President Obama insists that all Americans receive mandatory/universal healthcare coverage. This mandatory/universal edict even extends to women who want abortifacients—that is, birth-control drugs that cause an abortion. Obama is so dedicated to this proposition that he has mandated that all health insurers, including those at each and every Catholic institution, provide abortifacients.

In so doing, there’s a small contradiction in Obama’s mandatory/universal coverage: it’s the tiny fertilized egg in the process of developing into a full-blown human being. Everyone listening to me right now was once a tiny fertilized egg. All of us are alive today because our existence wasn’t terminated by a taxpayer-subsidized abortifacient drug at the heart of “Obama-care.”

Thus, there’s actually an entire class of beings exempted from Obama’s mandatory/universal coverage.

Yes, yes, I can hear the secular objection now: Come on, Kengor, fertilized eggs aren’t human beings. There’s a fatal flaw in your argument.

Well, I disagree. But let’s leave that aside for a moment, and consider this:

Would you agree that babies who leave their mothers’ wombs are humans? Of course, you would.

Well, guess what? Barack Obama also exempted them from mandatory/universal coverage. He did so when he was a state senator in Illinois, when he repeatedly blocked legislation requiring mandatory healthcare for babies that somehow managed to survive failed abortion procedures. Those babies were permitted to be left alone in a hospital room to slowly die. Here again, there was an entire class of human beings that Barack Obama exempted from his mandatory/universal coverage.

Hey, at least he’s consistent—well, sort of.

This, ladies and gentlemen, is radical progressivism, moral relativism. A modern progressive like Barack Obama takes it upon himself to decide which human beings are human beings deserving of protection, deserving of mandatory/universal healthcare.

At its essence, if you dissect Barack Obama’s thinking, his definition of life is completely dependent upon whether the mother wants the life within her, whether a fertilized egg or a fully delivered but undesired baby.

That’s Barack Obama’s worldview, elevated to the presidency in November 2008 thanks to a decisive majority of self-professing Roman Catholics.

I write to you concerning an alarming and serious matter that negatively impacts the Church in the United States directly, and that strikes at the fundamental right to religious liberty for all citizens of any faith.

The federal government, which claims to be “of, by, and for the people,” has just dealt a heavy blow to almost a quarter of those people – the Catholic population and to the millions more who are served by the Catholic faithful.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services announced last week that almost all employers, including Catholic employers, will be forced to offer their employees’ health coverage that includes sterilization, abortion-inducing drugs, and contraception. Almost all health insurers will be forced to include those “services” in the health policies they write. And almost all individuals will be forced to buy that coverage as a part of their policies.

In so ruling, the Administration has cast aside the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, denying to Catholics our Nation’s first and most fundamental freedom, that of religious liberty. And as a result, unless the rule is overturned, we Catholics will be compelled to violate our consciences, or to drop health coverage for our employees (and suffer the penalties for doing so). The Administration’s sole concession was to give our institutions one year to comply.

We cannot – we will not – comply with this unjust law. People of faith cannot be made second-class citizens. We are already joined by our brothers and sisters of all faiths and many others of good will in this important effort to regain our religious freedom. Our parents and grandparents did not come to these shores to help build Arnerica’s cities and towns, its infrastructure and institutions, its enterprise and culture, only to have their posterity stripped of their God given rights. In generations past, the Church has always been able to count on the faithful to stand up and protect her sacred rights and duties. I hope and trust she can count on this generation of Catholics to do the same. Our children and grandchildren deserve nothing less.

And therefore, I would ask of you two things. First, as a community of faith we must commit ourselves to prayer and fasting that wisdom and justice may prevail, and religious liberty may be restored. Without God, we can do nothing; with God, nothing is impossible. Second, I would also recommend visiting www.usccb.org/conscience, to learn more about this severe assault on religious liberty, and how to Contact Congress in support of legislation that would reverse the Administration’s decision.

Sincerely yours in Christ,

Most Reverend Dennis M. Schnurr
Archbishop of Cincinnati

 I don’t get that.

 It seems to me that good intentions ought to be worth more than a ticket to Hell.

 Having said that, I definitely get that the good intentions I have for any number of things can always be a hellish path.

 Exercise comes immediately to mind. As does dieting and just keeping fit and well at 53 years old. I am filled with good intentions, but turning those passive good intentions into successful achievements is another story.

 I suppose this also falls under the Scriptural category of the-spirit-is-willing-but-the-flesh-is-weak.

 So maybe the whole path-to-Hell-is-paved-with-good-intentions does make more sense than I am willing to admit.

 Either way, I have come to realize that while the initial good intention is a necessary first step to health and wellness, a viable course of action must accompany it—preferably something not too painful, boring, or time-consuming.

 My goal this year has been to find the right-for-me, realistic balance of health and wellness while accommodating the real demands on my life as a wife, mother, author and speaker—all the while making my spiritual life a top priority.

 I know, I know, I don’t want much, right?!

 My efforts towards this goal actually began at Lent when I gave up Facebook in an effort to give more time to God and to my own journey towards Heaven. I never went back to Facebook—or any of the other online social outlets that had begun to take up too much of my time. I pretty much stopped writing articles and even put a book I was writing on hold.

 I needed to get a handle on things. Big time.

 Since then, I have continued to use the time I once gave to online activities to the things that now contribute to my newfound wholeness.

 The time away from it all allowed me to sort through what I needed and wanted in terms of my spiritual and physical well-being. I was able to set priorities and developed a spiritual life that has really blessed me. I found a spiritual director and attended a retreat where I learned about Ignatius discernment. Ultimately, and not coincidentally, this all slowly turned my good intentions into a reality.

 Maybe that is the key to success: taking the time necessary to pray and discern and truly understand who you are as a person created in the image and likeness of God—and how to tend to that unique person in the physical and spiritual sense.  

With the New Year fast approaching, many people will begin making resolutions with good intentions. To help turn those good intentions into reality—and not become a path to Hell—I wanted to share some valuable resources that truly address the wholeness and holiness we all seek…

 Kate Wicker is a delightful young mom whose writing I have always enjoyed. She has a nice balance of wit and reality—of reverence and candor. Kate has a new book out titled Weightless. Weightless is the sort of book that should be on every woman’s nightstand. And I don’t say that lightly (pun intended); I promise there are passages in it that will be highlighted and will be returned to frequently! Although Weightless begins with the oft-trotted-out warning about media messages—and maybe rightfully so—Kate really hits her stride in the chapters that follow.

 (I know many women whose bad body images have nothing to do with media messages but was very much affected by things said to them while they were young; so while I can understand the influence of media messages, I really would like to see someone explore more in-depth how susceptible young girls are to ALL messages. I believe in Wicker’s capable hands, this could be an issue more fully explored and understood. My own interest in helping girls “vaccinate” themselves against bad body image at a young age is behind my work on the tween book Mirror, Mirror on the Wall…What is Beauty, After All?)

 I absolutely loved when Wicker wrote about why we exercise; her insight and wisdom here is worth the price of the book. I also found her encouragement to see ourselves through the eyes of our family as truly words we ought to take to heart. They jumped off the page at me. Wicker’s Weightless combines just enough real-world statistics with Scripture to make it the ideal sort of book to be a background to whatever health and wellness you seek as a Catholic. This is why Weightless is first on my list of resources: Weightless is a book that women should give themselves and give their friends. Now, since I know that most women would worry about why their friend has given them such a book—but because I also think this book should be a gift given to every Sister-in-the-Lord—I ask that if you receive the book, you receive it with the spirit in which it was given—love! I highly recommend Weightless as the foundational piece for the health and exercise program you seek as a Christian woman.

 The next two books I recommend are actually listed in Wicker’s Weightless book: The Rosary Workout by Peggy Bowes and Fit for Eternal Life by Kevin Vost. Working with Peggy on her book a few years ago, I truly began to see how my Catholic faith and my interest in physical health could be combined. Peggy is one of the most interesting women I have ever met and her understanding of wholeness and holiness is something I truly admire. Her book, The Rosary Workout, isn’t just about walking and saying the Rosary. Bowes’ book is about understanding the ways in which our bodies work—and when they are working well how we can more fully live out our vocations. Bowes flew planes for the Air Force and is a certified health and fitness instructor. Her knowledge of health and passion for her Catholic faith are beautifully shared in The Rosary Workout.

 When I first read Fit for Eternal Life a couple of years ago, I was taken by Vost’s ability to draw from Scripture while explaining how to get the most out of my strength training. I found his book to be the perfect complement to the aerobic training I was being introduced to in The Rosary Workout. Since then I’ve been able to combine the two into what has become my routine. More importantly, each day, because of the works of Vost and Bowes, I am able to view my body in a more wholesome and holy way.

 Since their work (Vost and Bowes) became so important to me, I invited them to write a devotional—which they did. Along with Shane Kapler (who followed Vost’s advice in Fit for Eternal Life and lost 40 pounds!) who is also an author (The God Who Is Love), the three recently released Tending the Temple: 365 Days of Physical and Spiritual Devotions which I have had the good fortune to publish. I’ve got to admit, for a daily dose of encouragement, nothing beats what these three authors offer in Tending the Temple!

 The other resource I want to mention for the Catholic health and fitness enthusiast—or the enthusiast in the making—is the book and DVD by Michael Carrera, Catholic Workout. Like Wicker, Vost, Bowes, and Kapler, Carrera’s great passion helps us see the whole self as a temple to be cared for and whose purpose of serving God is best accomplished through its loving care. Although simply made, the DVD does offer something new for anyone seeking a Catholic bent on their exercise routine.

 (I’d actually like to see some entity or production company or person with great vision to use the talents of all these excellent, knowledge and creative authors and explore what can be  brought to bear in the way of a Catholic Health and Fitness television or radio program—or a DVD series or something!)

 In the meantime, wherever the Holy Spirit is taking you in terms of your physical and spiritual journey, I am sure that you will be greatly blessed by any—or all—of these resources so that your good intentions become actions. You will be more fully equipped, with knowledge obtained through their passions and expertise, to better serve God who created you.

Bishop William Murphy’s letter to members of the US House of Representatives endorsing comprehensive health care for every inhabitant of the United States (including illegal immigrants) raises an important question about the involvement of the United States bishops in politics. Granted, the letter comes from Bishop Murphy as chairman of the Domestic Justice and Human Development Committee of the USCCB. It is not, apparently, a mandate of the body of bishops as a whole. Nonetheless, the letter once again raises the critical question: Where is the line between moral principles, which the bishops must enunciate clearly and forcefully, and public policy, which the bishops have neither the charism nor the competence to formulate?

This question has long haunted the Church in America, especially in the heady post-Vatican II years when many bishops apparently believed that Catholic doctrine itself was in the midst of a major reformulation, resulting in episcopal political statements that were sometimes not so very well grounded in Catholic moral principles. But the main issue is not whether the bishops have a firm grasp of Catholic moral principles, but whether they have a superior grasp of how effectively this or that public policy embodies those principles. According to Church teaching, they don’t. In both theory and practice it is up to the laity, formed by Catholic principles, to determine the best prudential response to various public issues.

The episcopal office does not confer any particular special insight into either the feasibility or the effectiveness of proposed public policies; nor is there any historical warrant for suggesting that, in practice, bishops as a body are better at this sort of thing than laymen. In fact, both by training and experience, one would expect politically active lay persons to have a better grasp of the art of the possible in implementing effective public policies, just as one would expect bishops to have a better grasp of Catholic faith and morals.

Social Justice and Social Change

When the Church involves herself in politics, she is wont to talk about “social justice” rather than charity. However, as Pope Benedict XVI clearly stated in his first encyclical, Deus Caritas Est , the special province of the Church is charity. It is the State which has justice as its proper end. This does not mean that the Church should not teach the principles of justice. Justice derives from the moral law, which Revelation helps the Church to enunciate with unmatched clarity. But there is a blurry line between charity and justice in the public context, even when both aim at the same goal.

For example, consider these questions: Is it a matter of charity or justice that free education should be available to all citizens? Or that the poor should receive a high level of housing and food benefits? Or that health care should be free? There is no “right” answer to these questions; the answers depend very much on the social context. In previous eras, nobody would have argued that the State had an obligation in justice to provide these things. The scope of the State was utterly insufficient to the purpose, and economic conditions were such that it simply could not be expected that a very large percentage of citizens could ever have access to such benefits. But if one person denied to another person a benefit to which he was ordinarily entitled—stealing a noble’s inheritance or riding roughshod over a peasant’s right to common acreage and shared equipment—then a matter of justice was clearly present. For the rest, the charity of friends, neighbors and the Church herself was essential to get people through difficult times.

In Western affluent mass societies, the general level of material well-being is far higher, and it is not (in theory) based on rank or class. Universal public education is a fact of life, and in a non-agrarian society education is seen as a key to making one’s livelihood. We tend to think, therefore, that everyone has a right to be educated; hence it is a matter of justice if someone is denied schooling. But we carry this only so far. It does not apply to college or graduate school. In other words, a moment’s reflection reveals to us that issues of justice are not always absolute. Instead, many issues take on a dimension of justice by virtue of the conventions of the social context in which the issues are raised. The most important point to recognize here is that the term “social justice” is very malleable; it is what the ancients recognized as distributive justice, and it must take circumstances into account. Thus it depends only partly on the natural law and to a much greater degree on the expectations, customs and capabilities of the society in question. (In contrast, charity faces no such conceptual problems: It is always a personal response to another’s need out of love.)

Health Care

Health care is an excellent case in point. The very dream that all people should have access to a high level of professional health care depends on the peculiar features of particular societies: the widespread availability of competent professional care; a generalized familiarity with such care throughout the social order; a high percentage of persons already enjoying the advantages of this care; a significant understanding of public health; the advancement of medicine to the point that the difference between those who have medical care and those who do not is both significant and predictable; and of course tremendous affluence.

But for this dream to be the proper province of the State, we must somehow translate it from the sphere of desire to the sphere of justice. One would expect that the special gift of bishops would be to articulate the principles which make a given potential benefit a matter of justice; the case needs to be made because there is very little absolute about this sort of social claim. Thus the bishops might suggest (as I believe they would be right to do) that the claim to health care (or any other social benefit) becomes a matter of justice in a given society when that society begins to perceive, in its own context, that health care is unnecessarily unavailable to defined groups of people who—again, in the culture’s own particular context—would ordinarily be expected to have access to it.

The example of education may again prove useful. At a certain point in Western history, it became a feature of our common Western culture that the vast majority of people could be educated. A variety of philosophical, social and economic circumstances led to this cultural shift, and it took a very long time for the availability of education to reach anything like what we might call critical mass. Once critical mass was reached, it became the norm that all persons should be educated in a certain way (so much so that people gradually lost a great deal of personal control over the matter). Once this became the norm—and not before—society was in a position to judge it an injustice if anyone was prevented from going to school. Health care is perhaps now on a similar trajectory. However, it is not a matter of absolute principle but of socio-economic-political judgment whether, in fact, our culture is in a position to demand a certain level of health care as a matter of justice.

Problems

Once again, the primary role of bishops is not to endorse a particular policy proposal or a particular demographic result, but to explain the various principles and related considerations which might be sufficient to make health care a justice issue. Such a case may well be worthy of serious consideration, given the current characteristics of our society. Moreover, I would suggest that the bishops ought to be uniquely qualified to make this case—just as they are generally unqualified to endorse any particular method of embodying such principles of justice in public policy.

After all, there are grave problems with any specific implementation of these principles in health care. Costs, quality of care, and personal liberty in determining the nature and scope of one’s medical treatment are among the more obvious. But the very involvement of the public order in medical care raises problems of its own, just as it has in education. It is no secret that a very large number of bishops were reared in the social traditions of modern liberalism. Perhaps as a result, many bishops assume that if a social problem exists, the Federal government must be put in charge of solving it. But he who lives by the Federal government may well die by it, for the Federal government is deeply involved in and supportive of quite a few grave moral evils in the realm of standard health care.

Bishop Murphy recognizes this difficulty, sort of. He warns that “no health care legislation that compels Americans to pay for or participate in abortion will find sufficient votes to pass.” But this is only another political judgment that no bishop is qualified to make. The smart money, I think, suggests that a universal medical system, if it were to pass all the other objections, would not be long subverted by such “petty” concerns as contraception, abortion and the use of aborted embryos in medical treatments—or even by assisted suicide, should that become the secular norm. One needs only to consider how we have fared in keeping such things out of insurance coverage. In any case, the main point is that Bishop Murphy, who only “sort of” sees the problem, does not see it as something that would deter him from demanding that the Federal government institute comprehensive health care now. The same ideological problems that undermine the values of the American citizenry in public education will be at work in the actual giving and taking of life in public medicine.

It probably isn’t necessary to raise the question of costs; the public is very sensitive to cost issues at the moment anyway. But Bishop Murphy’s letter does endorse the provision of ”comprehensive and affordable health care for every person living in the United States.” This hides a hornet’s nest of questions, many of which revolve around the question of how much health care we can afford for how many. Alas, Revelation does not touch upon this issue. Questions of efficiency and quality are equally complex. For example, would it be unjust to allow persons of means to seek additional or better health care than the universal system provides? This would, after all, give them a social advantage. And would doctors and hospitals be permitted to provide such health care outside the system? Another huge consideration is the impact on illegal immigration of ever-greater public benefits for every man, woman and child residing on American soil.

Willy Nilly Doesn’t Cut It

Again, my point is not to argue against a better solution to health care in our society. As I have indicated, my personal assessment is that, although the best course is far from clear, our society does possess the combination of characteristics which make it morally necessary to think hard about this question, and to consider what might be done. As societies grow and change, along with their resources and their methods of using resources, different questions come to the fore, and sometimes circumstances do change enough to require the application of principles of justice to new areas of life, areas in which the question of justice was quite rightly inapplicable in another place and another time.

But it goes way beyond what we can know in our current context to assume willy nilly that these questions of justice are clear and easily applicable, or that one particular solution is obviously the best course. By all means, the bishops should lead a penetrating discussion of how and when certain social realities push new questions into the sphere of what we might call relative justice. They should apply this discussion very particularly to health care. And they should also point out clearly any absolute moral imperatives they see as critical to the discussion, such as not being forced to participate in murder. Then, based on an ever-deepening understanding of moral issues provided by cogent episcopal teaching, the bishops need to back away and allow the laity to do their own proper job: The formulation and implementation of specific public policies.