Catholic Doctrine and the Public Option

September 12th, 2009 by Michael Ricciardelli, J.D Print This Article Print This Article ·

I claim no expertise in Catholic doctrine, nor for that matter theology; but I have studied them some in relation to law and social justice and as a matter of personal edification. Recently, I have heard of protestations within the Faith against the spectre of the Public Option and “socialized medicine” as such. Again, as I claim no expertise, I’ll just present and lend some analysis to what lies before me; I speak only for myself.

I consulted my copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church , Second Edition (revised in accordance with the official Latin text promulgated by Pope John Paul II), Libreria Editrace Vaticana. According to the Apostolic Constitution Fidei Depositum , On the Publication of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, “The Doctrinal Value of the Text,” this Catechism is “a statement of the Church’s faith and of catholic doctrine, attested to by Sacred Scripture, the Apostolic Tradition, and the Church’s Magisterium.” The Catechism is also said to be “a sure and authentic reference text for teaching catholic doctrine and particularly for preparing local catechisms.” According to the Apostolic Letter, Laetamur Magnopere in which this Catechism of the Catholic Church is Approved and Promulgated by John Paul II, it was “prepared by an Interdicasterial Commission” presided over by then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger.”

The Catechism

Part Three, Life in Christ, Article 3, Social Justice, Section II, “Equality and Differences Among Men.”

  • 1936 On coming into the world, man is not equipped with everything he needs for developing his bodily and spiritual life. He needs others. Differences appear tied to age, physical abilities, intellectual or moral aptitudes, the benefits derived from social commerce, and the distribution of wealth.[1] The “talents” are not distributed equally.[2]
  • 1937 These differences belong to God’s plan, who wills that each receive what he needs from others, and that those endowed with particular “talents” share the benefits with those who need them. These differences encourage and often oblige persons to practice generosity, kindness, and sharing of goods; they foster the mutual enrichment of cultures….

One might think that access to medical care for a sick man, regardless of “the difference” in “the distribution of wealth,” would be essential to “developing his bodily… life.” In addition, it seems plain within the text that despite (or perhaps because of) these “differences,” each should “receive what he needs from others.” There is no provision for pre-existing conditions; no provision which mandates that only the best capitalists’ health needs be met.

As for the prospect of a government constituted by the people and for the people providing en masse for these needs, it may be of some help to look to Part Three, Life in Christ, Article 3, Social Justice, Section I, “Respect for the Human Person.” This section precedes the section quoted above by about a page.

  • 1930 Respect for the human person entails respect for the rights that flow from his dignity as a creature. These rights are prior to society and must be recognized by it. They are the basis of the moral legitimacy of every authority: by flouting them, or refusing to recognize them in its positive legislation, a society undermines its own moral legitimacy.[3] If it does not respect them, authority can rely only on force or violence to obtain obedience from its subjects….

If this acknowledgment of certain inherent rights precedent to social structure sounds familiar, it should: as part of the promise which is the Declaration of Independence we are told that all men “are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” and that it is “to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

Importantly, according to Catholic social justice doctrine, the basis for the moral authority of power (i.e. governance), and thus its legitimacy , is contingent upon its being in accord with the dignity of human beings. Therefore, the failure to reach such an accord in a society’s legislation calls to question the legitimacy of that society’s rule; the legitimacy of such rule being “undermined” in direct proportion to such failures.

As for an example of that which is required by the dignity of human beings/ legitimacy of rule, it may prove to be of some help to look again to “Equality and Differences Among Men.”

  • 1938 There exist also sinful inequalities that affect millions of men and women. These are in open contradiction of the Gospel:
  • Their equal dignity as persons demands that we strive for fairer and more humane conditions. Excessive economic and social disparity between individuals and peoples of the one human race is a source of scandal and militates against social justice, equity, human dignity, as well as social and international peace.[4]

I would suggest that supplying affordable access to health care to all within this country is the essence of striving for “fairer and more humane conditions.” And that respect for the dignity of mankind, upon which rests “the basis of the moral legitimacy of every authority,” not only allows for such proposals as a Public Health Care Option, but, it would seem, demands it.


[1] 41. Cf. GS 29 Sect. 2 (footnotes are from the text of the Catechism, but appear here renumbered due to format. The original footnote number appears immediately after this document’s footnote number-in this instance, the original is “41.”

[2] 42. Cf. Mt 25:14-30; Lk 19: 11-27.

[3] 36. Cf. John XXIII, PT 65.

[4] 44. GS 29 Sect. 3.

Michael Ricciardelli, J.D., is the Managing Editor of HealthReformWatch.com, a web log of the Seton Hall University School of Law, Center for Health & Pharmaceutical Law & Policy. Seton Hall Law is New Jersey's only Catholic Law School.



  • jschmeidler

    Sir,

    Catholic doctrine is that which you have stated. However, you have failed to understand the doctrines that you quote. You have confused private, personal, doctrine, which Jesus professed, with public doctrine, which is mandated by govermments. I, and you, are not saved by the public doctrine, which is predicated by the disobedience or such, by civil penaly, or by the criminal penalty, of imprisonment, but we may be saved by recognizing our “personal responsibilities.”

    To carry your arguments to the extreme,
    Adolph Hitler was correct, to the extreme, in doing what he, as a legitimatge government, did. Do you really think that? Are you extreme? Do you really think that such actions are what the Church, or any legitimate government can do?

    Human beings have, as their God given right, to rule themselves. I would suppose that you hypothesize that you should have a right to take that diginity away, and grant those right to governments. You are Wrong!!!!

    I am most regretful that you have presupposed God’s commandments. I am appalled that you have put a “J.D.,” behind your name, assuming, that the readers of you selective reading of scripture, would think that you know what you’re talking about. You don’t.

    That is what the Church teaches.

  • Tarheel

    The health care issue is a very “hot topic” for everyone. And my greatest concern is that too much of this program is being designed and written by individuals whose moral values I question. (I wanted to say they are a bunch of immoral dolts.)

    But affordable health care is this country is non-existent. Medical and prescription costs are completely out-of-hand. Should we not at some point in time try to determine why costs are so high? Because right now I feel that any government ran or managed health care will still be expensive.

    There are an enormous number of issues that need to be explained before I can really support a ‘public option’. I have trouble with any hospital being required to perform any procedure they do not believe in. Or require doctors to prescribe contraceptive medications.

    Our government has not yet proved that it can managed any program that supports the public without it going broke. So why do they think they can managed health care. I fear that the only people that will benefit from such a program will be insurance companies and hospitals conglomerates. And of course the bigger HMO’s.

    Our best “public option” now is to make sure that we tell our elected officials how we fell about this volatile issue. Because I assure that if any program like this is passed no one in Congress will participate in it. And with that thought in mind why should they care what is passed, unless we the voters “flex our muscle” and tell them how we feel.

    And we as voters need to make sure we all stay informed on this issue. Information on site like Catholic Exchange do provide a different perspective on this issue that is most beneficial. We cannot rely on what is on the news or in a lot of print media.

    Thank you CE for posting the article by Michael Ricciardelli, J.D. I may not agree with him, but I respect his views and how it may or may not affect Church teaching. And the responses here clearly show that everyone of us have strong concerns on this subject.