Has the Church always supported universal healthcare?

[tom_c_1]

I often hear that the Church supported healthcare for every individual long before it became a political issue. I don’t doubt the truth of this statement, and I know the Church has a long history of providing healthcare for the poor. But I’m wondering if someone more educated could point me towards a particular papal statement or Catechism section that I could use when the subject comes up.

Thanks in advance!

 

[TheRealJuliane]

The Church does not necessarily support health care provided by the GOVERNMENT. There is a huge difference between doing as God wants us to do and having the government take our resources by force. Especially in the case that abortions will be part of any “universal health care” provided.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

The Church does not necessarily support health care provided by the GOVERNMENT. There is a huge difference between doing as God wants us to do and having the government take our resources by force. Especially in the case that abortions will be part of any “universal health care” provided.

Christ didn’t say not to have the Roman government take resources by force, but He did say ‘render unto Caesar, that which is Caesar’s’, which was tax without a qualification of anything less or more from Christ.

It becomes confusing to state we should use the government for one purpose, but let’s not use it for another, in achieving what we are taught by Christ…

 

[LemonAndLime]

The Church does not necessarily support health care provided by the GOVERNMENT. There is a huge difference between doing as God wants us to do and having the government take our resources by force. Especially in the case that abortions will be part of any “universal health care” provided.

Who said anything about force and that being against what God wants us to do? Abortions in universal health care? Aversion to government, what has that got to do with…

Oh, this is a dig towards the possibility of the USA bringing something like this in.

 

[JimG]

I can’t think of many times in the Church’s history when it would even have been possible to support universal healthcare. Certainly not in the apostolic Church. Neither the Roman government nor the Church, nor the Jews had the means to provide universal healthcare, whatever that might have meant in that context.

During the high middle ages, there might have been a number of church operated hospitals to care for the sick, but I doubt that universality was ever achieved, and of course the level of healthcare was not something that would have ensured continuing health in any case.

I’m not even sure that the state of national economies today worldwide makes universal healthcare something that is even achievable. No nation is going to bankrupt itself trying to accomplish the impossible. Although, given the example of Greece, perhaps they are willing to do just that. But national bankruptcy is no worthy goal for anyone.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I can’t think of many times in the Church’s history when it would even have been possible to support universal healthcare. Certainly not in the apostolic Church. Neither the Roman government nor the Church, nor the Jews had the means to provide universal healthcare, whatever that might have meant in that context.

During the high middle ages, there might have been a number of church operated hospitals to care for the sick, but I doubt that universality was ever achieved, and of course the level of healthcare was not something that would have ensured continuing health in any case.

I’m not even sure that the state of national economies today worldwide makes universal healthcare something that is even achievable. No nation is going to bankrupt itself trying to accomplish the impossible. Although, given the example of Greece, perhaps they are willing to do just that. But national bankruptcy is no worthy goal for anyone.

Doesn’t Britain have a universal healthcare system? I think there are others as well.

 

[exnihilo]

It becomes confusing to state we should use the government for one purpose, but let’s not use it for another, in achieving what we are taught by Christ…

It would seem that there is no definitive declaration as to the nature of how government should be organized, how it should work and what it should do in our days. That leaves us with our reason and knowledge to guide us.

With a secular government can the work of Christ be accomplished? If providing for those in need is not done for the sake of Christ is it of the same value as that which is done for His sake? In a secular government does the state not get the glory?

Given the nature of government would it be acceptable to enslave people for the benefit of the poor? I imagine most people would immediately say no. But Christianity in no way condemns the institution of slavery and government is essentially a form of slavery in that it demands your labor. So what justification is there for the abhorrence most people would have for that idea?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

It would seem that there is no definitive declaration as to the nature of how government should be organized, how it should work and what it should do in our days. That leaves us with our reason and knowledge to guide us.

With a secular government can the work of Christ be accomplished? If providing for those in need is not done for the sake of Christ is it of the same value as that which is done for His sake? In a secular government does the state not get the glory?

Given the nature of government would it be acceptable to enslave people for the benefit of the poor? I imagine most people would immediately say no. But Christianity in no way condemns the institution of slavery and government is essentially a form of slavery in that it demands your labor. So what justification is there for the abhorrence most people would have for that idea?

It sounds like, by your statement, that we cannot expect the government to stop abortion? I know it’s a gross example, but basically the same in that we try to use government to stop abortions, which is also a work of Christ. Who would get the glory in such an instance if the government stopped all abortions?

Our country is our ‘larger’ community, of which we are a part of. It seems to me we would all be glad to accomplish the works of Christ through our government, even if it costs us that which is the country’s, specifically the taxes.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

Who said anything about force and that being against what God wants us to do? Abortions in universal health care? Aversion to government, what has that got to do with…

Oh, this is a dig towards the possibility of the USA bringing something like this in.

Government’s power is always by force. Anything that is “given” from the government is necessarily taken from someone else.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

It would seem that there is no definitive declaration as to the nature of how government should be organized, how it should work and what it should do in our days. That leaves us with our reason and knowledge to guide us.

With a secular government can the work of Christ be accomplished? If providing for those in need is not done for the sake of Christ is it of the same value as that which is done for His sake? In a secular government does the state not get the glory?

Given the nature of government would it be acceptable to enslave people for the benefit of the poor? I imagine most people would immediately say no. But Christianity in no way condemns the institution of slavery and government is essentially a form of slavery in that it demands your labor. So what justification is there for the abhorrence most people would have for that idea?

In the United States, this is done through our Constitution, which is based upon the Magna Carta and Judeo-Christian principles. The work has been done through our Founding Fathers. They were very wise men and set things up very well, if we would only follow the document they worked very hard to design.

 

[LemonAndLime]

Government’s power is always by force. Anything that is “given” from the government is necessarily taken from someone else.

Really? Is it always by “force”? Why use such a word to describe it? Your people voted them in to make decisions on your behalf, don’t complain when they actually do that.

As to the comparison of government force and healthcare, do you really think that I as a British person have treatment forced upon me? Do you think that when it was introduced, the British people hated it and campaigned against being it being “forced” on them?

 

[exnihilo]

It sounds like, by your statement, that we cannot expect the government to stop abortion? I know it’s a gross example, but basically the same in that we try to use government to stop abortions, which is also a work of Christ. Who would get the glory in such an instance if the government stopped all abortions?

Our country is our ‘larger’ community, of which we are a part of. It seems to me we would all be glad to accomplish the works of Christ through our government, even if it costs us that which is the country’s, specifically the taxes.

That is a fair point. In my view the government would be best limited to stopping people from violating the rights of others. I would see stopping abortion as stopping the killing of an innocent human. From my experience the power of government will corrupt any good positive actions. Practically speaking I dont see how governments, which frequently make war in violation of Just War, can be expected to really accomplish good.

 

[exnihilo]

In the United States, this is done through our Constitution, which is based upon the Magna Carta and Judeo-Christian principles. The work has been done through our Founding Fathers. They were very wise men and set things up very well, if we would only follow the document they worked very hard to design.

Scripturally God showed no favor for democracy. I would point out the Magna Carta was created under a king. In my opinion many of the Rights of Englishmen have since been lost under democracy. I personally dont have any particular reverence for democracy. And while I used to have more esteem for the US’s founding documents I’ve come to believe that no government is inherently good or even better than any other. In the age of democracy we’ve had some pretty terrible, deadly wars.

 

[LemonAndLime]

Scripturally God showed no favor for democracy. I would point out the Magna Carta was created under a king. In my opinion many of the Rights of Englishmen have since been lost under democracy. I personally dont have any particular reverence for democracy. And while I used to have more esteem for the US’s founding documents I’ve come to believe that no government is inherently good or even better than any other. In the age of democracy we’ve had some pretty terrible, deadly wars.

Sadly, democracy - particularly the American brand, seems to come with the slogan “My democracy, or you have no democracy” - something I come across often on this forums. Hence my location. However, saying that, the UK democracy is so full of red tape and protocols that are years old, it takes ages for anything to get done.

 

[puzzleannie]

I often hear that the Church supported healthcare for every individual long before it became a political issue. I don’t doubt the truth of this statement, and I know the Church has a long history of providing healthcare for the poor. But I’m wondering if someone more educated could point me towards a particular papal statement or Catechism section that I could use when the subject comes up.

Thanks in advance!

I doubt it becaues health care coverage of any kind, in the sense of somebody else paying for your health care, has not been a political issue for very long in human history, until the labor movement adopted it as a demand. It was labor governments or labor wings of socialist governments who enacted it in countries that have a national health care plan and not until the 20th c.

I would have to see some documentation before I believe the claim. I am familiar with the earliest social justice encyclicals but don’t recall such language. Anybody with more knowledge care to comment?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I doubt it becaues health care coverage of any kind, in the sense of somebody else paying for your health care, has not been a political issue for very long in human history, until the labor movement adopted it as a demand. It was labor governments or labor wings of socialist governments who enacted it in countries that have a national health care plan and not until the 20th c.

I would have to see some documentation before I believe the claim. I am familiar with the earliest social justice encyclicals but don’t recall such language. Anybody with more knowledge care to comment?

Then you don’t believe Christ meant ‘care for the sick’ universally?

 

[Newbie2]

First off, we have to define “universal health care” for the purposes of this discussion. In the context of the political structure and current times in the USA, it’s clear that the Church has and does not support free “Cadillac-level” health care for all. So we have to consider if “universal” means, even at some level, “free”.

However, the Church does consider the access to health care, at some undefined minimum level, to be a right similar to the right to food, water and shelter.

 

[tom_c_1]

I think you are right Newbie. I haven’t posted often on here. I’m learning that I need to be more precise with my questions After reading what others have replied, I think Sorr led people into commenting on it as a political issue. I think I can narrow what I’m looking for somewhat.

What I’m looking for is a statement with respect to basic healthcare access for all people. Because I’ve read where different bishops and Catholics have made statements that the Church has always taught that no one should be denied healthcare.

Sorry for any confusion.

 

[JimG]

Doesn’t Britain have a universal healthcare system? I think there are others as well.

Yes, Britain has the NHS for its population of some 59 million, as do other nations of the UK. But I don’t know enough about the NHS to comment on it.

I doubt that its founding was related to the precepts of the Catholic Church though. For the Church to support universal healthcare as an official teaching, I suppose the teaching would have to be framed something like this: “All nations should, as a matter of moral principle, establish a system whereby all health care for every citizen shall be underwritten by the taxpayers at large.”

Social justice priorities would inevitably arise as ancillary questions. Should taxpayer funding of healthcare take priority over, say, police forces, defense, internal security, air safety, food safety, etc? And there are numerous nations for which such a precept could simply not be accomplished. Would they then be in violation of Catholic moral principles?

I just don’t see that the Church would ever be comfortable setting those priorities. Those are political questions, not moral questions.

Further, the question arises as to the sustainability of the program (or any program) if population declined such that taxation was insufficient. Would the nation be morally obligated to continue funding it in spite of insufficient tax revenues? Would healthcare workers have to be drafted?

 

[LemonAndLime]

JimG - if the population of the UK declined and there were less taxpayers, then there would be less patients, less spending, so no it will not go suddenly bankrupt or short of staff. Think about it, supply and demand.