about social revolution is true – there will be a last, gasping Conservative resurgence before it all breaks open. It’s been 500 years since the Reformation. My sense is that the current resurgence of rigidity and “restoration” in the Roman Catholic Church is simply building up pressure for the next Reformation – and this will be the work of the Spirit of God.

“Greg lastly suggests, ‘In sum, might the surgery necessary to excise moral teaching on sexual relationships from the rest of the body of Christian tradition prove to be so radical that the patient cannot survive?’ Moral teaching on sexual matters is simply one of the most neuralgic (it’s about sex, after all) flash points of the profound cultural transformation in whose wake we live. That is exciting and it not something I fear. Greg needs to be careful not to confuse or conflate “the Church” with “the body of Christian tradition”, or at least those threads of the tradition Greg deems to include or defend.

“Finally, about your post from one of your readers: I am not surprised by the survey results about the level of religious activity of homosexuals. I believe religious practice is quite high among gays and lesbians. Sadly, I suspect some of it might be based on fear or guilt (best little boy in the world syndrome). On a personal level, I guess I take offense at the implication that anything about my relationship with my partner or even my delight in the male physique is antithetical to my Christian faith, inconsistent with my religious practice or “displeases” God. I know I was a better priest and pastor precisely because I am gay. Others, in numerous ministerial contexts have affirmed this – mostly coming from women or anyone else on the margins of society or who knows life on the underside/outside of power structures. I will conclude with one of my favorite quotes from Flannery O’Connor: ‘You know, most of us come to the Church by means the Church wouldn’t allow.’”

Another Reader's Response on Homosexuality and Christian Faith

Another MOJ reader offered this comment to Greg's reply to my response to his original post on the ELCA's recent decision to allow parishes to allow noncelibate homosexualis in committed relationships to the pulpit:

"Sisk asks: And what Christian group of any significance size and venerability has accepted a revision of traditional church teaching on sexual morality, thereby setting aside the complementarity of male and female as a guiding principle for sexual relationships, while still maintaining orthodox beliefs on the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Christ, on His Church, and on the Scriptures?

"The answer to this is easy: All of them except one. To my knowledge, every single Christian Church other than the Catholic Church is accepting of the use of birth-control between married couples. And there is a very strong argument to be made that in accepting such a use of birth-control these churches have accepted "a revision of traditional church teaching on sexual morality" that is no less radical than the revision entailed by condoning homosexual sexual acts and partnerships....

"Surely Sisk would agree that many of these birth-control-accepting churches retain recognizably orthodox beliefs on the incarnation, death and resurrection of Christ, etc..."