Well. Evidently poverty, famine, war, and general evil-itude has been eradicated around these parts. Why else would professional instigators and barely-holy men Joseph Naumann and Robert Finn — ostensibly an archbishop and a bishop, though their suitability for those positions is under constant question — turn their full attention to the government health care debate? You know, that one that the secular United States government is having? Alas, it seems Mssrs. Naumann and Finn have seen fit to declare their full-throated opposition to said reform, based on… what, exactly?
The right of every individual to access health care does not necessarily suppose an obligation on the part of the government to provide it. Yet in our American culture, Catholic teaching about the “right” to healthcare is sometimes confused with the structures of “entitlement.” The teaching of the Universal Church has never been to suggest a government socialization of medical services. Rather, the Church has asserted the rights of every individual to have access to those things most necessary for sustaining and caring for human life, while at the same time insisting on the personal responsibility of each individual to care properly for his or her own health.
Oh, I see. So you can be pro-access when it comes to ensuring people have proper health care, but when we must establish some kind of structure to actually deliver that access, you’re conveniently devoid of any and all responsibility. Very convenient logic, sirs. Sort of like being pro-civic services but anti-tax?
Unfortunately, this isn’t the first time a bastardization of religious teaching has been used to circumvent the health care debate. Nor, we suspect, will it be the last. Somewhere, Jesus is no doubt beaming with pride.