USCCB Pulpit Announcement - help! Not sure I can read it

[catechizeme]

As a member of our pro-life committee I’ve been asked to read the announcement below after Mass this weekend (Jan 17). However, after reading it, I’m not sure I can do it in good conscience and am thinking about asking our pastor to please do it, or another member of our committee. The announcement implies it endorses - or at the least approves of - the House bill, which, if I remember correctly, contains a public, government-run option, as well as other provisions I am opposed to. And, contrary to what the announcement says, I don’t believe the House bill be make health-care “affordable” to all, based on the numerous studies and news reports I’ve seen. (see the FIRST ANNOUNCMENT in the link, first sentence).

First - can someone confirm if I’m right on if the House bill ended up with a public-option? I could be remembering incorrectly - so much has happened so quickly the past couple months.

Second, if it does…if our Bishops had stuck to the abortion issue, or even making a plea for coverage for all without implying an endorsement of the House bill I could read this, but the way it is written, I think they have gone beyond the “what” we need into “how” by endorsing the House. Even our Pope has talked against the dangers of socialism and that is what I believe both bills set the stage for. As Fr. Morris put it on Fox News one day…the Bishops calling for “universal heath care” does not mean “government health care”, which is what most people think when they hear that term.

Would I be wrong to request that I not be the one to read this? If this was a matter of faith or morals or Church teaching I would read it in a heartbeat because I firmly believe in following the Magisterium and ALL Church teachings on faith and morals, but I think this goes beyond that into politics. I would appreciate your opinions.

usccb.org/healthcare/Abortion_ads/Pulpit_Announcement_and_Prayer.pdf

 

[joandarc2008]

The House bill did not end up with a public option that is one of the reasons President Obama is coming underfire from both sides is that the right doesn’t like anything he is doing and the left feels he compromised too much. I don’t like my money going to abortion - if that part is out which last I knew it may or may not be then I am good with the bill.

 

[Orchanian]

I think the point of the message is that we have to pray for a Bill that respects life. Right now, that’s not the case. It seems like this pulpit message is directed to putting pressure on our legislators to ensure that life is protected.

With that said, I suggest that you talk to your priest and express your concern. He may be able to better explain the position of the Bishops. Sometimes written documents are not as clear as they could be.

 

[joandarc2008]

I think the point of the message is that we have to pray for a Bill that respects life. Right now, that’s not the case. It seems like this pulpit message is directed to putting pressure on our legislators to ensure that life is protected.

With that said, I suggest that you talk to your priest and express your concern. He may be able to better explain the position of the Bishops. Sometimes written documents are not as clear as they could be.

I get the same message from the written message- remember the fiduciary aspects are to Ceasar - the life aspects are to God.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Here’s your chance to swallow your pride and show that conservatives aren’t cafeteria catholics too! Health care plans are politics… don’t put your politics above your respect for the bishops. Be humble and read the announcement, - it’s not a sin, its just that they have different political views than you.

 

[kristie_m]

What you are being asked to do has less to do with politics than standing up for your Catholic faith. The bishops have asked us to contact our reps, to encourage them to respect life and make sure that the poor and vulnerable are cared for. I don’t see the problem.

 

[Ender]

What you are being asked to do has less to do with politics than standing up for your Catholic faith. The bishops have asked us to contact our reps, to encourage them to respect life and make sure that the poor and vulnerable are cared for. I don’t see the problem.

This is a great deal more than merely a call to protect life and care for the poor and vulnerable: it is an endorsement of a particular approach to health care. This has more to do with politics than with faith or morals. I would tell your priest that and say you will not read any statement that implies the Church endorses a specific political solution. Whether to support this or any other health care plan (or any plan on immigration, economic policy, etc) is an entirely a prudential question to which each individual has both the right and the responsibility to decide for himself. The implication here is that the current health care bill only needs the changes the USCCB recommends and then it would be fine. That may be their preferred solution but they are out of bounds implying that we have some kind of moral obligation to agree with them.

Ender

 

[catechizeme]

What you are being asked to do has less to do with politics than standing up for your Catholic faith. The bishops have asked us to contact our reps, to encourage them to respect life and make sure that the poor and vulnerable are cared for. I don’t see the problem.

I wish our Bishops had asked this, however, in a way that does not imply endorsement of the House bill because that does make it about politics, also, unfortunately. They have muddied the waters, I think, by doing this. Them more I read it, the more this one clause is very out of place, since the rest of the message is about abortion.

 

[Elzee]

Here’s your chance to swallow your pride and show that conservatives aren’t cafeteria catholics too! Health care plans are politics… don’t put your politics above your respect for the bishops. Be humble and read the announcement, - it’s not a sin, its just that they have different political views than you.

I disagree. This has nothing to do with being a “cafeteria Catholic” or putting politics above our Bishops, in my opinion, because it is not a matter of faith and morals or Church teaching.

It’s similar to the Catholic Campaign for Human Development issue - our Bishops asked us to contribute assuring us donations were not being given to pro-abortion groups, but the evidence proved otherwise for many, many Catholics. Those who did not donate were not being “cafeteria Catholics” because they were not following their Bishops direction in this regard - it’s an optional donation. Likewise, believing in government-run health-care is optional too - Catholics are not obliged to agree with it or promote it just because the USCCB seems to, or even if their own Bishop seems to and even encourages them to so. This is not Church teaching - as stated above. It’s a political view and I don’t think the OP should feel bad about not wanting to support it.

 

[manualman]

Look folks, there is going to be some sort of compromise worked between the House and Senate bills and Obama is going to sign it. That’s reality. The bishops seems to see that and are fighting for what CAN be won at this point.

What is that? The House bill contained the Stupak amendment that restricted the government’s involvement in abortion and prevents abortion funding from coming from mandated citizen payments (whether taxes or premiums).

The Senate bill has no such protection, so we face the very real danger that the compromise bill will chop off the protections we fought for and won in the House Stupak amendment.

Read that letter! Its the best chance we have of stopping mandated abortion funding.

 

[JReducation]

The statement is well within the teachings of the Catholic Church. It is a call to oppose funding of abortion and to provide affordable healthcare to everyone. It does not set out to design a plan on how to deliver affordable healthcare. It leaves that up to government.

There is no reason not to read it. Everything in it is well within the authority of bishops.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[AnotherVoice]

I would not read it.

If only they would have stopped at being against abortion and in favor of broader conscience protections it would have been fine. The bishops go on to define more of what they want in the bill and leave the impression of support for the bill.

They should limit comments from the pulpit to moral issues.

 

[JReducation]

I would not read it.

If only they would have stopped at being against abortion and in favor of broader conscience protections it would have been fine. The bishops go on to define more of what they want in the bill and leave the impression of support for the bill.

They should limit comments from the pulpit to moral issues.

To do so would be an abdication of the role of the bishop. When a man is ordained to the episcopal order he is ordained to: teach, shepherd and govern in both spiritual and temporal matters. This dates back to apostolic tradition. A bishop cannot abdicate his authority in temporal matters. This is one of the problems that we have with many of the Traditionalsit movements. Many realize that after Vatican II many bishops adbicated their authority in temporal matters.

As a successor of the Apostles, a bishop has all the rights and obligations of the Apostles. The Apostles transmitted a spiritual and temporal leadership to those who followed. Therefore, bishops must speak on civil matters. Their voice must reflect the social teachings of the Church. That’s why the Church writes social encylicals and declarations, because she has a temporal role in civil society, not just matters of faith and morals.

What the bishops are saying in this statement is that the poor must have access to affordable healthcare and that the state has to make sure this happens. This is a point of social justice. There is not pope or Church document that is in conflict with this. The statement is not saying how the state is going to make this happen. That’s up to law makers to come up with a working infrastructure. But they have a moral ogligation to make this happen. So the argument goes back to morality.

If some Catholics have a problem with universal healthcare, then that’s another issue. That problem becomes one for the individual Catholic, not for the Church. The Church has said that all people must have healthcare, regardless of their status in society. It is up to the Catholic citizens to work with the government and the private sector to make this happen. We cannot take a position that is in conflict with the social teachings of the Church on justice for the poorest of the poor.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[A.Pelliccio]

The Healthcare reform bill is a scam, that will bankrupt this country, destroy Medicare, push millions of illegal immigrants into a system funded by you and I, force generational theft through massive deficit spending, and ration healthcare to the most vulnerable in our society. I’m sorry but the Bishops are wrong and the can preach this until Armageddon and it still will not be sound economic or public policy.

 

[Ender]

To do so would be an abdication of the role of the bishop. When a man is ordained to the episcopal order he is ordained to: teach, shepherd and govern in both spiritual and temporal matters.

The bishops are right to speak about the goals to which we should work but they are wrong when they suggest specific actions to accomplish those goals. As an example, some years ago the bishops spoke out on the government’s obligation to look out for the poor. My bishop took that one step further and said we had a moral obligation to support an increase in the minimum wage. They were right - because they were speaking of ends - but he was wrong because he specified a particular solution that in his personal opinion would bring about that end.

This problem is apparent in the bishops comments on the health care bill. It is appropriate for them to speak of the need to provide health care for the poor but they overstep their authority when they imply a moral obligation to support a particular solution, in this case the current health care bill. Generic talk about “temporal matters” misses the critical distinction between ends and means.

What the bishops are saying in this statement is that the poor must have access to affordable healthcare and that the state has to make sure this happens.

Even if I agreed with this debatable claim that would still not mean that we have any obligation at all to support the current bill which, in my opinion, will do little to help anyone and will just make our medical system worse for all.

The statement is not saying how the state is going to make this happen.

I disagree; this is precisely what they are saying. They are expressing support for the current bill, so long as certain changes are made to it. I reject the current bill in its entirety and the bishops abuse their authority to infer that I have some moral obligation to agree with their political opinions.

Ender

 

[catechizeme]

The bishops are right to speak about the goals to which we should work but they are wrong when they suggest specific actions to accomplish those goals. As an example, some years ago the bishops spoke out on the government’s obligation to look out for the poor. My bishop took that one step further and said we had a moral obligation to support an increase in the minimum wage. They were right - because they were speaking of ends - but he was wrong because he specified a particular solution that in his personal opinion would bring about that end.

This problem is apparent in the bishops comments on the health care bill. It is appropriate for them to speak of the need to provide health care for the poor but they overstep their authority when they imply a moral obligation to support a particular solution, in this case the current health care bill. Generic talk about “temporal matters” misses the critical distinction between ends and means.
Even if I agreed with this debatable claim that would still not mean that we have any obligation at all to support the current bill which, in my opinion, will do little to help anyone and will just make our medical system worse for all.
I disagree; this is precisely what they are saying. They are expressing support for the current bill, so long as certain changes are made to it. I reject the current bill in its entirety and the bishops abuse their authority to infer that I have some moral obligation to agree with their political opinions.

Ender

Thank you. Your post and posts 12 and 14 have been very eloquent and have expressed my thoughts and concerns better than I did. Thank you.

 

[AnotherVoice]

To do so would be an abdication of the role of the bishop. When a man is ordained to the episcopal order he is ordained to: teach, shepherd and govern in both spiritual and temporal matters.

With all due respect, I don’t feel that a bishop has a role to govern in temporal matters. This is not something that was just abdicated after Vatican II, the demise of temporal governance by bishops may have its roots in the Avignon Papacy.

 

[JReducation]

With all due respect, I don’t feel that a bishop has a role to govern in temporal matters. This is not something that was just abdicated after Vatican II, the demise of temporal governance by bishops may have its roots in the Avignon Papacy.

The point is that it is still part of the ordination right of the bishop. Therefore, they have a divine right to execise it. We have to remember that the Catholic Church’s government is a monarchy and the bishops are part of that monarchy. No one says that we have to agree with what the monarch says or opines. But we cannot take the monarch’s right away from him, because in this case, it is divinely instituted. The divine institution comes from the sacrament of Holy Orders. As long as the words [to govern] are in the ordination rite, without limits on their meaning, then the Catholics must accept roles as defined by the sacrament.

What is true, is that no cleric can hold an elected office. But we Catholics cannot tell bsihops that they cannot speak authoritatively for the Catholic Church as temporal state, because it is a temporal state. In addition, the ordination right of a bishop makes it very clear that the Catholic Church is only present when there are bishops. The faithful cannot constitute the Church nor can we represent her authoritatively, because we are part of the Church, but not the Church. The Church is vested in the fullness of the priesthood, which onlly a bishop has.

When bishops speak, they are speaking as both: pastors and temporal leaders who represent a temporal society called the Catholic Church. The only time that a bishop cannot speak for the Church in an authoritative manner is when he is not an ordinary. For example, auxiliary bishops may not speak authoritatively even on matters of faith and morals, much less civil matters. They have no episcopal authority nor can they use their sacramental powers without the permission of the Ordinary, be that the bishop of a diocese or a major superior of male religious.

In the case of the USCCB or any episcopal conference, they do repesent the Catholic Church morally, doctrinally and civilly. They can never claim infallibility on civil matters, because infallibility is not applicable. They can only claim infallibility on moral and doctrinal matters that are held to be infallible by the pope.

In this particular case, the bishops can argue that universal healthcare is the moral duty of any nation. In tis simple statement by itself, they can appeal to infallibility, because the Church holds this to be true and to be a human right. As to how this is provided, that would not fall under infallibility, unless the specifics violate a doctrine or a universally held moral law, which is the case of abortion. That’s why the bishops can say that any civil law that funds abortion is morally objectionable. Because it is an infallible teaching that abortion is murder. That gives them the right to denounce the law and warn Catholics not to support it. All the other details pertaining to the provision of healthcare, not infallible. They can make mistakes and Catholic citizens have the right to disagree. But we do not have the right to demand and expect them not to support a healtchare plan. We can certainly say that we do not support the same healthcare plan that they do.

As to reading their statement in Church, that is something that we have to do, if for no other reason than the fact that all parishes fall under the jurisdiction of the bishops. The only person who can refuse to make such an announcement would be the Ordinary of the diocese. The parish does not belong to the faithful or the religious order that runs it… The faithful form the parish, but do not have authority over the parish. There are other rights and oligations that the faithful have in a parish, but governance is not one of them.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[RobbyS]

I disagree. This has nothing to do with being a “cafeteria Catholic” or putting politics above our Bishops, in my opinion, because it is not a matter of faith and morals or Church teaching.

It’s similar to the Catholic Campaign for Human Development issue - our Bishops asked us to contribute assuring us donations were not being given to pro-abortion groups, but the evidence proved otherwise for many, many Catholics. Those who did not donate were not being “cafeteria Catholics” because they were not following their Bishops direction in this regard - it’s an optional donation. Likewise, believing in government-run health-care is optional too - Catholics are not obliged to agree with it or promote it just because the USCCB seems to, or even if their own Bishop seems to and even encourages them to so. This is not Church teaching - as stated above. It’s a political view and I don’t think the OP should feel bad about not wanting to support it.

Too many bishops were raised in Democratic households that revered FDR and the New Deal. They allowed Catholic politicians in the two parties to get away with the “personally opposed but…” sophistry advanced in Cuomo’s Notre Dame speech. Now they find themselves trying to ignore the fact that the Democratic Party is firmly in the pro-choice camp. The problem is that the majority of them are biased in favor of the restof the Democratic agenda.

 

[Ender]

No one says that we have to agree with what the monarch says or opines.

I think this is precisely the point that the bishops blur with their foray into politics: since they are presenting opinion we do not need to agree with them, but since they are also bishops they also imply that we should replace our opinion with theirs.

But we Catholics cannot tell bishops that they cannot speak authoritatively for the Catholic Church as temporal state, because it is a temporal state.

This is again too vague and blurs the critical distinction between when the bishops do and do not speak for the Church when discussing temporal (viz. political) issues. They speak for the Church when they say a Catholic cannot support abortion but they speak for themselves only when they say (or imply) that Catholics ought to support the current health care bill. As you said in your first comment “no one says we have to agree” with what they say. That is clearly recognition that they are not always speaking authoritatively simply because they have expressed an opinion on something.

In the case of the USCCB or any episcopal conference, they do repesent the Catholic Church morally, doctrinally and civilly.

The USCCB does not represent the Church nor is anything they say binding. What my bishop says matters, what other bishops say is not relevant to me.

In this particular case, the bishops can argue that universal healthcare is the moral duty of any nation. In tis simple statement by itself, they can appeal to infallibility, because the Church holds this to be true and to be a human right.

I dispute this claim but … whatever: we have universal health care now.

But we do not have the right to demand and expect them not to support a healtchare plan. We can certainly say that we do not support the same healthcare plan that they do.

Yes, we do have the right to demand that they keep their political opinions to themselves because to do otherwise is to deliberately blur the distinction between when they speak as bishops of the Church - where obedience is compelled - and when they speak only for themselves - where we have no more obligation to accept their opinion than that of the local butcher.

As to reading their statement in Church, that is something that we have to do, if for no other reason than the fact that all parishes fall under the jurisdiction of the bishops. The only person who can refuse to make such an announcement would be the Ordinary of the diocese. The parish does not belong to the faithful or the religious order that runs it… The faithful form the parish, but do not have authority over the parish. There are other rights and oligations that the faithful have in a parish, but governance is not one of them.

We are not compelled to do anything simply because the bishop requests it; in fact we sacrifice our own obligations when we act in a way we believe to be wrong. A “the.bishop.has.spoken.I.must.obey” attitude is one thing that contributed to the child abuse scandal from which the Church has still not recovered. The bishops have their roles and we have ours and each side should be very wary of intruding on the others turf.

Ender