Benedict, human suffering, and insufferable journalists

Invariably, the most insufferable member of any congregation is the one who is never in need of homiletical instruction or correction himself, but who is constantly reminding his fellow parishioners to heed "what the preacher said last Sunday." Such a person is very likely to shout "Amen!" when the man in the pulpit utters a stinging rebuke of persons lacking humility, always assuming the intended target is the well-dressed lady three rows down on the other side of the aisle. With regard to the pronouncements of Pope Benedict XVI, David Gibson (no relation) would appear to be just such a person. He is, of course, not alone. Journalists reporting on the public statements of religious leaders regularly show themselves to be insufferable, cherry picking those portions of such statements which support their agenda and slinging them in the face of detractors.

Addressing the 25th international conference of the Pontifical Council for Healthcare Ministry, Benedict stated that universal access to healthcare is a fundamental human right. There was nothing earthshaking or controversial about such a statement coming from the pontiff. He was merely restating traditional Catholic social teaching. Moreover, he was speaking to an international conference which has met regularly for the last quarter century. In other words, healthcare is not simply an issue the pope and his cohorts suddenly decided to address in light of recent events. From its very inception, the church has been at the forefront of alleviating human suffering and providing healthcare to all, often doing so in the face of stiff cultural and political opposition. But the big picture, as we have come, sadly, to expect, is of no relevance to contemporary journalists whose only concern is how a statement from the leader of a worldwide institution, intended to foster unity and cooperation for the promotion of the common good, can be twisted to ratchet up division and acrimony in one country where healthcare is a current topic of debate. Two paragraph's from (David) Gibson's column are illustrative of this point.

Phrases like "distributive justice" and "guaranteed universal access to health care" are anathema to Republicans (and might send Glenn Beck into apoplexy), but they are especially problematic for many conservative Catholic Republicans such as incoming House Speaker John Boehner. These Republicans are often cast as more loyal to the pope than Catholic Democrats, even though they oppose universal health care and other church priorities, such as immigration reform.

Many Republicans did cite claims (widely disputed) that health care reform would fund abortion as one reason for their opposition. In his message Thursday, the pope specifically objected to any health care policies that would include abortion coverage, in-vitro fertilization (which can entail the destruction of embryos) or "legalized euthanasia." But Republicans, and most Catholics among them, opposed health care reform because of its expansion of government regulation, a position that put them at odds with the Catholic bishops of the United States, with Catholic teaching, and with the pope.

Let us consider the first cited paragraph in light of the full context of Benedict's remarks.

Important also in the field of health, integral part of each one's existence and of the common good, is to establish a true distributive justice that guarantees to all, on the basis of objective needs, adequate care. Consequently, the world of health cannot be subtracted from the moral rules that should govern it so that it will not become inhuman. As I stressed in the encyclical "Caritas in Veritate," the social doctrine of the Church has always evidenced the importance of distributive justice and of social justice in the different sectors of human relations (No. 35). Justice is promoted when one receives the life of the other and one assumes responsibility for him, responding to his expectations, because in him one grasps the face itself of the Son of God, who for us was made man. The divine image impressed in our brother is the foundation of the lofty dignity of every person and arouses in each one the need of respect, of care and of service. The bond between justice and charity, in the Christian perspective, is very close: "Charity exceeds justice, because to love is to give, to offer of my 'own' to the other; but it is never without justice, which induces to give the other what is 'his,' that which is due to him by reason of his being and his acting. [...] He who loves others with charity is first of all just to them. Not only is justice not foreign to charity, not only is it not an alternative or parallel way to charity: Justice is 'inseparable from charity,' intrinsic to it. Justice is the first way of charity" (Ibid., 6). In this connection, with a synthetic and incisive expression, St. Augustine taught that "justice consists in helping the poor" ("De Trinitate," XIV, 9: PL 42, 1045).

There is a fine line between "distributive justice" advocated by Benedict and "redistributive justice," which is a basic tenet of socialist states. The former is brought about through individuals acting freely out of charity with a sense of justice; the latter is brought about by government coercion through unjust means. There is not so fine a line between "guranteed universal access to healthcare" and "universal healthcare coverage." The two are not one and the same, by a long shot. Contrary to (David) Gibson's claim in the second cited paragraph, opposition to "health care reform because of its expansion of government regulation" does not put one "at odds with the Catholic bishops of the United States, with Catholic teaching, and with the pope." At the height of the healthcare debate last year, a joint statement by Archbishop Joseph Naumann and Bishop Robert W. Finn of Kansas City stated clearly and succinctly the difference between the rights and responsibilities of individuals and the government's obligations with regard to healthcare.

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.

Had he done the slightest bit of research, (David) Gibson would undoubtedly have found this statement on any number of websites and blogs. Whether it would have changed the relative nature of his column is doutful, however. Insufferable journalists are always more eager to create facts than to report them.

UPDATE: On another issue related to health and morality, the press is ginning up more needless controversy. The Anchoress has a roundup of coverage of the pope's remarks about condoms in his new book.