Video
Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feed
Bad Samaritans
Q: U.S. Catholic bishops are defending their direct involvement in congressional deliberations over health-care reform, saying that church leaders have a duty to raise moral concerns on any issue, including abortion rights and health care for the poor. Do you agree? What role should religious leaders have -- or not have -- in government policymaking?
Immediately after the health-care reform bill passed the House, charges flew that the U.S. Catholic bishops had negotiated in bad faith over abortion funding prohibitions. The language crafted in July by Rep. Lois Capps was supposed to be the compromise. The midnight maneuvering as the House bill neared a vote, and the draconian anti-abortion restrictions that were added, resembled the strategy of DC lobbies far more than the work appropriate to a church.
This is not the role religious leaders should have in government. Such maneuvering tends to undermine the most fundamental claims to moral authority that make a church a church, and make a church different from a lobby. There's a big difference between witnessing to your faith in the public square and lobbying behind the scenes to cut a deal.
There is a more profound objection, however. The care of the poor is a transcendent moral claim that is central to the Christian faith. The U.S. Catholic Bishops were apparently willing to put health care reform at risk, reform desperately needed by poor and middle class Americans, in order to do an 11th hour end run on abortion.
The parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10: 29-37) teaches that the care of those who are beaten up and are suffering for lack of care are more important than the religious righteousness of the priestly class. You may remember this central teaching of Jesus--a traveler falls among robbers who beat him and leave him half dead. First a priest passes by "on the other side" and ignores the man's need for care; then his lay associate, a Levite, shows the same lack of compassion. Then a Samaritan, a member of a despised race, shows compassion and pays for the man's health care even though they, by law and custom, do not agree with each other.
Organized religion does not come off well in Jesus' teaching. The priest and the Levite, the representatives of organized religion, are willing to neglect the health care of the one who was beaten and left by the side of the road. The fate of the man beaten by robbers, without the intervention of the Good Samaritan, could very well have been the fate of those trauma victims today who show up in emergency rooms without health care insurance. In medical news, a new study shows that uninsured trauma victims are more likely to die in emergency rooms.
The meaning of the parable is that the care of those who are sick and injured is the paramount moral obligation, even for those of different customs and beliefs.
The U.S. Catholic Bishops were profoundly in the wrong to play the lobby game with health care reform and put such a needed reform at risk. But even further, they were Bad Samaritans in the sense that the parable of Jesus teaches that people have a moral obligation to one another regardless of their differences. The Stupak amendment, the anti-abortion measure, targets not only poor, but low- and middle-income women. Women who can afford it can still get this totally legal reproductive service.
Good Samaritans don't judge the poor. They help them.
By
Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite
|
November 17, 2009; 11:24 AM ET
Save & Share:
Previous: The Catholic Church's religious blackmail of secular government |
Next: The Church is also a special interest group
Posted by: sulu1 | November 23, 2009 2:44 PM
Report Offensive Comment
A good link for those that need clarification on the dogma of the Roman Catholic Church.
The fact is, the Church actually has doctrinal leeway on liberalizing it's stand on many issues, including allowing marriage for the clergy, gay marriage, ordination of women, the active support of a broad array of birth control methods, and even abortion itself - at least under certain circumstances.
Currently, the Church is unwilling to support abortion even in the case of rape, incest, or an overt threat to the life of the mother.
I suppose rational folks should consider that a reasonable position?? The Bishops are doing the bidding of a Pope steeped in medievalism....how else can all of this be interpreted?
As other posters have said on other threads, a majority of Catholics are very far from unanimous in their support of official Church positions on these and other issues.
A good many Catholics simply do what seems morally and ethically called for, under a given set of circumstances. They live with that mindset quite comfortably, as they are solely responsible for their own destiny, and that of their families.
Posted by: persiflage | November 18, 2009 2:55 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Ryan, we can debate Catholic theology any time you like - please include any substantive evidence to back up whatever doctrinal 'truth' that you're discussing at the time.
Persiflage
Posted by: persiflage | November 18, 2009 11:12 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Ryan Haber, I know all about your teachings, having been well schooled in said teachings for a good number of my early formative years - you have your opinion and I have mine.
We will voice our opinions whenever the occasion arises, and of that I have no doubt!
Persiflage
Posted by: persiflage | November 18, 2009 11:10 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Persiflage,
It's our religion, and you don't have to follow it if you don't like it. We are still citizens, as are our leaders, and they are still allowed to encourage us to action, which is what every leader of any group is supposed to do.
You pretty obviously know next to nothing about our teachings, anyway. Some of your comments are telltale dead giveaways to anyone who knows more than you.
Ryan Haber
Kensington, Maryland
Posted by: withouthavingseen | November 18, 2009 10:29 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Yes, there's much not to like with regard to the Roman Catholic church and their continuous meddling with public policy and healthcare reform...
All the moral rectitude in the world can't hide the fact that this is an organization that is run exclusively by single men that are theologically driven far beyond reasonable limits. There is no balance, no women providing interpretive equilibrium with the 'laws' of the Church. This tradition continues to be set in stone.
Curiously, their theology is faith-based from first to last - there is no evidence whatsoever that the supernatural basis for all of these divinely inspired and male engendered rules and regulations has any substance whatsoever.
Much more likely, the origins are imaginatively inspired by other long dead men stretching back over the last 2000 years.
They constantly invey against 'artificial' birth control methods in provery-stricken third world countries (and everywhere else) along with attempting to emboss the sexual world with their own peculiar stamp of approval - the church forcefully pushes their own concept of natural vs unnatural sexual acts, when in fact the concept of 'natural' is nowhere to be found in a supernaturally inspired moral lexicon of right and wrong.
As to abortion rights and reproductive autonomy for women, Roe v Wade will stand as the law of the land, and there is little doubt of that - notwithstanding the Supreme Court's 6 Catholics.
Posted by: persiflage | November 18, 2009 9:04 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Lol. Right, Alex511. Facts. The fact is that abortion kills babies. There's no way around that one. Just look at a sonogram. Any sonogram will do.
The fact is that the large majority of US voters and taxpayers do not want their tax dollars to pay for other peoples' abortions. There's no way around that one, either. Just look at a poll. Any poll will do.
What's wrong with those facts? Don't those count?
---
As a side point, you addressed me as "fr withouthavingseen" at the start of your post. I'm not sure if you meant it as "Father..." or "From:" but actually, I'm not a priest. Just a layperson in a house in the burbs.
Ryan Haber
Kensington, Maryland
Posted by: withouthavingseen | November 18, 2009 1:21 AM
Report Offensive Comment
fr withouthavingseen:
>Right, Ms. Brooks-Thistlethwaite. You mean, "to have their babies killed," right? Just so we're clear...
Whether YOU like it or not, ryan, abortion is a LEGAL medical procedure in the US.
It's simple. You don't like abortion, then don't have one. However, don't stand in the way of women who need good, fact-based medical care.
Posted by: Alex511 | November 17, 2009 4:56 PM
Report Offensive Comment
"Totally legal reproductive service."
Right, Ms. Brooks-Thistlethwaite. You mean, "to have their babies killed," right? Just so we're clear. You're not speaking about ultrasounds or pre-natal care, right? I mean, actually, the lobby of which you clearly represent the religious wing doesn't even want women to have ultrasounds if they are considering abortion - because then they usually decide not to go through with the "service." Informed consent be damned.
Now, as for that "service," as you well know, the Catholic Church has never, ever be copacetic with that. Back in July, when Rep. Lois Capps crafted her "compromise," the bishops talked about how Catholics couldn't be cool with any "compromise" that, rather than funding abortion, freed money used elsewhere so that it could be used for abortion.
More than 3/4 of Americans DO NOT WANT THEIR TAX DOLLARS USED FOR ABORTION. What part of that can't you elitists understand? Why do you think you are better than the rest of us, and know how to spend our money better than we do?
There was no late night politicking on our part. Bart Stupak was upfront the whole time. Nancy Pelosi is the one who, at the eleventh hour (almost literally), realizing she lacked the necessary votes, finally agreed to allow democracy to take its course and allowed a vote on the amendment.
So gracious of her.
Your entire article is disingenuous. You know darn well that the Church wasn't singling out poor- and middle-class women (is that like 85% of the country or something?) for special treatment. Up to us, rich women wouldn't have abortions either! You set up, as you so often do, Ms. Thistlethwaite, a total strawman. The Church was never judging the poor in any of this mess, nor was it refusing to care for the poor and needy because of "differences." That's just slanderous.
The Church, in an odd turn of events, was speaking up for democracy and freedom of expression: the majority of Americans do not want abortion funded by tax dollars, and they wanted the question brought to a vote, and the leadership of the Congress was refusing to do so.
Ryan Haber
Kensington, Maryland
Posted by: withouthavingseen | November 17, 2009 1:58 PM
Report Offensive Comment
The comments to this entry are closed.
what?
the parable,
in dealing with Thebes
1. if out-numbered always take the loudest, as lead and bring them to whatever outcome that awaits yourself.
in dealing with injuries
1. render any and all assistance capable.
2. ignore dissent
2a. ask the gentle old lady, after helping her up, to let go of your arm.
2.b don't shake and get scared untill after, when dealing with trauma, blood losses, exposure or any action when rendering assistance.
The "choice" is your's, or is it?
and finally , the best deal possible is an agreement were neither side is happy.