LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
No, I believe that Pope Francis would require that people willingly conform their free will to the will of God.
Pope Francis: health care is a universal right, not a consumer good [CWN]
- Status
E
Ender
Guest
In this sense of the term I think we can all agree. The concern arises from the implication that we have a right to insist that our healthcare be provided by someone else. This is certainly the position that JonNC has objected to.
We haven’t agreed on very much but at least the disagreements have been civilly expressed.
Ender
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
We were not talking about what I think. We were talking about what Pope Francis thinks. So please rephrase your question.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
What it typically the case with Leaf? That our disagreements are civilly expressed? Yes, I can agree to that.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Well, if a person has not the means to buy his own healthcare, then the only alternative is that someone else buy it for him. However I don’t think the Pope’s comments were intended to inspire those without means for healthcare to start demanding it. I think the Pope was speaking to those of us who would be doing the providing. And I don’t think the Pope was specifying government as the only means to accomplish this. Charities would satisfy the obligation too. And what if they don’t do a sufficient job? Then we as a people have failed to live up to the Pope’s call. That’s all. @JonNC: why are you so worried about people thinking the solution is government? Is it because you don’t think charities can ever do a sufficient job, and the only alternative is government?
M
mackbrislawn
Guest
In the U.S. a woman has the “right” to an abortion, and since abortion is health care, does that mean a doctor has the obligation to provide the abortion even if he doesn’t want to? The doctor be compelled to perform it? After all, it’s her “right.”
That’s precisely what the progressive movement believes, that religious rights are limited to worship.
aclu.org/blog/speak-freely/federal-government-must-stop-catholic-hospitals-harming-more-women
Jon
M
magnet
Guest
Performing an elective procedure is not necessarily health care. Having an abortion or a sex change is not necessarily health care. Having plastic surgery or having breast implants should not be supported by universal health care. Becoming unhealthy through one’s own decisions does not automatically entitle that person to universal health care.
When a person engages in hazardous recreational activities and gets hurt in the process, why should universal health care rescue him from his own unwise activities?
M
mackbrislawn
Guest
I only wish that the “progressive” movement had such common sense.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Then I must apologize to you. I thought you were referring to something more derogatory.
M
magnet
Guest
Originally, freedom of religion was meant to keep government from restricting a person’s chosen faith. Freedom to worship is what religious freedom is all about.
When a religious practice not related to worship negatively impacts society, that practice is justified in being prohibited. A Catholic hospital is there to serve the public in every way benefiting society. It has no justification for restricting practices against which there are religious proscriptions. These prohibitions amount to discrimination. I thought discriminating against non-Catholics was illegal.
Can Catholic hospitals refuse service to non-Catholics? Can Jewish hospitals close their doors on Yom Kippur? Are any of these hospitals required to post at the front door statements on what they will and will not do?
In Kentucky, a government employee refused to issue licenses to gay marriage based on her religion. She was there to serve the public but reneged on her obligation.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
You have too narrow a view of what “worship” means. How can you “worship” your God on Sunday, and then go out and offend Him by sinning on Monday? It is entirely reasonable to include living one’s whole life in accord with one’s religion as protected by freedom of religion. That is how the courts have interpreted it, and rightly so. The only exception is when that practice violates the rights of others, such as religions that require the sacrifice of a virgin to the volcano god.
No, and they don’t. They just refuse to offer abortion services, which makes sense since abortion is not health care. It is murder.
Had the founders meant a narrow freedom of worship they would have said so. They said free exercise. A Cstholic hospital is there to fulfill the teachings of the Catholic Church regarding caring for God’s children. How they do that is free exercise.
Of course they can. They wouldn’t, but they can.
I agree.
Jon
E
Ender
Guest
It seems we are conflating obligations with rights, and these are very different things. I have a right of free speech, but that doesn’t mean someone else has an obligation to provide me with a microphone. My right to life doesn’t translate into someone else’s obligation to provide for me. We do have moral obligations to others, but those others have no right to demand anything of us beyond what is just.
If Pope Francis is saying only that we must help the sick, fine, no one can find fault with that, it is a moral duty we accept. This expresses our responsibility to care for others, but unfortunately he didn’t phrase it that way, and the way it was phrased can be (mis?)interpreted to mean that people have a right to demand that others provide them with the necessities of life.
The next logical step in this perspective is to conclude that, since people have this right and only the government has the ability to enforce it, the government is not merely justified in enforcing it but is morally obligated to do so, and not only that, but those who object to whatever program ostensibly helps the poor are not merely in error but are morally deficient.
There is no bright line between justice and charity, but one of the problems with equating the two is it puts the IRS on a par with the Little Sisters of the Poor. Why do we need charity if the government will make up all our deficiencies? It is a poor way to understand our obligations, which are not met by paying our taxes.
What this approach utterly fails to consider is what is possible. Surely we cannot condemn the Catholics of Ethiopia for failing to live up to the Pope’s call because the health care in that country is insufficient to meet the needs of its citizens. In all of these discussions what is ignored is the concept not only of what can be done but of what ought to be done. That’s understandable, because as soon as practical concerns are introduced the nature of the issue is clearly defined: it is political.
The only moral choice we face is this: do we want to help the poor? After that, every other choice is prudential. There are no moral concerns involved in determining what ought to be done. “What works?” is not a moral question.
Ender
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
No, but it does mean they have an obligation not to hold their hands over your mouth.
How about if you are a fetus, wanting to be born? Does someone have an obligation to take care that you are born and provided with the necessities?
Pope Francis does have a habit of speaking not too carefully, doesn’t he? It’s more like reading St. John of the Cross than Aquinas. Both are good when taken properly.
I can see how some might take it that way, but it is not strictly necessary to do so.
That may or may not be true, depending on the reason for the limitations. If they are doing the best they can in justice, then there is no blame. If there are institutional biases that unjustly prevent people from realizing health care, then this is what I think the Pope is addressing. It is not a specific rule. That would be more like Aquinas. It is more of a general mindset that sometimes says health care is a luxury good, like a yacht, rather than like breathable air.
You have used this tact before and I still object. You claim your own private meaning for the word “moral”, making it difficult to discuss what I consider to be moral issues. You assume that the only discussion that ever goes on concerning the poor is “what works”. I claim that the more common discussion, or at least internal deliberation in people’s minds, is what level of help do we owe the poor? The “what works” question is indeed a prudential judgment and has no moral dimension, even using my understanding of the word “moral”. But the “what do we owe” question is not of that sort. It is a moral question. That does not mean there is a cut-and-dried doctrinal response to that question. It is moral in the same sense that Jesus’ question: “which of the travelers was ‘neighbor’ to the man beaten by robbers?” Jesus did not say that we all owe anyone beaten by robbers the same degree of care provided by the Good Samaritan. But He clearly did not think much of the first two passers by. And it wasn’t because those passers by did not correctly calculate the best way to care for the man beaten by robbers. They were not thinking “what works”. It was because those passers by did nothing at all for the man. And that is a moral issue.
S
starshiptrooper
Guest
E
Ender
Guest
There is a vast difference between positive and negative obligations, and it is not appropriate to discuss them as if they were similar. What is being discussed is what we are obligated to do, not what we are forbidden from doing.
Extraordinary circumstances call for an extra-ordinary response.
The problem is that when multiple interpretations are reasonable it is never clear what the “proper” understanding is.
It may not be necessary to insist that the government has both the moral obligation and the moral authority to solve all social ills, but statements such as this one on health care certainly give that appearance.
But assigning blame is exactly the problem. Given the extreme poverty of Ethiopia one could argue they are blameless for providing inadequate health care for their citizens. On the other hand one could just as easily hold them at fault for causing much of their own poverty because of their political system. Blame is in the eye of the beholder, and it is a poor way to reach a consensus on what ought to be done by asserting ones political opponents are immoral. It is one thing to accuse someone of an error in judgment, but quite another to accuse him of bigotry, greed, or indifference, and unfortunately that is what this statement by the pope is likely to lead to.
That’s a valid question, but why is it a moral concern? If I believe that we should stop at X and you believe we need to give them 2X, can you really say that my position is immoral? I don’t have a personal definition of “moral”, but I do use the term more carefully than most.
There are two ways one can sin: by intent and by committing an act that is intrinsically evil. Since none of our choices in the area of “what do we owe” deals with intrinsic evils, the only way I can sin is if I have an evil intent. How can I sin if I believe that my level of what we owe is proper? If my intent is to do what is best I cannot sin, therefore the question of what we owe the poor does not include a moral choice.
The first two travelers chose not to help. As I said before, the only moral question is “will I help or not?” Once that choice is made, all subsequent choices are prudential.
Ender
- Status