Thursday, March 28, AD 2024 4:19am

Why is Cardinal George Silent about Abortion in the Current Health Care Bill?

When Cardinal George requested that pro-life Republicans vote for the Stupak amendment to the health care bill, he was shaming conservative American legislators that they need to stand up for what they claim in public.  Cardinal George discounted reasonable Republican objections  that this was just a ploy by Nancy Pelosi to get pro-life Democrats on board knowing full well that all pro-life language would be stripped in the joint chambers conference committee.

Was Cardinal George this naive to fall for this parliamentary trick?  Can we assume he isn’t this naive?

No, Cardinal George is not this naive because why would the Vatican choose him to lead a diocese?  The Vatican certainly takes its time to make wise and knowledgeable decisions don’t they?  The Holy Spirit guides them in their work, granted that this is done primarily through the teachings of the Church.  Though we can be reasonable enough knowing that the Vatican wouldn’t choose someone who is incompetent to be a shepherd to his flock.

So we discount this reasoning that Cardinal George is incompetent.  This then begs the question then “why” did he urge GOP lawmakers to vote for the Stupak Amendment knowing full well that his was simply a ploy?

Can we believe that Cardinal George truly wants universal health care at any cost.  Even at the expense of murdering innocent unborn children?

Cliff Kincaid of Accuracy in Media implies some of these points with my emphases and comments in this truncated article:

A lot is being said and written about why national health care legislation is becoming a reality. The simple fact, available for all to see, is that the U.S. Catholic Bishops ensured passage of the bill in the House, enabling the Senate to move forward with its version.

Like “progressive” strategist Robert B. Creamer, the Bishops [USCCB*] believe that health care is a right to be guaranteed by government.

As we were the first to disclose[1], Creamer, an ex-con and husband of Rep. Jan Schakowsky, emphasized using “the faith community” to mobilize support for universal health care by highlighting the morality of providing medical care to people in need. His book, Stand Up Straight! How Progressives Can Win, emphasized that “We must create a national consensus that health care is a right, not a commodity; and that government must guarantee that right [And the USCCB, many of whom have strong Democratic Party loyalties fell hook, line, and sinker for this… wait for it…].”

Now compare this to what the Bishops have said.

Our approach to health care is shaped by a simple but fundamental principle: ‘Every person has a right [I thought only God can determine our rights.  Apparently I may be wrong since free-will isn’t enough.] to adequate health care,'” they say[2]. They go on, “For three quarters of a century, the Catholic bishops of the United States have called for national action to assure decent health care for all Americans. We seek to bring a moral perspective in an intensely political debate; we offer an ethical framework in an arena dominated by powerful economic interests.”

Reform, the Bishops said, would “require concerted action by federal and other levels of government [I guess we don’t need Catholic hospitals if we want the government to run our lives and provide health care] and by the diverse providers and consumers of health care. We believe government, an instrument of our common purpose called to pursue the common good, has an essential role to play in assuring that the rights of all people to adequate health care are respected [Health care is now a “right” and this theme will be hammered home frequently… innocent unborn children be damned].”

The only real chance of defeating the health care legislation came when the bill was lacking a majority of votes for passage in the House. That’s when the first deal was made. This was the deal that made all other deals possible. Acting at the behest of Catholic Cardinal Theodore McCarrick and the Catholic Bishops, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi agreed to a vote on the pro-life amendment introduced by Rep. Bart Stupak. It passed and then the bill itself was approved.

But why did Republicans vote for the Stupak amendment if they opposed the basic premise of the bill? House Republican Leader Rep. John Boehner got his marching orders as well. He was told[3] by Cardinal Francis George [Why hasn’t the good Cardinal come out just as strong against Senator Ben Nelson?   Just stating a fact], president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, that the Republicans shouldn’t scuttle the Stupak amendment.

The Senate then proceeded to pass its own version of the legislation, without the Stupak language [Again, where was Cardinal George and his issuance of “marching orders” to the pro-life legislators to kill the bill?]. Predictably, Stupak is complaining about that. But he-and the Democrats and Republicans who voted for his amendment-only have themselves to blame. At least five lobbyists for the Bishops worked with Pelosi and Stupak on the deal that is now also predictably falling apart. Clearly, the pro-life deal was a ploy designed to keep the legislation alive [Was Cardinal George a willing acomplice? He is much smarter to fall for this isn’t he?].

It has become apparent to some observers that the Bishops want the legislation to pass, with or without abortion language [Innocent unborn children be damned.], because of its perceived impact on 600 Catholic hospitals. As they say in their own document, “Catholic dioceses, parishes, schools, agencies, and hospitals are major purchasers of insurance and health care. The rapidly escalating costs of coverage are impacting almost every diocese, agency, parish, and school [So they’re just looking out for the financial bottom line, innocent unborn children be damned].”

In other words, the Bishops see national health care legislation as a way to reduce their own costs. In addition, by expanding federally-subsidized health care to as many as 30 million people, many of whom might normally depend on Catholic hospitals for inexpensive or free care, the Catholic Bishops could save even more money [Again, innocent unborn children be damned.].

Andrew P. Napolitano, the senior judicial analyst at the Fox News Channel, has written a very revealing article about what has been missing in the debate over health care. He writes[4], “In the continually harsh public discourse over the President’s proposals for federally-managed healthcare, the Big Government progressives in both the Democratic and the Republican parties have been trying to trick us. These folks, who really want the government to care for us from cradle to grave, have been promoting the idea that health care is a right. In promoting that false premise, they have succeeded in moving the debate from WHETHER the feds should micro-manage health care to HOW the feds should micro-manage health care. This is a false premise, and we should reject it. Health care is not a right; it is a good, like food, like shelter, and like clothing.”Rights come from God, not government, Napolitano points out [Shouldn’t Cardinal George know this, or are they succumbing to their Democratic Party loyalties, innocent unborn children be damned].

It would have been nice if it had been pointed out on Fox News and elsewhere that the Catholic Bishops who claim to be offering a “moral perspective” on this controversy have bought into the false premise. But they didn’t believe it to be false, and that is the critical point.

In short, the Catholic Bishops have emerged as a major “progressive” force in the United States, determined to saddle the country with a socialized medicine scheme. The disagreements over abortion among the “Big Government progressives” should not distract our attention from this basic fact. The Bishops also favor “climate change” legislation and amnesty for illegal aliens[These are legitimate concerns, though they are below the hierarchical preeminence of protecting innocent unborn children].

Sadly, the bishops have misunderstood the entire process, and now we will all pay,” one conservative Catholic blogger points out[5, Teófilo de Jesús]. “They thought they could influence our lawmakers to provide us a ‘clean’ government takeover of the nation’s health care system, ‘clean’ in the sense they hoped this ‘reform’ would include strong conscience protections while defunding abortion, without objecting to the basic premise of unprecedented government growth.”

My question is, why is Cardinal George silent?  Why isn’t he rallying the troops to protect innocent unborn children from being murdered as he did Republican legislators?  His silence speaks volumes.

_._

* USCCB = U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops

[1] Ex-Con Counts on “Faith Community” to Pass Health Care by Cliff Kincaid of Accuracy in Media.

[2] A Framework for Comprehensive Health Care Reform: Protecting Human Life, Promoting Human Dignity, Pursuing the Common Good by the USCCB

[3] An Eye-Opening Account of Health Care Lobbying by Cliff Kincaid of Accuracy in Media.

[4] What Is a Right? by Andrew P. Napolitano of LewRockwell.com.

[5] The US Catholic Bishops and Health Care Reform: A Failure of Imagination by Teófilo de Jesús of Vivificat.

For the article by Cliff Kincaid of Accuracy in Media click here.

(Photo AP)

0 0 votes
Article Rating
29 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Eric Brown
Eric Brown
Monday, January 4, AD 2010 12:50am

Well, this is no excuse for the Cardinal — but the Republicans who thought about not voting for Stupak were acting on a consequentialist impulse. For all they knew, Pelosi could have had the votes and by their miscalculation, a bill with Capps language could have left the chamber when it could have gone differently.

You don’t vote “present” and leave the unborn undefended on the presumption that such a provision would be stripped from the final bill. That’s consequentialism. You vote for the provision because it is the morally right thing to do regardless of the circumstances. I agree with the Cardinal because the GOP was behaving according to a moral theory (one that they tend to follow a lot in my view) that is deeply flawed.

The fact that the Cardinal has not used his position to make statements toward members of the opposite party is open and free for criticism.

I just don’t think the Republican objections were reasonable — it was a strategy to fight the health care legislation by any means, to the point of compromising basic ethics.

Eric Brown
Eric Brown
Monday, January 4, AD 2010 12:57am

Moreover the writer you cite — whose views obviously differ from my own — far from just being partisan in his presenation, which I have no qualms with per se, but it is obviously clear he has not done his homework.

http://www.ewtn.com/vnews/getstory.asp?number=99578

Last I checked, the USCCB has not endorsed the final passage of the health care reform legislation. Actually, the opposite is true.

Tito Edwards
Monday, January 4, AD 2010 12:58am

But I do believe the GOP was right to vote against it. The Dems simply didn’t have the votes to begin with. They went against their better judgment, but got out-foxed by Cardinal George.

Tito Edwards
Monday, January 4, AD 2010 1:00am

Eric,

I know the opposite is true, but why the silence on behalf of Cardinal George?

What will the USCCB do if the bill passes with abortion being funded by the federal government? Will they oppose that one particular premise yet hail the rest of the bill as “good” for America? Splitting the difference, but compromising their moral authority and hence cause a scandal to the whole Church?

Eric Brown
Eric Brown
Monday, January 4, AD 2010 1:04am

Well, I will maintain my civil disagreement. I think such a position incorrectly applies natural law norms. In fact, the angered response of pro-life organizations at the news of the GOP helping a pro-life measure sink was quite appropriate.

The Democrats did not appear to have the votes, sure. But what if for some reason they did? And we did not forsee it? Who forsaw even after the legislation passed in the House that it would survive the Senate hurdle?

I agree entirely with Represenative Pitts who after the legislation passed, together with pro-life House Democrats and Republicans, reiterated you do not play politics with human life. The unborn should not be subjected to some consequentialist political gamble to stop legislation that one opposes. You vote for the unborn and do everything within the restraints of the moral law to stop bad legislation. I think to act otherwise amounts to moral compromise.

Tito Edwards
Monday, January 4, AD 2010 1:07am

Thanks for being civil!

🙂

Eric Brown
Eric Brown
Monday, January 4, AD 2010 1:08am

I have no idea. I’m not speaking in favor of Cardinal George. I am sometimes disheartened because I believe Republicans get a “pass” from pro-life Catholics often because of their opposition to abortion. So, I sometimes see such a thing as “finally.” On the other hand, when it stops for the other side that is problematic — we cannot have a double-standard, which is the very thing I oppose. So I am not defending the Cardinal in that regard — only in his initial criticism.

The USCCB will surely speak out against the bill. I think they would actively in the Midterm elections advocate that Catholics be conscious of candidates’ position on that issue.

If anything, the USCCB — if happy with the other provisions in the legislation — would only want the abortion language changed. In other words, roll back the abortion funding only.

Jasper
Jasper
Monday, January 4, AD 2010 1:14am

wow, excellent post. Very revealing..and sad at the same time. If our Catholic leaders don’t stand up for the unborn, who will?

Tito Edwards
Monday, January 4, AD 2010 1:21am

Eric,

I’m with you on that.

Though the USCCB has criticized the current bill in the Senate, so they deserve that recognition.

I’m waiting to see the final outcome and see how they respond.

Elaine Krewer
Admin
Monday, January 4, AD 2010 7:08am

Chicago political blogger Tom Roeser has long asserted that the Archdiocese of Chicago is for all practical purposes a subsidiary of the Cook County Democratic Party (which he refers to as “The Squid”). Perhaps that would explain why Cardinal George saves his criticism for Republicans?

Roeser is a very conservative Catholic (politically and liturgically) and I don’t always agree with everything he says, but he may be onto something here. Here is a recent post by him on this topic:

http://www.tomroeser.com/blogview.asp?blogID=25127

I note that the two staunchly pro-life auxiliary bishops he names as having voted in the Republican primary are the two most often mentioned as prospective candidates for just about every episcopal vacancy that has come up in the last few years….

Marshall Fightlin
Marshall Fightlin
Monday, January 4, AD 2010 8:56am

Eric,

I agree that one can never vote for the creation or increase of abortion funding. Moral prohibitions bind, as the latin says, semper et pro semper. But must one always vote against such funding, if one can absent oneself from voting at all? Moral exhortations don’t bind the way prohibitions do. You can never steal, but you can refrain from making a contribution to the poor at times. You can never contracept, but you don’t have to be trying to get pregnant at every moment.

You raise an important point, and I think it’s worth discussing.

Cathy
Cathy
Monday, January 4, AD 2010 9:05am

Strategically, the Republicans should have voted against the amendmendment. However, the bill passing without the amendment would have placed them in an ethical dilemma and I can see whey they voted for it.

My outrage is at Pelosi and the top Democrats for using the abortion issue as a bargaining tool to pass healthcare legislation. The bishops should be more outspoken about this point.

Pinky
Pinky
Monday, January 4, AD 2010 11:49am

I don’t see the problem. The bishops opposed the House’s expansion of abortion, and the pro-life congressmen voted against it (actually, voted in favor of the Stupak Amendment which blocked it). The bishops again opposed it in the Senate, and were unsuccessful. When the final bill comes to Congress, if it increases abortion, the bishops (and, I hope, a sufficient number of congressmen) will oppose it.

It’s not the bishops’ duty to anticipate political maneuvers. Indeed, if the bishops denounced the Stupak Amendment on the suspicion that it would be dropped in conference, that would only weaken their voices. They’ve been clear: nay on abortion coverage.

Gabriel Austin
Gabriel Austin
Monday, January 4, AD 2010 12:07pm

Where is it written that the bishops’ consciences must be represented by the USCCB? If every bishop wrote to the representatives and senators from his district and spoke to the people of his diocese, that would certainly have more effect than the words of the [arch]bishop of Chicago. As Abp. Chaput put it neatly “bishops should not be speaking to politicians. They should be speaking to their flock and the flock speaking to the politicians”.

Cardinal George is not a sort of American pope.

The problem, I suppose, is that our bishops have lost much of their credibility with the sheep because of the cover-ups in the sex scandals.

As far as morality goes, it is the personal effort that counts with Our Lord, not indirect government roles. [“I gave at the office”]. Such problems are best solved locally and one by one.

Tito Edwards
Monday, January 4, AD 2010 12:12pm

Gabriel,

I am pointing out he hypocrisy of Cardinal George’s actions, or non-actions.

I don’t have any respect, nor do I recognize the legitimacy of the USCCB.

I agree though that if the bishops would act more like ‘bishops’ rather than being someone’s friend or a Democratic Party groupie, they would gain the trust and respect of the laity and this country would be in a much better shape than it is now.

Andy K.
Andy K.
Monday, January 4, AD 2010 12:59pm

Lest anyone forget the USCCB sent out flyers to parishes across the country urging parishioners to oppose any healthcare plan that included abortion coverage.

As Eric and other posters have also pointed out, the Bishops have been adamant about Stupak being included in the bill; this is as far as they have gone, and, frankly, is about as far as they can (and probably should) go, politically speaking. Questions about the intricacies of actual healthcare policy (will a public option work or not, etc.) are not “do or die” moral questions like abortion and euthanasia, but fall to the expertise of individual politicians to decide. It is best for the USCCB to remain nuetral on such matters while insisting that the allowance of any moral evil in the bill (abortions, etc.) impels a legislator to vote against it – which is exactly what they’ve been doing!

Where is their any proof that Cardinal George is either for or against the House healthcare bill as passed? This article has nothing but speculation – where are the words of C. George himself that imply he supports the Pelosi bill? Did he ask parishioners to unconditionally support a bill that included the Stupak amendment? No. He merely asked that the lives of babies and their mothers take priority over political victories – hence the strong support for Stupak. Eric, Pinky, and Rep. Pitts are right. To vote “no” on Stupak as an amendment is to vote against the unborn – it’s placing a potential political victory ahead of the lives of the unborn.

I have personally congratulated many people in the Chicago Archdiocese who worked with the Cardinal on this and I asked them to forward my accolades and gratitude to him. I find his actions to be heroic, not cowardly – partisan shill C. George is not, and this article is at best misinformed, at worst a calumny.

Tito Edwards
Monday, January 4, AD 2010 1:49pm

Andy K.,

It’s interesting that you accuse me of speculation.

I made a concerted effort to only report the facts, withholding my opinion.

He was vociferous in demanding pro-life Republicans vote for the health care amendment, though he is dead silent when it gets revised in the Senate.

And yes, you are correct, Cardinal George has been conspicuously silent about the bill.

My speculations are reserved for the commbox. And I will only say he has continued to do nothing at all.

And having the USCCB send out flyers is not the role of a bishop, ie, hide behind a bureaucratic organization.

Where are our shepherds?

Where is our Saint Ambrose?

Chris Burgwald
Monday, January 4, AD 2010 3:21pm

Tito’s final question reminds me that we need to be *praying* for courageous bishops. Frankly, I think that’s the most effective avenue available to the vast majority of us.

Tito Edwards
Monday, January 4, AD 2010 3:33pm

Chris B.,

I wish I could have said that.

You’re right, lets pray for our bishops.

cminor
Monday, January 4, AD 2010 3:40pm

I’m with Eric and the Stupakites on this one. It’s hard to say what the result of trying to play it strategically would have been, but gutting the bill of a clearly-worded rejection of abortion would have been a recognized defeat for life.

American Knight
American Knight
Monday, January 4, AD 2010 8:36pm

These so-called health care bills are so horrible and anti-Christian and anti-American that abortion is not the only reason to oppose and destroy them. Since abortion is an intrinsically evil act it must be opposed no matter what political ploys are being used.

To be in favor of these monstrosities is to discount the massive evil perpetrated by every government that has ever entered into this arena. It is foolish to think the National (oh, how I wish it were actually federal and respected subsidiarity) government we are burdened with will be any less evil.

Cardinal George needs our prayers and it is prudential for us to ask our own bishop to condemn these bills with the politicians he shepherds. Cardinal George is one bishop he is not he bishop of the USA. The USCCB is useless organization.

withouthavingseen
Tuesday, January 5, AD 2010 4:25pm

I’m sorry, but this post is ridiculous.

I don’t have any respect, nor do I recognize the legitimacy of the USCCB.

OK? So? Good thing for Holy Church that Tito Edwards or Ryan Haber (me), despite all we know, aren’t heads over the Catholic Church.

The simple fact is, as Eric pointed out, that to vote “present” on the Stupak Amendment would be a reprehensible parliamentarism worthy of our esteemed president. A rep can vote YES on Stupak and then NO on the final bill. That’s no problem, and no contradiction.

Why hasn’t Cardinal George spoken out? I don’t know? I don’t have a bat phone to his office. Why does American Catholic seem to be so much more concerned with him than with some other bishop? What’s their deal? What has Cardinal George ever done to aid or abet abortionists? Where’s benefit of the doubt? Where’s Christian charity in interpreting others’ actions?

Where’s a sense of deference to the men that GOD, not men, has ordained to lead his flock?

Good grief. I’m gettin’ pretty tired of everybody knowing just how the Catholic Church should be shepherded. It’s really easy to do somebody else’s job. How armchair quarterbacks actually think they are actually helping anybody is entirely beyond me.

Tito Edwards
Tuesday, January 5, AD 2010 4:59pm

Ryan,

Thanks for your charitable comment concerning my post.

I have no deference to Cardinal George because he is not my shepherd, Cardinal DiNardo and Pope Benedict are my shepherds, but I do have deference to him as a leader of the flock. I hope he understands what his actions look like when he speaks out. He seems more as a vibrant supporter of health care as an ardent Democrat rather than a Catholic concerned for the well being of his flock.

Plus Cardinal George spoke up, the only one of all the bishops that said anything to cajole the GOP to vote for the Stupak amendment.

God bless you my brother in Christ,

Tito

Phillip
Phillip
Tuesday, January 5, AD 2010 5:15pm

withouthaving seen,

I guess avoiding parlimentarianism is good if the Supak language stays in the final version. The way the bill is being dealt with now I wouldn’t be so sure. And who’s to say that legislation down the road won’t put it in.

As far as shepharding is concerned, teaching moral principles is properly the role of the bishops, applying it to the world is the proper domain of the laity. I think some criticism of the USCCB and, possibly, Cardinal George is warranted.

withouthavingseen
Tuesday, January 5, AD 2010 5:25pm

Lol, Tito, it doesn’t matter if he were the bishop of Timbuktu, he’d still be successor to an apostle and worthy of the respect of the likes me and you!

I know that Cardinal George, much like the Church in general, gets trashed by all sides. That, in my opinion, wins him the benefit of the doubt from me.

To clarify, when I wrote “this post is ridiculous,” I did not mean your comment in particular, Tito, but rather the initial article and the whole thread of follow-ups.

Stupak and a number of others are threatening to kill the bill altogether if they can, rather than let it pass with abortion funding. Remember, reconciliation and closed-door meetings aren’t the final step. The suits on the hill still have to vote again and both houses have to pass it, and I see no reason why it will be a perfunctory vote in the House of Reps, where the Democrat coalition is shaky, to put it mildly.

Phillip,

The USSCB might very well need criticism, as might H.E. Francis Card. George. I know far less about their affairs than they do, and if I knew as much, I still would have a hard time seeing how Christ has ordained me to criticize his ordained ministers.

Ryan Haber
Kensington, Maryland

Tito Edwards
Tuesday, January 5, AD 2010 5:30pm

Ryan,

Thanks for the clarification 🙂

I was careful to point out what Cardinal George did in the post without offering an opinion.

I placed my opinion only in the commbox because I still don’t know where Cardinal George’s heart is. Is it with the Democratic Party or is it in the Bride of Christ?

Phillip
Phillip
Tuesday, January 5, AD 2010 5:33pm

withouthavingseen,

Criticize in a constructive way as the non-ordained Catherine of Sienna did the Avignon pope. Truth is truth. The laity has a better sense of the secular order. If there is a problem that the laity discerns in the prudential judgments of the clergy as relates to the secular order, they are within their licit Catholic rights to criticize those prudential judgments of clergy.

Patty Palmquist
Patty Palmquist
Friday, January 8, AD 2010 5:16am

Thank you for this good commentary. I have been contemplating some of these questions, too. I have written to my Bishop and the USCCB, but there is only silence. Our Parish has sent out a FAX to all the Bishops with our concerns of the health care reform. To my knowledge, only one Bishop responded to the Fax. I have pondered why there is only a handful of bishops who have spoken on the the Church’s teachings of subsidiarity in regards to the health care bill and government take-over. The Stupak Amendment is not 100% pro-life and there is more than abortions which is very troubling in the House and the Senate health care bills. Should not the Bishops be concerned with all the life issues in the health care reform i.e. abortions, euthanasia, cloning, embryonic stem cell research, rationing, sterilization, teen clinics run by planned parenthood, contraceptions, cloning, or any injustice? Certainly, health care can be improved, but it does not require a government take over with individual mandates and loss of freedoms. Any health care reform should do no harm before doing any good. With all the haste, bribery and lack of transparency, I would certainly think this 2000 page plus health care reform is to be avoided. September 2009 I went to a town-hall meeting and my Congressman said this was not about health care but about government take-over and control. I believe he is right.

trackback
Wednesday, February 3, AD 2010 6:36pm

[…] U.S. bishops remain in constant denial of any wrong doings, but time after time, one scandal follows another as the USCCB begins to be resemble more like an appendage of the Democratic Party […]

Discover more from The American Catholic

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading

Scroll to Top