Stupak Is Not Hyde
In response to Matthew's post "Did U.S. Bishops Caveat an Eternal Truth?" which asks how the Bishops could endorse health care when it will pay for some abortions (rape and incest), we received comments, emails, and tweets that take issue with this point of view. The response suggests that this instance is no different than the Hyde amendment, which also contains exceptions for rape and incest. The issues here could not be more different.
The Hyde Amendment's express purpose was to limit the funding of abortion. The best that could be politically achieved were the prohibitions on federal funding of abortion with exceptions for rape and incest. In no way did the Hyde amendment propose to actually pay for those exceptions.
Today, the situation is different. The Stupak amendment is an amendment to an overall bill that would have paid for all abortions. The amendment limited the types of abortions that would be paid for by the Health Care bill, but in the end the bill would still pay for some abortions. This makes it radically different from the Hyde amendment.
What the Bishop's did is indicate that with he inclusion of the Stupak amendment, they could support the Health Care bill, a bill which will pay for some abortions. The net effect is that the number of abortions will increase due to the funding. No pro-life politician, no Catholic, and certainly no Bishop should in any way support a bill that will lead to additional abortions through federal funding.
While it is true that without the Stupak amendment, the health care bill would have been much worse and led to many more abortions, no Bishop of the Catholic Church and no one who calls themselves pro-life should support a bill that will lead to more abortions. Period.
For the Bishops to indicate support for a bill that will fund some abortions is unacceptable. Would the Bishops support a stand-alone bill that would pay for abortions in the cases of rape or incest? I think not. For the same reason , they cannot not support the health care bill either. No amount of universal health care make this permissible.
As stated, without the Stupak amendment the health care bill would have been worse, but there is no compromise on the funding of killing. By supporting the Health Care bill, even with Stupak, this is exactly what the Bishops are doing.
The Hyde amendment never funded a single abortion, but sought to limit what it could. The same cannot be said of the the Health Care bill, Stupak or no Stupak.
34 comments:
With all due respect (and that's not a disguised jab--I greatly appreciate this site), this simply is not true. Hyde allows for the government to pay for Medicaid abortions.
Here is the wording of the Hyde Amendment:
"SEC. 507. (a) None of the funds appropriated in this Act, and none of the funds in any trust fund to which funds are appropriated under this Act, shall be expended for any abortion.
(b) None of the funds appropriated in this Act, and none of the funds in any trust fund to which funds are appropriated in this Act, shall be expended for health benefits coverage that includes coverage of abortion.
(c) The term ‘health benefits coverage’ means the package of services covered by a managed care provider or organization pursuant to a contract or other arrangement.
SEC. 508. (a) The limitation established in the preceding section shall not apply to an abortion-
(1) if the pregnancy is the result of an act of
rape or incest; or
(2) in the case where a woman suffers from a
physical disorder, physical injury, or physical
illness, including a life-endangering physical
condition caused by or arising from the
pregnancy itself, that would, as certified by a
physician, place the woman in danger of
death unless an abortion is performed."
By its language, Hyde allows for a significant number of Medicaid abortions. I don't have Stupak in front of me, but I think it is actually slightly more restrictive than the current form of Hyde.
--Dale Price
Dale
Actually this proves my point. The medicaid abortion payments were part of another bill passed separately. The Hyde amendment does not stipulate payment for those abortions. That was done in the medicaid bill. Hyde could not limit it and pass, but it did not directly fund the abortions. The medicaid bill did. Therefore it would not be morally permissible to vote for the medicaid bill.
Please note, I do not suggest that it was illicit to vote for the Stupak amendment. Voting for Stupak was the right thing to do. What is wrong is for the Bishops to support the Health care bill as a result.
This is a very important distinction.
The goal is to end abortion (I don't think any Catholic can object to that goal and still be in communion with the Church). But there can be legitimate disagreements concerning prudential decisions on how to achieve that goal.
For example, one might think that the health care bill is going to eventually pass so we should push for everything we can that limits abortion coverage in the bill (such as the Stupak Ammendment). Or one might think that without the Stupak Ammendment the bill won't make it through Congress, so we shouldn't support the ammendment. I'm sure there are many more courses to take, but these are political decisions. I don't think we can say that the USCCB is violating the faith by supporting the Stupak Ammendment.
If we were to follow you logic to the extreme, we might conclude that no Catholic can support civil marriage laws in America because they typically allow for easy divorce and contraception. I'm not saying someone who takes this position is wrong, it's a legitimate political course to take. But so is a position of working to stop the further erosion of civil laws concerning marriage and working for incremental improvements.
I personally think it's healthy to have people working to achieve the right end by both means: doing it in one fell swoop and doing it through small changes.
So, are you saying that it's not that they pushed for the Stupak ammendment, but that they are calling it acceptable? In other words, they are now accepting a health plan which still allows the government to pay for some abortions? I have to admit, I hadn't thought of it that way, but I think you are right.
And on a practical level, I still say even if that clause passes, we are just going to end up with a million abortions labeled as rape or they'll find some way that the baby endangers the mother's life to excuse it. It's not like the bureacracy is going to require proof. (How indelicate that would be...) We'll find medical records that say her life was endangered because she was five pounds over/underweight, etc. That's the way these things always work.
Gosh,
Let me make the point again. Please do not conflate the issues here. I do not suggest that it was illicit or immoral to vote for the Stupak amendment. Voting for Stupak was the right thing to do. What is wrong is for the Bishops to support the Health care bill as a result.
Please note, I do not suggest that it was illicit to vote for the Stupak amendment. Voting for Stupak was the right thing to do. What is wrong is for the Bishops to support the Health care bill as a result.
Yes!! Thank you!
When I read the bilge which came from the collection of orthodoxy-challenged laity known as the "USCCB administrative offices", especially about "being enthusiastic supporters of the bill once the Stupak Amendment is included", I was ready to pull my hair out...
Sorry, I was writing my comment while Patrick posted his so my previous post doesn't address his main point. I agree that in the end the USCCB should not support any bill that ends up increasing federal funding toward abortion. But I'm not sure the USCCB has explicitly supported the bill yet. Can someone quote a USCCB statement distinctly supporting the health care bill rather than the Stupak Ammendment?
Do I think the USCCB should do a better job of educating Catholics about the dangers of the bill? Yes. But this is the USCCB we're talking about. I'm amazed they've spoken out as strongly as they have about it. Would anyone have been surprised if they took the weasel road and said that since the bill didn't specifically mention abortion there's nothing wrong with it. Angry, yes, but not surprised. For now I'm praising the USCCB for what they've done and encouraging them to do more.
Man, I've got to stop writing while others are posting. If what paladin said is correct about the USCCB released a statement about "being enthusiastic supporters of the bill once the Stupak Amendment is included" then sign me up for Patrick's bandwagon.
Patrick, I see this as a distinction without a difference. Hyde restricts, but still authorizes, Medicaid (read: federal taxpayer) funding of abortions. Stupak does the same thing, except that it is with new federal taxpayer funding.
For it to be a change by the USCCB, we'd have to see what the archives of the old NCCB said with respect to Medicaid back in the 1970s. Without comparative evidence, I don't see how this can be argued to be a novel position by the bishops.
I appreciate your clarification on voting for Stupak, though--that's very welcome.
Now, where you are on firm ground is that Henry Hyde authored and passed stronger conscience protections in the form of the Hyde-Weldon Conscience Protection Amendment. It is very unclear-to-doubtful whether similar protection is contained in the current legislation.
Check out the links here:
http://www.nchla.org/issues.asp?ID=1
--Dale Price
So what we're saying here is that the Hyde Amendment is better than the Stupak Amendment because in the former the funding provisions for abortions via Medicaid was passed in a separate piece of legislation, whereas Stupak is bundled into the bill that it seeks to limit?
Splitting hairs much?
I really have to side with Dale on this one. There is a point where distinctions become so fine as to be non-existent.
Also, I recall reading on CNA that the attribution of unequivocal support for the healthcare bill was false. Even if it isn't, though, I can understand why the USCCB might support this particular bill.
Think about it...after throwing their bully pulpit at Congress and getting Stupak passed, using that same pulpit to try to keep the amendment alive in the final bill would be truly a coup.
Besides, what would you like them to do? Oppose the healthcare bill because it prevents some but not all abortions? Maybe I'm just too pragmatic, but I would rather see a bad bill pass with safeguards for some than a bad bill pass as a mandate for a taxpayer-funded holocaust of the unborn.
"Oppose the healthcare bill because it prevents some but not all abortions?"
Wrong. It pays for some abortions, not all of them. Big difference.
So yes, it must be opposed.
One must recall that the bishops' endorsement of Stupak essentially made Obamacare possible. There likely would've been no funding of abortion because there wouldn't have been a healthcare bill if the bishops didn't endorse.
Patrick, that is a splitting of hairs again. I would rather it pay for as few abortions as possible, and if it means that it still pays for some - though drastically fewer than otherwise - then I think I'm cutting off my nose to spite my face to oppose it. If that is my only issue, that is.
As it happens, I would oppose this healthcare bill if it banned all abortions everywhere in the world, for reasons that are entirely political and in no major way connected to my Catholicity; but if I had no ideological grounds to oppose it, then hearing someone say that anything less than the abolition of abortion is unacceptable even if it saves some lives, then I would call that person...a harsh name.
Also...Matthew? Really? You think that the bishops' failure to endorse would have killed the healthcare bill in its entirety? These are Catholic bishops, not Jedi knights. Make no mistake, that bill would have been passed, and if it weren't for the bishops, it would have been passed with a giant freebie to Planned Parenthood. I say "Go, Bishops" on this one.
Check out the following link, 4th paragraph:
If the amendment from Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) passes, said Richard Doerflinger, associate director of the bishops conference, "we become enthusiastic advocates for moving forward with health care reform."
Now, I suppose--technically--the wording is qualified enough for them to retreat and say, "Whoa! We didn't say specifically that we would become enthusiastic supporters of this particular bill! Don't put words in our mouths!" But if so, then their original statement was either dangerously disingenuous, bloody stupid, or both; there's no way that any unbiased observer could take that, in its given context, as anything other than a green light for the "Pelosi + Stupak" bill.
Seriously: if the USCCB would just shut its collective mouth (or, better yet, dissolve completely) and leave the comments to individual bishops who are both informed and orthodox, things could go about much more smoothly...
If their concern was to mitigate the abortion support in the bill, and they had no other concerns, then I can totally understand why the bishops would support this bill. Now, I read that statement much more generically; as the Pope has talked about healthcare as a univeral right, or discussed the need to not impede immigration, or any number of other things that gall my political conservatism, I have to recognize that they are committed to the mission of teaching on faith and morals, not on political ideology. In that particular conflict, my ideology must bend to the Church's pronouncements.
I don't think I'm better than the bishops. I disagree with this bill on many political levels, but, again: if I had no ideological encumberances, I would praise the fact that somebody is addressing the issue at all. Lord knows, the Republicans squandered their time in power on that front, as well.
Brian Walden wrote:
The goal is to end abortion (I don't think any Catholic can object to that goal and still be in communion with the Church). But there can be legitimate disagreements concerning prudential decisions on how to achieve that goal.
Yes, and no. One iron-clad principle is, "One can never choose to do evil, even if good would result." This makes pragmatists froth at the mouth, to be sure... but--well--they can take it up with God, Who decreed it as the foundation of the moral law. (To do otherwise would be to say to God, in essence: "You designed the universe and run things so badly that I have to sin in order to do what's right!" Five seconds' coherent thought will show the nonsense of that idea.)
Patrick's distinction is clear and correct; there's a world of difference between "making a pragmatic compromise" as things are being planned (i.e. before they come to be), and doing "damage control" after something came about without your consent or ability to halt it. The Hyde amendment was after the fact; i.e. there was no way (theoretically) that Rep. Hyde could have prevented the original catastrophe (Roe v. Wade) which made his amendment necessary in the first place; so he was (so far as I know) never in a position to choose the original evil (or any small part of it, even for "pragmatic reasons") that he was now trying to quench as best he could. But the Stupak amendment is more like someone saying, "Okay, I'll grudgingly accede to Roe v. Wade, but I insist that there be no federal funding for it" (and the SCOTUS hypothetically saying, "Okey dokey!"). It's in the "enactment" stage... which means that any assent to a new avenue of abortion which didn't exist before is an assent to a moral evil (and choosing a moral evil is always morally wrong, no matter how wildly disproportionate the circumstances might be). Patrick said as much, I think.
Just to clarify:
As Patrick also said: voting for the Stupak amendment in and of itself was not evil; in fact, it was arguably a moral obligation (i.e. grab any chance to minimize abortion when the chance appears, above and beyond what happens beyond that). BUT: allowing yourself to vote "YES" on the whole bill, perhaps on the pretext that "getting the Stupak amendment satisfied you", would always be morally evil (as the bill stands, now).
There seems to be some "camaraderie-based sense of payback" which leads many members of congress to vote for the overall (evil) bill, since they feel somewhat guilty about seeming "ungrateful" to the abortion-tolerant people who grudgingly tolerated the Stupak amendment, and that it would "be mean of me to vote 'no'--or otherwise obstruct the bill with all my might--after they were so magnanimous"; but it's morally incoherent. No amount of sentimentalism justifies cooperation in, or tolerance of, evil. (See James 4:17, among other places.)
I'd love to know how supporting the restriction of taxpayer funding of abortion translates into "doing evil." I'd love to know how the slaughtered innocents of our age would respond to the argument that "either not a single baby is aborted, or 40 million will - but no halves!"
God himself was willing to tolerate the whole sin of Sodom, if He could find but a few righteous souls. Does that mean that God was "doing evil"? He certainly would be the most likely to be so doing, since it is only by His will that those sinners would have remained alive, or exist at all. And yet I'm pretty sure that God, had He spared Sodom, would not have been "doing evil." ...But that's just my opinion.
I think you guys are confusing the battle with the war, here. Just because I will support an amendment that restricts rather than bans abortion doesn't mean that I'm accepting Roe v. Wade. It means that I am taking this particular win, and then looking for the next battle. The Crusades weren't fought on a single front. No real war consists of a single battle.
Frankly, I think that some pro-lifers are so hung up on abstract moral theories and the kind of sophistry that made Thomism such a tired horse that they end up frothing at the mouth and looking like crazy folk in public...because they are.
Der Wolfanwalt wrote:
I'd love to know how supporting the restriction of taxpayer funding of abortion translates into "doing evil."
It doesn't. But support for the bill as a whole does translate into "doing evil". (That point has been made many times, in this thread alone.) If someone voted for the Stupak amendment, but then turned around and fought the whole bill (so long as it contained pro-death elements) with all his strength, he would be doing rightly (and would commit no evil thereby); if he instead voted *for* the whole bill (even with the pro-death bits in it), he would sin. Does that clarify?
I'd love to know how the slaughtered innocents of our age would respond to the argument that "either not a single baby is aborted, or 40 million will - but no halves!"
Let's not get hysterical, here. The only One to whom we're accountable, ultimately, is God Himself... who commands us not to sin, under any circumstances. Sin is the act of deliberately and freely choosing evil (even if the evil fails to materialize!); and we cannot do that. Do you disagree?
[example of God vs. Sodom] Does that mean that God was "doing evil"? He certainly would be the most likely to be so doing, since it is only by His will that those sinners would have remained alive, or exist at all. And yet I'm pretty sure that God, had He spared Sodom, would not have been "doing evil."
You seem to think that physical death is the only "tool in God's toolbelt", and His only avenue of response (i.e. let live, or kill them). It's far too long to get into, here, but do understand that God's mercy does not always (or even often) take the form of "preserving someone's physical life"; nor does the wrath of God always (or even often) take the form of striking someone dead, bodily. If my physical death prevents me from sinning damnably, then it is God's mercy which allows my death. If my continued sinfulness leads to my eventual death in a state of mortal sin (and ultimate damnation), then it it God's wrath which allows my continued physical life.
But none of this is to the main point... which is this: NO ONE IS MORALLY FREE TO CHOOSE EVIL, REGARDLESS OF CIRCUMSTANCES. This is beyond all argument, I'm afraid.
I think you guys are confusing the battle with the war, here. Just because I will support an amendment that restricts rather than bans abortion doesn't mean that I'm accepting Roe v. Wade. It means that I am taking this particular win, and then looking for the next battle.
Fine. Then vote for Stupak, and fight the main bill with all means available (e.g. filibusters, stopping it in committee, voting against it on the floor, lobbying, motivating supporters, etc.).
Frankly, I think that some pro-lifers are so hung up on abstract moral theories and the kind of sophistry that made Thomism such a tired horse that they end up frothing at the mouth and looking like crazy folk in public...because they are.
Not only is this stuff and nonsense (and rude, at that), but I'm afraid it betrays a horrid ignorance of what St. Thomas actually taught.
Even if the bill didn't pay for a single abortion, it would still be an IVF, embryo-experimentation, euthanasia-friendly and conscience & senior-hostile bill.
It contains no conscience-protections for pro-life doctors;
It guts the already insolvent Medicare program (government medical care for seniors) and forbids seniors to use their own funds to supplement their Medicare coverage;
It does not preclude federal funds from being used to promote suicide counseling in the two states that permit it;
It expands federal subsidies to Planned Parenthood and expands funding for abortifacient contraception;
That's a whole lotta "not pro-life," no matter what you think about Stupak.
Patrick - Dale had it right. The net/net is that nothing has changed with regard to Federal moneys for abortion. Federal moneys through Medicaid DO pay for abortion in the cases of rape/incest. The Healthcare bill sought to expand that to all abortions; Stupak prevented it and we're back to square 1. I wish you could see the forrest for the trees here.
Early, you said ...
"The net/net is that nothing has changed with regard to Federal moneys for abortion. Federal moneys through Medicaid DO pay for abortion in the cases of rape/incest."
Wrong. The number of abortions covered under the public option and /or the federally approved subsidized plans will be much greater than are now covered under Medicaid.
Many more abortions paid for by you and me. The healthcare bill expands federally funded abortion. Period.
Patrick - can you prove this or is this your own assertion? All evidence is to the contrary.
Early,
Really? Will more or less people be covered under Pelosicare (whether the public option or subsidized plan) than are now covered under medicaid? More people. That is after-all the point.
So more people with the same abortion coverage as in Medicaid = more abortions.
It is NOT TRUE that the USCCB has endorsed the health care bill. That is a lie perpetuated by shoddy newspaper reporting. See: http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=17696
Oops - I posted my comment on the wrong post.
Patrick - the people who will be covered will not all be getting abortions. And as I stated, only 1% of abortions are due to rape/incest. 1% is still 1%. The needles hasn't moved.
I think there is another positive outcome here as well. The news broke that the RNC's insurance policy also provided for abortions (since 1991). This coverage is now being dropped, so yet even less still public moneys will be funding abortions. The polls are all saying now that the majority of Americans favor abortion restrictions. I think the one-two punch of Politics + winning hearts and minds on this issue is finally bearing fruit.
Another point of irony: the RNC insurance policy which allowed for abortions was as I stated enacted in 1991. This was also the point at which abortions in the US piqued; something like 1,400,000+ according to the CDC. The number has steadily declined ever since, but is still unfortunately over 800,000 a year in the US.
Oh, Paladin...I know Thomas better than you think. I just don't have a lot of respect for him as a fallback when my common sense is more readily accessible. Besides...double effect, much?
If it's rude to comment frankly at what I see as some of the practical failings of the pro-life movement, then oh well, chalk me up as being rude then. If I were in a position of leadership, I would be more interested in actually saving lives - any lives - rather than dithering over the fact that I'm not saving all the lives that are in danger.
This argument, to me, is akin to the argument in favor of opposing the partial birth abortion ban while it was moving through the Senate. We were told that, because the bill contained an exemption for "the life of the mother," that it was impossible to vote for this bill. Technically, yes, voting for the bill meant that you were voting to allow some partial birth abortions to occur - at least those that could be "justified" through the exemption. However, to revisit darling Thomas, I would expect that a decent Catholic would understand that the principle of double effect allows us to seek the good, regret the un-sought evil, and move on.
Let me be clear on something here, as well: I am not supporting the bill. I think it is a mess of a thing that has some shining conceptual gems buried in mountains of scat. One of the reasons for my opposition, however, is not that the bill fails to prohibit all abortions. I would never get a bill like that from this Congress, in this country given the political climate and the powers that be. I am also determined that this situation will not leave me an impotent pontificator, though - I want to stay engaged, so that I can be a more effective tool for change down the line. My only point in arguing for the bishops is that, barring any ideological concerns, I can understand why they might issue a general statement of support for healthcare reform...and while you might argue that some of the bishops are liberal and do not care, I hardly think that His Emminence Cardinal George falls into that category, and his statement on the matter here illustrates exactly the kind of stance I think of as productive. As opposed to hand-wringing about abstract concepts of culpability, which is where we're at now.
Sorry... illness kept me away from the computer for a while.
Der Wolfanwalt wrote:
Oh, Paladin...I know Thomas better than you think.
That may be so; I can only go on what you write, not what you know... and your dismissive description of St. Thomas' writings as "abstract moral theories" and "a tired horse" (and did you really mean to call his writings "sophistries"? Whatever do you mean?) implies a stunning ignorance, at very least. If your words don't match your knowledge, then I'll be happy to wait while you realign the two, and try again.
I just don't have a lot of respect for him as a fallback when my common sense is more readily accessible.
Ahhh, common sense! Yes, who needs the Angelic Doctor of the Church--whose Summa was laid upon the altar at the Council of Trent along with the Sacred Scriptures and the Decrees of past Holy Fathers--when one's own personal tastes and impulses are so much more readily at hand, and so much more pleasing?
Besides...double effect, much?
I can guess at the meaning of this snarky sentence fragment, if I must, but I'd rather have you explain clearly. What, exactly, do you want to say about the principle of double effect?
If it's rude to comment frankly at what I see as some of the practical failings of the pro-life movement, then oh well, chalk me up as being rude then.
I wasn't being nearly so vague as that. You wrote:
Frankly, I think that some pro-lifers are so hung up [...] that they end up frothing at the mouth and looking like crazy folk in public...because they are.
One can comment frankly without calling people names, such as "mouth-frothing crazy folk". That's the part to which I was referring, mainly. It's also your raw opinion, without basis in fact, and nothing more. (Seriously: you think that the genuine "mouth-frothers" are thus because they follow St. Thomas Aquinas? Tell me when you plan to propose that to an audience, so I can watch them laugh you off the stage...)
If I were in a position of leadership, I would be more interested in actually saving lives - any lives - rather than dithering over the fact that I'm not saving all the lives that are in danger.
Then you should be quite content to join the embryonic stem cell research crowd, yes? They promise great hope (so they say) for all sorts of deadly maladies, if only we stop "dithering" about such "inanities" as whether blastocysts have souls, and other such "abstract nonsense". I'm sorry, but your enthusiasm is causing you to outstrip sane reason, here.
I'm really starting to think you're some sort of Deist, at this point, Der Wolfanwalt; otherwise, whatever do you think is the *point* of saving lives and doing good? God has the power to save everyone from every last scrap of physical death, disease and suffering. But even a few minutes' reading of the Scriptures (to say nothing of the fuller teaching of the Church) will show you that physical well-being isn't ultimately the point of anything.
Cont'd:
Finally, a break in the schedule to finish part II!
This argument, to me, is akin to the argument in favor of opposing the partial birth abortion ban while it was moving through the Senate. We were told that, because the bill contained an exemption for "the life of the mother," that it was impossible to vote for this bill.
I addressed that, already; if you're limiting something (to the best of your ability) which has (without your consent) already occurred, then there's no sin in that. But if you consent to the introduction to a new evil (which an expansion of abortion funding/tolerance would certainly do--and Patrick addressed that) that has not yet taken place, you are violating the moral law... which is no abstract thing: it's as deadly-hard as nails.
My only point in arguing for the bishops is that, barring any ideological concerns, I can understand why they might issue a general statement of support for healthcare reform.
Had they done that, and no more, I would not be arguing the case at all; it would have been a fine thing for them to do. But the USCCB statement strongly implied an "enthusiastic" gesture of support for the bill IN PROGRESS NOW (else the statement, in context, would have been almost meaningless). That's the problem.
Also: you seem to have missed the fact that the USCCB, as an organization, is run mostly by the laity. See earlier in this thread. As such, USCCB statements (unfortunately) do not always reflect the mind of the bishops. See the "USCCB movie reviews" of "Brokeback Mountain", "The Golden Compass", and the like, for quick and off-the-cuff examples of that.
..and while you might argue that some of the bishops are liberal and do not care,
Some of the bishops care, and are liberal, and are trying to fix things in the wrong way, and using the wrong tools. Others are not. I did not address that at all.
I hardly think that His Eminence Cardinal George falls into that category, and his statement on the matter here illustrates exactly the kind of stance I think of as productive.
Can you give me some evidence that His Eminence actually said this, and not some "spokesman"?
As opposed to hand-wringing about abstract concepts of culpability, which is where we're at now.
You do seem to have an axe to grind with moral theology, for some reason! One of these days, we'll show you that you're seeing it quite wrongly, and dismissing (and disparaging) it quite recklessly and foolishly.
All I can say is "wow."
Well, that's not really true, I can say a lot more than "wow," but it might end up being the best thing to say.
Taking things in no particular order, let me start with Aquinas. Don't dislike St. Thomas as such. I think some of his ideas - the hierarchy of law springs eagerly to mind - overcomplicate matters. I think it is a symptom of the Aristotelianism of that age, and if you want to talk about not liking people, then Aristotle is a fellow I really don't care for. That, however, is not nearly as interesting to me as the more specific issue that we're ping-ponging around here.
I'm just going to ignore everything you said about the structure of the USCCB; not because I care whether the bishops approve of a given movie directly, or because that important function has been delegated to the unordained, but because it is an utterly silly distinction to make. There were laity, priests, and other non-episcopal personages involved in Vatican II as well...and it didn't impact the character of that event even a little. Also, I am aware of the difference between Vatican II and the USCCB on the authoritative and doctrinal levels, in case you were tempted to think differently. I bring it up to make the point that the presence of non-bishops in the organization does not mean the organization does not speak for the bishops corporately...if it were not, one might think it pretty advisable to change names to avoid scandal. Or maybe that was the point?
I am going to rely on the above logic as I show you this. I don't know a lot about Cardinal George, but I do assume that he knows how to issue his own statements, in case someone masquarading as a spokesman starts issuing false statements on his behalf. Maybe I'm missing something insidious by taking this arrangement for granted...but to start questioning what my common sense tells me to that extent would be to stray too close to the warped logic of a sedevacantist - and by that I mean the special logic that we bring out when we need to belabor a point that common sense would tell us is spurious...just, for example, like sedevacantism.
Finally just to bring us back to the topic of the post whose thread we are in, if someone thinks his best shot at cementing a restriction of federal funding for abortion into place is by supporting the current healthcare reform push, or if he has no other problem but abortion in this bill, then I can understand why it might be supportable. I happen to find other reasons not to support it, and I continue to oppose it abortion or no. However, what I think is going on here - and none of the fuzzy moral logic I've witnessed thus far has served to move me on this point - is a conflation of conservatism with Catholicism...and that just pissed me off when I encounter it.
Incidentally, lest it was unclear, I am not calling "morality" fuzzy, but rather the logic laid out by you, Paladin - or the Archbolds - in service of a moral end.
Also...an axe to grind with moral theology? Only the fuzzy kind.
The proposed Health care legislation does NOT provide federal funds for abortion, and specifically retains the Hyde Ammendment language. Stupak's ammendment goes far beyond that by attempting to restrict services to anyone who uses any insurance coverage "touched" in any way by Federal dollars... thereby giving rich women who buy other than government touched insurance the right to an abortion...and everyone else ... is treated differently.
Post a Comment