Roman Catholic Hospitals: A Bluff We Dare Not Call?

Well Amen for the Catholic Church. I am thrilled to hear this.

Excellent article by Archbishop Chaput of Denver on this topic in First Things - A Charitable Endeavor. This was the take-away paragraph for me:

In squeezing the Church and other mediating institutions out of the public square, government naturally assumes more power over the nation’s economic and social life. Civil society becomes subordinated to the state. And the state then increasingly sees itself as the primary shared identity of its citizens. But this is utterly alien to—and in fact, an exact contradiction of—what America’s founders intended.

Yes, “civil society becomes subordinated to the state.”

It’s all about the government wanting control and power, not what’s best for the PEOPLE of the United States of America.

This is entirely consistent with plans by the Obama administration to limit tax deductions for charitable contributions, moving such things under the aegis of government and out of the hands of independent organizations.

Yes, the State must have no rivals or competition.  And know what?  The majority of voters in our land agree.  Now is the time for the Catholic Church to step up and show that they mean business and will stand firm.  However, if the Catholics had not voted for Obama, he would not have been elected.  In fact it the Catholic Bishops had taken a stand against him rather than award him a degree from their university, it may have made a difference.  At any rate, the RCC has been given one more opportunity to show whether or not they really believe.  I’ll be rooting for them.  Win one for the Gipper. IMHO

Bless the Catholic Church for this. What a correct and courageous stand!

Yeah, that’s really smart.  Give 20 million people health insurance and then shut down 15% of the hospital beds.

My view is the Church should force the government to shut down every hospital, shut down every adoption agency.  Don’t just quit, make them make you stop.  Unambiguously put the blame where it belongs.

What if the Catholic Hospitals became an HMO, with membership only offered to persons who are members of the Catholic Church.
Could some of the hospitals be converted into specialty centers, such as a cancer center, or a burn center or a head trauma center, etc? This would still provide some beds, but avoid the moral clash.
I fully support their position. Their hospitals, their right to choose what
they do there. But I’d sure hate to see St Jude’s Hospital for children shut down.

What if the Catholic Hospitals became an HMO, with membership only offered to persons who are members of the Catholic Church.

It would have to become a private clinic of sorts, because hospitals aren’t allowed to be “private”. They have to offer treatment to people who walk in with a severe medical problem. That’s a law. You don’t have to have an emergency services dept, but if you do have it, anybody basically does have access to it.

Most of the regulations and so forth are governed by Medicare qualifying rules, which are extensive. I can’t see how a Catholic hospital could exist without accepting Medicare and Medicaid! But if they do, I think they would not be allowed to discriminate based on the religion of the patient.

The government has taken over already. There are only two ways - you can either take the Amish way out or try to develop a private Christian network, but be assured that everybody would be poor, because the state is going to get your money and your insurance dollars and not pay for any services rendered in that network.

Medical clinics that do not accept insurance charge very little in comparison to hospitals, it is true, and basically going no state payments is the only way to possibly evade regulation. But I still think most Catholics wouldn’t be able to afford it.

Do we HAVE to let them take away our freedom and push us around? 

I’m not so keen on the US becoming a third world country with a dictator and a bunch of cruel thugs enforcing immoral leftist agendas, killing babies and elders and intimidating anyone who disagrees with them…or of turning our economy and government over to the UN.

Yes, Bravo for the Catholic Church!  It’s great to see it recovering the guts to stand up to the outrageous attempt to impose grossly anti-Christian values on charitable agencies spponsored by the Church.

What interested me most here was that last paragraph, where the Wizbang post author states, “And that’s coming from an agnostic gay marriage supporter…”  That’s right.  Even some of our pagan neighbors recognize the rightness of the Catholic Church’s brave stand in refusing to go along with state tyranny.

David Handy+

Marie Blocher, #7 - why should the onus be on the Catholic Church to reconfigure her structure? The burden should be on the government to justify why they are going after religious entities in the first place.

#11…the “government” is US!!  We the people!  The first test for “we the people” comes in 2010.  If we don’t vote for freedom, liberty, the Constitution, and for the Founding Principles, then “we the people” will no longer be the government.  A worst case scenario might be something like, no federal elections in 2012!  Think about that.  Think about it real hard.  We the people can’t just sit back and leave the Roman Church at the tip of the spear, if “we the people” still want to have an America like the one delivered to us with the blood and toil of the Founding Fathers and the brave souls who pushed back against the British.

A law requiring Catholic hospitals to perform abortions would egregiously violate freedom of religion. We should resist it to the utmost. We can sue to overturn the law. We could organize a boycott of conferences, concerts, and sporting events held in D.C. If worse came to worst, we could engage in peaceful but massive civil disobedience (e.g., sit-ins on every freeway in the western half of the city).
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

A worst case scenario might be something like, no federal elections in 2012!

Mendacious nonsense.

Who has the authority to close all Catholic hospitals. Most of them are non-profit corps and not necessarily subject to the jurisdiction of the local bishop. This smacks of wishful thinking.

We need to press the religious freedom issue until we win recognition that such a law fundamentally and unacceptably infringes religious freedom. That makes it important that the Roman Catholic Church persevere in the fight—and not simply sell its hospitals. And we should give money to help defray the costs of the fight.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Better for the church to sell the hospitals than to perform abortions in them. But operating hospitals is part of our practice of Christianity. Anti-Christians have long felt threatened by Christian charitable works. Julian the Apostate (Roman Emperor during the 360s) derided them as bribing people to convert. Modern Hindu extremists say the same. Communists prohibited them.

We should not retreat from them, particularly not in the face of secularist pressure.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

It’s all about the government wanting control and power.—#3

This is silly. The D.C. Council members backing this proposal would be glad to have private parties do things they agree with. The problem here is not some generic governmental power-lust but the desire to impose a pro-abortion agenda without regard to freedom of conscience.

We need to press the religious freedom issue until we win recognition that such a law fundamentally and unacceptably infringes religious freedom. That makes it important that the Roman Catholic Church persevere in the fight—and not simply sell its hospitals. And we should give money to help defray the costs of the fight.

I wholeheartedly agree. Backing off and retreating is not the thing to do. The church is on solid ground here and should not allow the culture of the moment to shake them off it. The individual conscience should be respected.

I think it’s worth pointing out here that the Catholic Hospital systems here that I’m familiar with (very large) are actually operated as extensions of the Church.  For example, the Louisiana Catholic Hospital Network is called the Franciscan Missionaries of Our Lady (FMOL) for a reason.  Underneath all the trappings of a hospital system is the Church, in the form of Nuns and Priests/Bishops, who have veto power over what happens in those systems.  If they decided to close them down, I have to assume they could do it. 

And I agree, their departure would leave a huge void in the medical delivery system, especially in our state.

KTF!...mrb

First, I’m a former Episcopalian who ‘swam the Tiber’. Second, I wonder where the poor people who were served by the closed-down former Catholic hospitals will receive care? The Church can’t do anything else if she is to remain faithful to scripture, but this is NOT a power struggle with homosexual/abortion advocates in the DC city council or the federal givernment: It’s care for the poor, the widows, and the orphans. Jesus has commanded us to protect them; how do we do that in the new environment? How do Catholics (and Protestants, too) carry out Jesus’ commands in that environment?

In faith, Dave
Viva Texas

How nice to see the church “Stand up, stand up for Jesus”  I admit that I had a new found respect for the Arch Diocese of Boston when they pulled the plug on the adoption work in Boston a few years back.  “Sometimes, a man has to stand up.”  And when they stand, its not a bad thing to flick someone’s ear to get their attention.  Closing hospitals is a mighty big ear flick - but so be it.

A lot of people moaned and groaned when Benedict was made the new pope.  I wondered myself how this hardliner would conduct the affairs or the Roman Catholic Church.  However, I have been pleasantly surprised several times over by how he sticks to his guns without overstepping his bounds.  There is an elegance in that. 

The threat to tear down all RCC hospitals and discontinue adoption services is a good example of offering the left cheek to one who strikes the right.  It changes the relationship of power, restores dignity, and provides a way for the RCC to continue to obey the moral mandates of the Bible in the face of an obtuse and godless government.  Good for them!

This is NOT a power struggle with homosexual/abortion advocates in the DC city council or the federal government: It’s care for the poor, the widows, and the orphans. Jesus has commanded us to protect them; how do we do that in the new environment?—#18

Keep the hospitals open, disregard the unjust law, and make them come after us. Cf. #6 & 15.

—o- There’s a good reason why U.S. law never requires you to swear an “oath” and allows you instead to make a solemn affirmation. During the Colonial era, Quakers stood firm in refusing, based on Matthew 5:34-37 and James 5:12, to take oaths. They stood firm. They made their point. And their fellow citizens recognized that penalizing them for following their convictions would be wrong.

—o- There’s a good reason why U.S. courts began upholding the sanctity of the confessional nearly 200 years ago, at a time when Roman Catholics had no political clout and the First Amendment did not apply to the states. RC priests stood ready to go to prison rather than divulge a confession. They made their point. Courts recognized that attempting to coerce priests would be both futile and wrong.

Hence the importance of fighting the good fight here and not simply selling or closing the hospitals. Imprisoning or fining Catholics for refusing to perform abortions wouldn’t just be immoral and unconstitutional: it would be politically untenable. Nothing would vaporize an unjust law more quickly than sending Abp. Wuerl to prison for violating it.

Who has the authority to close all Catholic hospitals. Most of them are non-profit corps and not necessarily subject to the jurisdiction of the local bishop. This smacks of wishful thinking.

Actually, it isn’t. Even if the hospital or hospital system is run by an RC religious order, the diocesan bishop according to canon law oversees/regulates any external apostolate of the religious orders in his diocese, and is usually on their Board of Directors. So, if he doesn’t like what they are doing, he does by law have the authority to shut them down, or to tell them that they can no longer identify themselves as “Catholic”. You may notice that in many RC affiliated colleges run by religious orders, you will see that they self-identify as “a College/University in the Jesuit/Dominican/Benedictine tradition.” However, you will not find the word “Catholic” anywhere. Not identifying as being Catholic takes them out from the oversight of the Bishop.

I don’t think the Romans could get away with shutting down a hospital. There’s always eminent domain. The government would have to pay for the hospital, and a judge would decide how much, but in the end the government would end up with the hospital (and could set up an abortion mill inside).

Going Galt, Roman-style.  Good on ‘em.

#13…I hope you looked up “mendacious” before you applied it in response to my post.  I don’t know you from Adam, neither do you know me from Adam.  But there is a difference in us: I would have never applied that term to you, unless I knew you, and unless I knew it was true.  You happen to know neither!
I will pray for you this evening.

Lest anyone be confused . . .
The rumor summarized at the end of #13 is mendacious; the commenter most certainly is not. The rumor is nonsense; the commenter most certainly is not.

Lets keep in mind, extortion is extortion. The Roman Catholic Church is using its power in an incorrectly on secular civil issues.  Putting the citizens who need services the most on the political Hatchet block.  Its seems to me a “bit” hypocritical.  The City council needs to stand strong against this, because if they don’t, any secular bill the Roman Catholic Church doesn’t agree with they will try it again.

[27] JONESMUNOZ

if they don’t, any secular bill the Roman Catholic Church doesn’t agree with they will try it again.

Except this isn’t just any bill, is it.  The RCC would be coerced into using its own property to violate its own conscience.  They aren’t objecting to the opening of yet another Wal-mart three blocks away from the parish.  They are objecting to being forced into complicity with murder.  And you have the gall to call it extortion when they politely decline the offer?  If the city council is so concerned about those most in need of services, then it should let the Catholic Hospitals keep doing what they are doing. 

But of course that doesn’t fit the agenda, does it?  It’s not about ‘helping those most in need.’  It’s about universalizing access to abortion at all locations.  That fact that so many hospitals still won’t perform the requisite butchery tends to stigmatize the procedure.  People must be trained to see it as just a modified type of apendectomy.  What’s a few needy people compared to that agenda?

carl

I heart Carl.  Thank you for expressing exactly what the issue is here.  And you know though this is being presented as a Catholic issue it would also effect other Christian churches which oppose abortion and offer health care services.  Don’t Southern Baptists also have hospitals?

A big mistake to pick a fight with Rome.

Carl, as long as they are receiving funds from the city, they are bound by the civil laws, under which they are providing services.  They are not “politely” declining to offer, They are telling the city council, if they pass the marriage equality bill they will pull their services. That is extortion.  And the Catholic Church’s agenda is to limit the rights of women to choose, limit same-sex couples to marry, and extort legally elected officials to fold to their politics.  What will be next, unless you are a practicing Roman Catholic they will turn you away at their hospitals?

[31] JONESMUNOZ

as long as they are receiving funds from the city, they are bound by the civil laws, under which they are providing services.

If they shut down the hospital, they won’t be receiving public funds, now will they?  But then you say that such a threat is extortion.  So what choice do you leave them?  The logical conclusion of your position is that the RCC is morally obligated to subordinate its conscience to the collective will of the government.  It may possess whatever private convictions it desires, but it is not allowed to act upon those convictions in the pubic square.  Neither will it be allowed to withdraw from the field.  It must submit.  It must be made to submit so that all may see the de-legitimization of public opposition to abortion.  And yet you would praise the historical record of any doctor or institution that opposed Hitler’s medical policies.  At least I assume you would.  Wouldn’t you?

carl
who is not Catholic.

Your debate is exactly the cards that the catholic Church is playing.  Its interesting how they have thrown in the abortion card, into the Marriage Equality debate in order to get many individuals upset and vocal.  I do think, when there are certain secular services are being provided, that there must be an amount of subordination of conscience.  It would be like the EMT professional saying that he/she refuses to provide life saving services because of matter of conscience because a persons religion, race or sexual orientation.  It is obvious our opinions of women’s rights to their body and marriage equality are dialectically opposed.  What the RCC is doing is playing cards with the ill, and needy against the city council, no matter how much the issue is attempted to be muddied.

[33] JONESMUNOZ

I do think, when there are certain secular services are being provided, that there must be an amount of subordination of conscience.

 
‘Certain secular services.’  What a nice euphemism for the dismemberment of an unborn child.  But I must admit there is historical precedent for your argument. The Einsatzgruppen had to struggle with the same issues of subordinating conscience in the performance of ‘certain secular services.’.

It would be like the EMT professional saying that he/she refuses to provide life saving services because of matter of conscience because a persons religion, race or sexual orientation.

Life saving services?  You actually have the brass to compare CPR to an abortion?  But it is revealing that you would think to use a life-saving example in an attempt to justify coercing the performance of a procedure that kills.  Why didn’t you reach for euthanasia, or assisted suicide?  The parallel would be more exact.  Oh, wait.  I know why.

carl

you just proved my point….