What does the debate over Obamacare come down to, small government versus big government, state control of health care versus private control of healthcare or simply socialism versus captitalsim? If you give all sides of this debate the benefit of the doubt then its about justice, not just the achievement of a particular state of affairs (reducing the numbers of uninsured) but a moral means to that end. Most Catholics would agree that reducing the number of uninsured persons is a goal but if that's the case then why has the USCCB protested so strongly against the health care bill? Its the means to the end that's being protested by the Bishops. This objction of the Bishops is not a small obstacle. I believe their objection gets to the heart of the issue. The foundation for justice lies in the culture that we generate during our efforts to achieve our goal. The recent DHHS policies illustrate well the problem with the current health care legislation. The DHHS has interpreted the religious exemption so narrowly that Catholic health care institutions will be forced to pay for contraception and sterilization. Catholic institutions will be forced to act in direct violation of their basic beliefs.
As Archbishop Chaput has explained, communities and mediating instutions are essential to the fabric of life in our society. Their integrity is essential to a healthy expression of charity and communal life.
The Catholic social principal of subsidiarity will help us to put it all in perspective. Basically, subsidiarity states that government exists to support society which has the family at its foundation, not the other way around. Mediating instutions, such as the Church, are essential to weaving together the various units and generating the fabric of society. Under the principal of subsidiarity larger organizations exist to support smaller organizations without the power to interfere their natural authority. There is an increasing number of examples where this principal is being violated. Colleen Campbell reports that universities have exercised their right, according to a recent supreme court decision, to impose their diversity policies on student groups and who they choose as leaders. Student groups can not exclude student members that do not agree with their basic goal and beliefs. Vanderbilt is targeting Christian conservative groups but as Colleen states:
By the logic of Vanderbilt administrators, the Muslim Student Association must allow ultra-orthodox Jews to run its meetings. OUTLaw, a campus gay and lesbian alliance, must welcome members who oppose gay rights. The Vanderbilt Secular Student Alliance must accept Bible-toting proselytizers. The campus environmentalists must admit global-warming skeptics; the campus vegetarians must embrace leather-wearing, Big Mac-munching hunters; and the Vanderbilt branch of Amnesty International must roll out the welcome mat for death-penalty backers.
Its more than absurd, it betrays a blindness to the the integrity of mediating institutions. Its real simple, Catholic health care exists in order to accomplish Christian charity and student groups exist to help foster their particular goals. If we destroy the very life of our society in the process of seeking our goal we will NOT achieve justice. How can we miss this basic point?! Giving consideration to the integrity of the mediating institutions, no matter how big or small, is essential to reasonable dialogue on social justice issues.
