Catholic bishops set to collide with health care reform over abortion
One of the reasons Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi was able to scrape her version of health
care reform by earlier this month was because of concessions she made to the moderates in her party, concerning abortion. Those concessions were due, in large part, to the role Catholic bishops played in lobbying for them. Even though they do not have an official lobbying organization, they evidently know how the practice works.
As the first major vote nears in the Senate on Majority Leader Harry Reid’s version of health care reform, coming as early as Saturday, it appears the bishops are once again making their voices heard. President Obama has said he wants any reform legislation that comes out of Congress to remain abortion neutral, ie. leaving current abortion regulations or restrictions intact. Reid is claiming that is the case with his bill, but the bishops disagree. From The Associated Press:
The White House is on a collision course with Catholic bishops in an intractable dispute over abortion that could blow up the fragile political coalition behind President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul.
A top Obama administration official on Thursday praised the new Senate health care bill’s attempt to find a compromise on abortion coverage – even as an official of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops said Sen. Harry Reid’s bill is the worst he’s seen so far on the divisive issue.
Part of the issue being raised is how and when abortion will be required as an included coverage on health care plans and who will be actually paying for the coverage.
On abortion, the bill would forbid including coverage for the procedure as a required medical benefit. However, it would allow a new government insurance plan to cover abortions and let private insurers that receive federal subsidies offer plans that include abortion coverage.
At this point, I would bring your attention back to an article Mike wrote last week. He destroyed the myth that insurance companies who received any public funds would not be using them for abortion coverage.
The yelling and screaming about no public money for abortions or abortion coverage simply results in using accounting tricks and creative bookkeeping to satisfy pro-life demands. If you think this bill actually results in absolutely no public funding going toward abortions or abortion coverage you are just fooling yourself. It’s taking from one pocket and putting into the other pocket.
If I may be so bold, the distinction they are trying to make concerning funding abortion with federal money is a distinction that is not worth making. If you haven’t read Mike’s article, you need to do so. He makes some very good points.
There is a lot of political wrangling going on behind the scenes right now. President Obama and his crew, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and their aides, all of them are working to get health care reform legislation shaped up and shipped out to the White House for Obama’s signature. Right now, the biggest obstacle in their way may very well be the bishops of the Catholic Church. They may not be officially in the battle, but they seem to be holding a lot of sway over what goes into this legislation. I am not so sure that my money wouldn’t be on them to win this fight.
So, I think we’ll see some attempted trickery on Saturday. It wasn’t difficult to predict that two weeks ago. The question is what exactly will unfold.
Larry and Matt, I’m wrestling with the question of whether it is appropriate for the bishops to speak directly to a legislative issue….the whole separation of church and state thing. Certainly priests speaking about these matters from the pulpit is fine but I wonder if an organized group of the highest ranking religious leaders in the country have an obligation to remain out of the political arena. Do you have a view on this?
That’s a great question Mike, but I think religious orgainzations have been involved in politics for quite some time in this country. This is just one of the more naked efforts.
Do you think it is possible to write abortion funding guidelines that are in keeping with the Hyde amendment that will satisfy both sides? I think that’s the “trickery” we will see, and it remains to be seen if it’s possible.
Meanwhile, let’s just appreciate a bit of irony. When the nitty gritty hits the Floor, we’ll have in the lead a Catholic (Pelosi) and a Mormon (Reid) whose political positions have always been counter to their respective religious affiliations.
The whole separation of church and state idea is something that has been taken to the extreme, the first amendment simply meant that government shall not esablish a national religion or stop a person from practicing his or her religion. The term separation of church and state was taken from a letter of Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists not from the constitution. Every other special interest group is allowed to have their say in political matters and I do not think there is anything wrong with churches also being allowed to voice their opinions. Shouldn’t politicians hear from the voices of all the people?
I am not writing this as someone from the “religious right,” I do not go to church and I keep my beliefs to myself, but I do not have a problem with religious people or organizations trying to let their opinions be known.
Mr Pink Eyes´s last blog ..Climate change will turn women into prostitutes
Every other group in the nation lobbys congress so why not church officials. The founders always took advice from religious leaders when making their decisions. Anyway the abortion issue could be critical in the upcoming votes.
Ron Russell´s last blog ..Obama’s Foreign Policy: A Stark Failure!
With the religious question, I think that there is too much emphasis placed on the establishment clause, and too little attention paid to what comes immediately after. I also have to strongly agree with Mr. Pink Eyes, who accurately states the situation concerning Jefferson’s letter being taken out of context.
Matt´s last blog ..Democrats & Independents Hardest Hit By Soaring Unemployment
I was not clear in my question about the bishops’ involvement. It has nothing to do with the establishment clause. The issue is whether a tax exempt organization that is not a registered lobbyist, and specifically churches and religious organizations, which are quite specifically prohibited from endorsing candidates, are not crossing that line when they involve themselves in a specific piece of legislation. Either religious groups can or cannot be outspoken politically. The law, as I understand it, says they can’t or they risk losing their tax exempt status. Is it not offensive to provide an organization of any kind enormous public assistance and then have them take a political stand contrary to a large segment of the population? I can’t think of any group in the country that receives more public financial support than churches through tax exemption — it seems to me they should not be so outspoken about opposing this legislation…as if anybody has any doubt about where they stand.
There is some confusion about the non-profit status of the Church and other ecclesial bodies obtaining or receiving their tax-exempt status by the government. Precisely because of the establishment clause, the government (federal, state ot local) may not establish a national religion or stop a person or any group of persons from practicing his/her or their religion. The preliminary instructions on the IRS 501(c)(3) application specifially state that churches are NOT required to file a 501(c)(3) application because they are automatically exempt by virtue of the fact that they are churches. This declaration is made precisely because of the establishment clause. Many churches and religious organizations decline to file the 501(c)(3) exemption application because it does violate the establishment clause. The Church does not need the permission or sanction of any government to exist or carry out its mission.
What many people seem to forget is that the Church is of divine origin and therefore has a supernatural side as well as a human side. Sadly, it’s human side is tarnished by the flaws and sins of its members and because of that we forget what the true purpose and role of the Church is, as well as its real nature. It is those human failings that have been the cause of many of the world’s wars, intrigues and tragic events. Yet, in all of its humanness, the Church speaks with the voice of God and has done so for more than 2,000 years.
Religion is not intended to oppress. It is intended to enoble mankind and lead it to a better and fuller life, to make it whole and heal it’s wounds. It does this by reminding us that God is love and that we are HIS creation and not that of the State or any government; that we are called to holiness and righteousness and to be one with Him in the work of restoring mankind to the perfect union with Him that existed when the world was created.
The Church has an obligation to speak out and to labor vigorously against those who would seek to remove God and His laws from the human equation.
The function of government is to preserve public order not to legislate the conciences and beliefs of the people who have elected it to serve them. Government has the obligation to listen to the voices of those whom it serves and if the majority of the people speak against a certain issue or proposal, then the government must act accordingly and not impose its own will upon the people. It is the obligation of the Church to speak out and work vigorously against any attempt by any government to impose upon the people any behavior which is in direct opposition to the will of God. Conversely, the Church has no right to impose its beliefs upon those who do not believe as it does. But it does have the right and obligation to speak with the voice of God and to remind all people that God has set in stone a code of conduct and behavior that is common to all people, not just Catholics, Orthodox, Jews and Muslims. It is this divine positive law that many politicians seek to supress and legislate against.
Sin has no rights and the attempt by the government to enact legislation which clearly violates a people’s right to worship and believe as they do and which requires them behave in a manner which is clearly contrary to the will of God, cannot be accepted.
The Church, and all religions, certainly have a right to involve themselves in any legislative debate because their members live in the societies which governments are called to serve. The Church is a community unto itself, a community that exists side-by-side with non-believers and people of other faiths. It is the role of government to ensure that all these diverse groups live together in peace and harmony.
The Church is not subservient to the State but exists side-by-side with the State to ensure that the common good is protected and that all God’s people are assured of their right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It is the Church’s obligation to ensure that the dignity of every human being is safeguarded and advanced from the moment of conception to its natural end.
With all due respect Your Excellency the Church is not above the law. The Church does not have tax exemption by divine right but by the laws of federal, state, and local government. Along with that tax exemption come certain obligations one of which is to stay out of direct political involvement. The Church cannot unilaterally choose those laws which you agree to uphold and those which you decline to accept. Can you not see the precedent that would set for society as a whole? I am not making an argument here for or against abortion but for the safeguarding of ALL laws and the obligation of citizens and organziations of every kind to stand up for them. The Church’s obligation is to set that example not brush it under the table when it does not suit its purpose. There are ample ways for the Church to express its very strong and well known opinion in this instance without crossing legal lines so carefully drawn to protect both the Church and its parishoners.
Actually Mike, I don’t think we entirely disagree here.
I am not saying that the Church is above the law, but we have to admit that there have been periods in our history when laws have been enacted by a government which have not been in the best interests of all the people and which have proved harmful and even destructive. Nazi Germany is a perfect example. Were the laws enacted by Hitler and his Nazi collaborators good for the people? History clearly shows us what can happen when government runs unchecked.
We see it in our own experience of the American Revolution and in this country’s first and only civil war. In the former instance, people revolted because of the tyranny of what they believed was an oppressive English crown. In the latter instance, it was a clash of ideologies, over slavery, which caused brother to fight against brother, fathers to fight against sons. What would have happened if people did not stand up and fight against the wrong of slavery? Sometimes civil disobedience is necesssary to ensure the protection of what is moral and right. I am not speaking about violence here, but rather taking a moral and visible stand against what is clearly wrong and not of the mind of the majority of the people. This is why we vote on important issues, so that the mind and will of the people can be made known and that such decisions can be publicly documented as being the free choice of the people and not something imposed against our will.
Recently, religious leaders from many Orthodox. Catholic and Protestant denominations signed what is called the Manhattan Declaration. It was signed in New York City by more than 140 original signers. Today, there are close to 5,000 adiditional signatories to that document and the list continues to grow. In summary, the document states that we will stand against any laws that seek to impede, abrogate or go against the commonly held beliefs that God has given for the common good of all people. The full text of the document can be read at http://www.manhattandeclaration.org.
Jesus Himself said. “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, and unto God what is God’s.” The Church should most certainly set an example for the people to follow. But that example is the example of Christ. For the Christian, that is the highest standard of moral and ethical behavior we could emulate. But the example of Christ is counter to what our culture stands for today. Christ stands for life and freedom. Our culture is, as Pope John Paul II said, a culture of death.
We live in a culture where sex and material wealth and possesions are glorified and exulted. We live in culture where it is easier to discard and throw away those things which are considered inconvenient or burdensome, even if it is an unborn child or our elder citizens. Because we live in this culture of death, we are unable to see the light and have grown accustomed, even comfortable, with the darkness in which we live. Yes, the Church has a responsibility to fight for ALL people, even those who are content to live in the darkness.
I think the one point we disagree on is how the Church comes about it’s tax-exempt status. As I stated previously, the IRS regs state that Churches do NOT have to file for tax-exempt status because they already have it by virtue of the fact they are Churches (This definition of church includes synagogues and mosques as well). This is stated right on the front page of the 501(c)(3) application.
I believe that the Church should should be held to a higher standard especially because we believe, as Christians, that Jesus Christ is the Head of the Church. It is not any Pope, Patriarch or bishop who is the head of the Church, but the Lord Himself. We, as hierarchs of the Church, do not speak or act of our own authority, but solely with the authority of Christ to whom we are accountable. Our authority is delegated authority, delegated to us by Christ Himself to act in His name and be His presence in the world.
Obviously we are human beings and subject to the same tempations, failings and shortcomings that every human being, man or woman, experiences and we certainly do fail and fall short of what God expects us to be. We have seen how individual members of the clergy, throughout the centuries, and even in our own times, have done wrong. Does being clergy exempt us from the laws when we have done wrong? Absolutely not!
But even when someone does wrong, it does not abrogate our obligation to deal with them in charity and compassion and ensure at all times their basic human rights and dignity.
The Church is not like any other non-profit organization. In fact, the Church cannot really be grouped together with other non-profits like the American Heart Association, the American Cancer Society or any school or other organization which has non-profit status. The Church is the Church. It is not a business or a charitable organization but has aspects of them. It is a unique entity which has its existence both in the material world and the immaterial world.
The Church transcends human existence on many levels. While it is not of the world, it exists in the world and therefore takes on aspects common to other human organizations so that it can fulfill its divine mission in a way peole can more readily understand and relate to. Nevertheless, it is still subject to a higher authority and power. One which is certainly superior and more perfect than any human government.
There is a reason why the Church has existed continuously for more than 2,000 years. It has seen the rise and fall of nations and governments, princes and kings throughout the course of its 2,000 year existence. The Church has existed for so long not because of the machinations or merits of any human being, but because God Himself has established it as the visible manifestation of His Kingdom and His rule over all people and has guaranteed that the gates of Hell shall never prevail against it.
The reason the Church is grouped into the “non-profit” category is precisely because the government cannot make any definition as to what the Church is. Government cannot make any definition which could be interpreted as giving preference to one religion over the other.
The Church doesn’t exist to abrogate laws or sweep them under the rug when it doesn’t agree with them. The Church exists to support and affirm those human laws which are in line with the mind and will of God and assure the common good of all mankind. But when human laws seek to transgress the laws of God, the Church has every right to stand up and speak out against them, to call the people to action to change them and, if necessary, to disobey them.
We can argue the case and even say that America is not a Christian country. But a very strong case can be made that America IS a religious country and that the majority of the American people are a people of faith. Whether Catholic, Orthodox, Evangelical Protestant, Jewish or Muslim, there is one common thread which runs through all, and that is a deep abiding faith in a Supreme Being which has set down an eternal code of conduct which no man or human institution can abrogate or legislate against. The America government and politicians throughout the country need to listen and consider more carefully what the mind of these people, the majority of the American public, is.
Most Rev. Archbishop Stephen J. Enea´s last blog ..Welcome…
Archbishop Enea,
Thanks for taking the time to read and comment on Political Realities. I would like to echo your statement above about America is a religious country and how our government needs to listen and consider the opinion of the American people. For the most part, it seems that we are ignored.
“But when human laws seek to transgress the laws of God, the Church has every right to stand up and speak out against them, to call the people to action to change them and, if necessary, to disobey them.” That is a very interesting take but I do not believe the great majority of your brethren would agree.
There is a well known maxim that the first person to resort to references to Hitler and Nazis concedes the argument; however, you are off the hook because on further review of the law my conclusion was incorrect. The IRS in fact distinguishes between church advocacy for a candidate (not allowed) versus limited advocacy for political issues and legislation (permitted). This from the IRS website: “The IRS has published Revenue Ruling 2007-41, which outlines how churches, and all 501(c)(3) organizations, can stay within the law regarding the ban on political activity. Also, the ban by Congress is on political campaign activity regarding a candidate; churches and other 501(c)(3) organizations can engage in a limited amount of lobbying (including ballot measures) and advocate for or against issues that are in the political arena. The IRS also has provided guidance regarding the difference between advocating for a candidate and advocating for legislation. See political and lobbying activities.”