"Christian love leads to denunciation, proposals
and a commitment to cultural and social projects;
it prompts positive activity that inspires all who sincerely
have the good of man at heart to make their contribution..."
--CSDC 6
Cardinal Dolan and Archbishop Lori officially sounded the alarm--faithful Catholics in the United States are being asked to drop their health insurance, "if they want to preserve their religious and moral integrity " and be true to their "morally well-informed consciences." No longer can we just "keep the status quo." We must discern the real meaning of "keep the status quo," which would present us with a fundamental choice: "keep paying for abortions through your monthly insurance premiums," or "keep [yourself rooted in Jesus Christ, by keeping] the faith, and everything that Holy Church has taught you."
STOP, take a deep breath, close your eyes, and say a prayer...
Why should any member of the Body of Christ have to worry?--Our Father in heaven knows our every need, and by His Loving Providence, He has given us a couple of options for legitimate health coverage, through the prudent additions to Canon Law made by Pope Benedict XVI, in his motu propio, "On the Service of Charity."
But before we explain the solutions, we must understand the scope of the problem: It has been made clear by every bishop in charge of dioceses in the United States that "We cannot, will not comply" with the HHS mandate. And the sense of the faithful has indicated that, for the faithful themselves, to comply with the mandate would be, in a very real sense, "apostasy from the truth"--It seems that the act of funding an abortion, with at least $1 automatically from each monthly premium, is "by its very nature" [with a necessary connection between the funds and the act] a kind of proximate material cooperation in abortion, and therefore, "formal" cooperation in a sin of grave matter (see Evangelium Vitae, 74). In this case, it also seems to be an excommunicable offense. [Let us repent!] Furthermore, if we fail to withhold the funds levied by this unjust law, it would be a very serious act of omission, by failing to fulfill the grave duty of Conscientious Objection. [Let us take action!]
Basically, Obamacare presents the faithful with a kind of moral dillema: On the one hand, we all have the moral obligation to provide healthcare for those who are in great need, especially those closest to us, but on the other hand, we cannot do evil so that a good effect may come from it. We cannot buy "a product that violates our conscience"--we cannot buy Obamacare-compliant health insurance, just as we cannot buy a [self-automated robot] pre-programmed to attack babies and the elderly, or a vending machine that will dispense condoms, abortion pills, and vouchers for surgical sterilization, to which one's own children would have easy and free access, without any further parental consent or even notification.
NOW, HERE IS THE GOOD NEWS--TWO POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS:
(1)--Join one of the three existing Health-Sharing Networks: "Medishare," "Samaritain," or "Christian Healthcare Ministries." Although these are largely run by Protestants, it may be appropriate to cooperate with our separated brethren in these ministries of Charity, according to article 14 of the Pope's recent motu propio "On the Service of Charity." This would be a good short-term approach.
(2)--The best long-term approach is to form a Catholic version of these charitable ministries in each and every parish across the United States. This kind of thing is what the Pope is specifically asking for in article 9 of the same motu propio. The Holy Father even goes on further to describe how there could be cooperation between neighboring parishes, and even suggests that there could be coordination between neighboring bishops, in article 12, paragraph 2. [Even though Pope emeritus Benedict XVI has retired, this motu propio remains effective because each article was incorporated into Canon Law.] To help get parish-based healthcare ministries started, there is a group membership option under CHM. According to article 1 of the motu propio, such a parish-based association of the faithful for the purposes of healthcare would need to submit statutes concerning the governing of funds, to be approved by the pastor. The Knights of Columbus already have a good model in place for this, because they were originally instituted for this very purpose, with each council having a Treasurer to assist members in the case of "accident, illness, or need," and a Financial Secretary to collect money and to keep track of the Treasurer.
SOMETHING TO KEEP IN MIND, AS WE FORM PARISH-BASED MINISTRIES:
Pope Benedict cautions against an impersonal endeavor that is limited only to "collecting and distributing funds" (Introduction), noting that the parish-based ministries must "also promote in the whole community educational activities aimed at fostering a spirit of sharing and authentic charity." (article 9) In practice, this means, when we see someone in need, we should first consider if it is possible to help them ourselves, under our own initiatives, before getting the parish-based ministry involved in the matter. [This is our own opportunity to touch Christ in the poor!] This would be a perfect example of the principles of Solidarity and Subsidiarity, after the model of Christ, [the King of the Universe, who does not feel it beneath His dignity to wash us clean, if only we would let him!]
N.B.--There is also a third course of action, which must not be overlooked:
Small Christian Communities. There is a good example of this with Presentation Ministries.
Small Christian Communities. There is a good example of this with Presentation Ministries.
Taxes belong to the taxpayer even as they are administered by the administration. This is important because abortion, contraception, sterilizations, trangenderism, transhumanism, highjacked vital organs and non-vital organs, face-lifts is not healthcare. Healthcare must be life saving. Surgery must be life saving. Obamacare will pay so little to obstetricians that most will leave the field. This will be done with the deep pockets of the taxpayer. The citizen will be competing against himself for favorable healthcare. And I do not put it above Obama to only treat his cronies after all there are exemptions which are not forthcoming to the Church charities. Obamacare is not healthcare
ReplyDeleteIt is interesting that you bring up the responsibility that we share with regard to how our tax dollars are used--I wonder how much more applicable, considering the present circumstances, is Father Al Lauer's teaching on "Abortion and Your Taxes?"
DeleteHere is another article about Solidarity and Subsidiarity.
ReplyDeleteHave any bishops advised their flocks to opt out of their health insurance plan at this point?
ReplyDeleteBishop Lori of Baltimore was pretty clear in his recent statement: It is not the bishop himself, but the new insurance regulations that are forcing faithful Christians to follow their well-formed consciences and drop their old insurance.
DeleteIf the bishops were to react too quickly, there could be a mass apostasy, because there is already mass incredulity. For example, a priest in a nearby parish told me that many people are rejecting the message about religious liberty and health care. When I forwarded this message to Pope Benedict XVI through his twitter account, he announced his resignation a couple of days later (go figure), saying that the Church needs a leader with more "strength." Strength and courage are definitely needed: If the bishops were to wait too long to speak clearly about health insurance, it would cause scandal, in the sense of leading people into sin.
Bishop Slattery, on the other hand, was quick to throw off the weight of the "millstone" from around his neck, over a year ago. He was one of the first bishops, that I know of, to speak very clearly and "not mince words" about dropping health insurance.
Most other bishops have told the faithful, unofficially, to "keep the status quo." But Bishop Aquilla clarified that this means to "keep doing what you're doing. Keep fighting the mandate." It does not mean to keep your immoral health insurance. No bishop would say that.
To further clarify, to keep the "status quo" means to keep fighting the mandate, "with all the energies that the Catholic Community can muster," according to the document "Our First, Most Cherished Liberty." This document makes it clear that in this day and age, we must have the courage not to obey unjust laws.
DeleteCertainly this clarified understanding of "status quo," with reference to the mission and identity of the Church, would include taking any positive initiatives that would preserve the freedom of religion and integrity of our consciences in the area of healthcare. For example, the local Catholic radio station here in in Cincinnati has just started to air advertisements for "MediShare," which is the most expensive of the three Protestant health-sharing ministries.
I'm sure that the bishops will find it easier to denounce immoral health insurance more openly now that they can make positive proposals (of alternatives to health insurance) at the same time. As mentioned above, Canon Law was recently changed to explicitly give the bishops permission to encourage Catholics to cooperate in Protestant Ministries of Charity, which would include the health-sharing ministries. However, even though the US Bishops have the authority to speak about faith and morals, even as they apply to health insurance, many of them have chosen to say the minimum, and let reasonable people make the logical conclusions about health insurance. As Pastors of the Church in America, they are prudently walking a thin tightrope, anchored on one end to the Church's tax-exempt status, and on the other end to vulnerable Catholics who need to be gently taught that real freedom of conscience is based on honest integrity informed by the truth, which stands in stark opposition to the dictatorship of relativism which claims that "those in power can do whatever they want, and justify themselves by claiming that they are following their conscience," without any reference to the truth, to reality.
More recently, however, the Bishops have indeed declared that this issue of "providing insurance coverage for sterilizations, contraception, or abortifacient drugs, [and] participating in or facilitating an abortion," involves a "major threat" to the Catholic Faithful. In using the terms "facilitate an aboriton," they invoke the penalty of excommunication described in CCC 2272. They have restated that "We cannot now abandon [the faithful] to be forced to violate their morally well-informed consciences." Please see their recent statement and call to action.
Are you certain you are relating the moral understanding of the Church, regarding the necessity lf not paying premiums to compliant programs?
DeleteIn regard to healthcare, your degree of cooperation is remote if you are simply receive medical insurance from a particular provider (rather than providing medical insurance, like an employer does). Thus, you are no more culpable for receiving medical insurance from a compromised company than you are for paying taxes.
Thank you for asking. I sent a note to my archbishop asking if I had reported things correctly in this article, but I have not received a reply yet. While the moral teachings are clear, the concrete application to specific situations requires an accurate understanding of the situation. This discernment seems to fall primarily to our responsibility as laity, to the extent that we are directly involved in those specific situations. We should not feel like we have to wait for the bishop to say something that would cause the Church to loose her tax-exempt status before we muster up the courage to act according to a well-formed conscience.
DeleteI agree that the degree of cooperation is remote, with respect to cooperation in health insurance, when the insurance plan is chosen for you, for example, by an employer. But the purpose of the HIPPA law is to make health-insurance "portable," from employer-to-employer, which means that the individual has the primary responsibility for their "cooperation" in health insurance--Even when the employer arranges the health plan, the employee is technically responsible for each health insurance payment that is withheld from his paycheck, just as he is responsible for the taxes withheld from his paycheck, because he has the legal right to request that these withholdings not be made. When, beginning in 2014, a separate payment just for abortions will be listed among the withholdings in every paycheck, this will undeniably be formal cooperation in abortion, resulting in automatic excommunication according to CCC 2272).
But, to further clarify the issue we face today, when we invoke the teaching of the Catholic Church which says that "when [morally upright people] are called to cooperate in morally evil acts they must refuse" (CSDC 399) we are referring to cooperation with regard to the act of procuring an abortion by means of insurance, not just cooperation in the insurance itself. With regard to the abortion, our shared culpability for that act increases in direct proportion to our technical proximity to the act, but it also increases in inverse proportion to the degree of freedom of the insurance company to choose not to pay for that particular abortion. But with regard to our duty to engage in conscientious objection, we incur grave guilt when there is technically a choice not to cooperate in abortion, and we choose to cooperate anyway:
"It is a grave duty of conscience not to cooperate, not even formally, in practices which, although permitted by civil legislation, are contrary to the Law of God. Such cooperation in fact can never be justified, not by invoking respect for the freedom of others nor by appealing to the fact that it is foreseen and required by civil law. No one can escape the moral responsibility for actions taken, and all will be judged by God himself based on this responsibility (cf. Rom 2:6; 14:12)." (CSDC 399)
Do you know how Medishare and the other Christian based options actually work with the HHS mandate? Meaning, the HHS mandate requires everyone to obtain health insurance by 2014 but Medishare is not health insurance. I am looking for the loophole in the law that permits it.
ReplyDeleteMedishare members are exempt from the individual insurance Mandate, according to their website.
DeleteThe law says that members of a "Health Care Sharing Ministry" are exempt from the individual insurance mandate. It says so at Section 5000A(d)(2)(B) of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986, as added by section 1501(d)(2)(b) of the Patient Protection
and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare).
Medishare is the most expensive of the three health-sharing ministries, and it was barred from operating in the State of Montana precisely because it looks so much like insurance.
I am in dialogue with a priest about the situation and he was unaware that such a health sharing ministry would exempt participants from actual health insurance (which this is not).
DeleteAccording to the law, only membership in one of the three Protestant health-sharing ministries (having been established before 1999) would exempt individuals from the insurance mandate. However, we should still encourage the formation of Catholic parish-based ministries. It is certainly possible for a parish to incorporate health-sharing into its ministries, through a "group membership" with CHM. For example, there is a group membership highlighted in the recent CHM newsletter.
DeleteYou might be encouraged by the fact that the freedom of the Church to form associations for the purpose of healthcare is explicitly mentioned in her social doctrine (CSDC 426).
please read the article on the basis of who is the attended audience. The article was a letter to a representative of congress to "...urge congress to address this problem...". Therefore, he is not calling members of the church to take action, but asking congressmen to take action.
ReplyDeleteThe articles on the news section of the USCCB website are intended for individuals in the general public, who have just as much responsibility to address public issues as the congressman.
DeleteWhen we live under authorities, we do not abdicate our own responsibilities into their hands. Rather, we each still have the "co-responsibility" to undertake charitable initiatives for the good of society, keeping in mind that the "common good" is most concretely realized in the well-being of those who are most vulnerable, and that many of the most vulnerable members of society are being threatened by Obamacare.
I am "my brother's keeper," and I will not pay to have him slaughtered--this attitude of conscientious objection is a grave duty for every citizen (CSDC 399), and it appeals to the responsibility of everyone to take positive action, because inaction (a sinful act of omission) could become formal cooperation in the the act of procuring an abortion.