ARTICLES

Wise Shepherding or Lack of Commitment?

Bishop Ryan, Measure Q, and Catholic Social Teaching

BY STEPHEN FRANKINI

Sylvester Ryan, bishop of the diocese of Monterey, wrote an article in the November edition of the diocesan newspaper, The Observer, endorsing a controversial Monterey county ballot measure, Measure Q. The initiative aimed to raise the county sales tax a half-cent in order to save financially ailing Natividad Medical Center in Salinas. The measure was defeated in December, though, according to a local newspaper, it is likely it will be revived in a different version in June 2004.

Critics attacked the measure from various angles. But putting aside the fiscal and political arguments against the measure -- such as financial mismanagement and incremental socialism -- there exists a crucial moral dilemma. The hospital performs abortions, sterilization, and other contraceptive services. Can a Catholic voluntarily vote for a tax that will fund both health care and abortions?

I called the diocese to ask how the bishop justified supporting the hospital in light of these facts. Diocesan spokesman, Kevin Drabinski, after consulting with Bishop Ryan, said, "the bishop has not changed his position in support of Measure Q," and then he directed me to the November 2003 edition of The Observer, where one can find the full text of the measure.

The bishop's article made it sound as if supporting Measure Q was the clear choice for any right thinking Catholic. It states: "Measure Q is a critical matter of true social justice, not politics or partisan concerns." Then Ryan cites two reasons to support his view. In his first argument, he appeals to the Catholic belief in the dignity of every human person, as well as to the principle of solidarity, whereby we are all part of one human family. He goes on to state: "adequate medical care is never just a matter of privilege or benefits only for a portion of the population in our communities. Adequate medical care is a matter of human rights."

In writing this, the bishop seems to be following the teaching of Pope John XXIII, in his encyclical Pacem in Terris. "Man has the right to live," the pope wrote. "He has the right to bodily integrity and to the means necessary for the proper development of life, particularly food, clothing, shelter, medical care, rest, and, finally, the necessary social services. In consequence, he has the right to be looked after in the event of ill health; disability stemming from his work; widowhood; old age; enforced unemployment; or whenever through no fault of his own he is deprived of the means of livelihood."

But does the fact that health care is not just for a privileged few mean that one must support Measure Q? Are there no alternatives?

The bishop argued that the closure or extreme downsizing of Natividad would put an "impossible" burden on the other local hospitals -- thus placing the "primary work force" in increasing danger of a "much higher risk of increasing serious illnesses along with their families." According to the bishop, "extreme downsizing" of Natividad is the inevitable result of a defeat of Measure Q.

He closed by saying, "I urge all of our Catholic people in the County of Monterey to vote for Measure Q in order to retain and enhance the mission of Natividad Hospital to provide sufficient medical care for all its clientele. Passing Measure Q will be an effective sign that we truly believe that our solidarity in 'loving our neighbor has community dimensions in an interdependent world.' (Sharing Catholic Social Teaching, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops)."

Bishop Ryan made no mention of abortion in his article. In fact, if one were simply to trust the bishop just because he is the bishop, one would think support for Measure Q is a black and white issue. Health care is good, and everyone is entitled to it; therefore you should vote "yes". Who after all is against human dignity, solidarity, and "charity in justice"?

It is difficult to say just how bad the situation would be if Natividad either closed, or more likely, severely cut back its services. But just to get an idea of the significance of the hospital, its 2001-2002 annual report states that it had 156,000 outpatient visits. In 2002 there were 10,500 admissions to the hospital and 2700 baby deliveries. It has been argued by proponents of the measure that the emergency room of neighboring Salinas Valley Memorial would be filled to overflowing.

I called Thomas Storck for help on how to approach the subject of Measure Q. Storck, who lives in Greenbelt, Maryland, has written extensively on the Church's social teachings in such publications as Caelum et Terra, New Oxford Review, and Catholic Faith. He has also written books on economic justice and related subjects, including Foundations of Catholic Political Order and The Catholic Milieu. After explaining the measure to Storck, I asked him if a Catholic could ever justify voting for such a tax increase that would help fund abortions?

Storck made it clear to me that he did not wish to comment specifically on Measure Q, but intended simply to lay out certain applicable principles. Storck said that the relevant principle was that of the "double effect" -- a rule of conduct frequently used in moral theology to determine when a person may lawfully perform an action from which two effects will follow, one bad and the other good.

The two relevent effects in this case are health care and abortion. There are four conditions of the double effect: the original act (in this case, paying taxes) is good or neutral; the good act (health care) does not flow from the evil act (abortion); you can only will the good act, not the bad act; and the good act that is willed outweighs the bad act that is tolerated.

First, said Storck, Our Lord commands us to pay taxes. Secondly, health care does not flow from abortion. And it is possible for a voter to want health care for his entire community without desiring the proliferation of abortion. But what about the fourth principle? How does one determine if the advantages of health care far outweigh the negative effects of abortion? The number of lives saved or lost?

"The number of lives lost and saved is only one aspect of the question," said Storck. "For a community not to have a hospital is devastating." Storck mentioned that it is a difficult question and that it would be necessary to analyze the alternatives to Natividad hospital. One must also consider how many abortion clinics are in an area. Closing Natividad might create a significant burden to community health care while doing little or nothing to decrease the number of abortions performed in the area. "But," said Storck, "if there is anything one can do to minimize the bad effects, one must do so."

I asked Storck to what kinds/levels of health care we have a right. Does everyone have a right to chemotherapy, catscans, and MRIs? "Its not a question of individual rights, its about providing for the common good. It would be like asking if I have the right to a road," said Storck. At least "ordinary means" should be taken to keep a person alive and heathy, he continued. The word "ordinary" would take into account both the needs demanded by human nature and what kinds of technology are available. Storck said that one could argue that more is expected in a community that can afford better health care, even extraordinary means of care. "It would be remiss for a rich community to not supply them," he said.

"The bishop's duties and the voters' duties are different," said Storck. "The bishop has more power over Catholic politicians than you do." Storck observed, "it is a sorry spectacle that bishops can only get galvanized on non controversial issues, that get approval from newspapers, rather than on things like condemnations of pro-abort politicians."

I asked Storck why he considered the principle of the double effect reliable. He said that not only has it been taught in moral theology manuals for many years, but that it is really just a matter of common sense. For instance, we build roads on which we know that some people will die in traffic accidents, yet the common good requires that we have roads on which to travel.

In an article posted on the Seattle Catholic website, Thomas A. Drolesky, publisher-editor of Christ or Chaos, a quarterly journal of Catholic commentary, addressed Bishop Ryan's endorsement of Measure Q in light of Catholic social teaching.

Catholic social teaching, he explained, "is an effort to apply the binding precepts of the divine positive law and the natural law to the concrete circumstances in which men find themselves in this vale of tears." Sometimes, applying Catholic social teaching involves "prudential judgements," though these decisions must be based upon Church teaching. In some cases, Catholics are free to disagree on the application of Church teaching. For example, Drolesky points out, many orthodox Catholics were divided over whether the United States' 2003 invasion of Iraq was justified. Both sides argued over the correct application of the just war theory.

Drolesky argues that the widespread violation of the principle of subsidiarity as outlined by Pope Pius XI in Quadragesimo Anno makes it difficult for modern-day Catholics to determine the best course of public policy. "The principle of subsidiarity contends that human needs should be met in the institution closest to those who are in need," writes Drolesky. Elderly parents, he argues, should not be cared for by the state but by the family. Children today shirk their responsibilities and rely upon Social Security, nursing homes, and Medicare to pay for the care of the parents.

Drolesky attributes the causes of material insecurities, at least partially, to widespread divorce. Social institutions were developed to deal with those problems, thus making people "wards of the states." Contraception also has destabilized the family, reducing its size and making it more difficult for children to shoulder the burden. It has also, he claims, led to more narcissistic children who have no intention to sacrifice for their parents. Public schools teach children to eschew the family.

Following the principle of subsidiarity, Drolesky argues that ideally if the family can not take care of the elderly, then the parish should. Otherwise, a community of people on the diocesan level should. It has always been the duty of the Church. And it is better that this duty is taken on by the Church, where Catholicism is enshrined, rather than by a secular institution. The Catholic institutions have been forced to yield to the state, thus increasing the state's power.

Drolesky concluded: "if Bishop Ryan were intent on fulfilling his duty as a shepherd of souls, then he would have sought to use his considerable influence in Monterey County to insist that he would only urge Catholic voters to support Proposition Q if Natividad Medical Center stopped killing babies, sterilizing men and women, and dispensing contraceptives. His failure even to make such an effort demonstrates more about his lack of commitment to the Catholic Faith and the discharge of his Apostolic Mandate than he realizes."

TOP