|
||
|
||
|
||
In the final analysis, the denials of legal health care services not only to non-Catholics but even to Catholics who don't want to follow certain doctrines is nothing short of outrageous. Imagine, for a moment, if the Jehovah's Witnesses ran or controlled increasing numbers of hospitals. It would not be unexpected that they might wish their moral doctrines to be policy in those hospitals - and why not?
But that would include a prohibition on blood transfusions! Imagine the outrage that would occur if more and more people found that the only hospital in their community no longer provided blood transfusions and relied instead on dangerous, "bloodless" operations. The Jehovah's Witnesses might have every right to run their institutions by their rules, but they would have not right to use taxpayer funds to enforce and promote those rules.
And neither does the Catholic Church. They have no business using public funding to limit the public's health care choices. They have no business using our taxes to instruct patients about the "Christian understanding of redemptive suffering." It is unfortunate that Mother Teresa was able to get away with providing inadequate health care in India because of her religious doctrines, but it shouldn't be allowed to happen here, too. The Catholic Church needs to make a choice: receive government funding and assistance, or impose their religious doctrines on employees and clients. They cannot have both.
What is particularly sad is that the rabid anti-Catholic bigotry which swept the United States during the 19th Century when so many Catholic immigrants came to America was justified in part by a fear that the Vatican, through the Catholic immigrants, would try to control America. This is why it took so long for America to elect a Catholic President - and John F. Kennedy had to assure voters that he would not be limited by Vatican policies when he exercised the powers of his office.
Although the Roman Catholic Church was much more authoritarian during the 19th Century than it is today, the fears which lead to anti-Catholic bigotry were largely unfounded. It is thus especially sad that those fears are actually finding some minor justification here. (This is not a defense of anti-Catholic bigotry, however.)
Not only are average Catholics not responsible for these events, they don't even support them. A 1995 survey found that 80% of Catholic women (as opposed to 90% of non-Catholic women) were opposed to the possibility that their health care options would be limited if their local hospital merged with a Catholic organization.
So don't blame individual Catholics! Indeed, many of them suffer as much as non-Catholics from this. They live in a country were religious freedom is supposed to rule and where they don't have to abide by certain Catholic doctrines if they choose not to - other Catholics in the world are not so fortunate.
No, the blame lies with Roman Catholic leaders here and in the Vatican. It also lies with craven, spineless politicians who would allow religious organizations to officially limit citizen's choices. Religious freedom doesn't just mean that Catholic institutions should be able to choose how they run their business. It also means that the rest of us shouldn't be forced to live under Catholic doctrines or pay for their implementation.
Religious freedom means that Catholic hospitals must choose: government funding and support or the imposition of Catholic doctrines on patients and employees. They can't have both!
-->