Published on Commonweal Magazine (https://www.commonwealmagazine.org)
Home > Uncertainty Principle
The lesson applies not to the substance of the bishops' negative conclusion on the health-care bill, but to the level of certainty the bishops have claimed for their judgment. It is this latter issue that has been most divisive. Certain bishops, completely confident of their position, have punished Catholic individuals and organizations that reached a different conclusion about what the Affordable Care Act allows and how it will be interpreted by the courts. Some observers, such as Richard Gaillardetz (see "The Limits of Authority," [1] August 13, 2010), have raised important questions pertaining to the authority of bishops and the role of prudence in any episcopal intervention in public life.
Cardinal George explained his position in his presidential address [2] at the November 2010 USCCB meeting. He said the bishops had faced an "empirical" question concerning whether the legislation permitted "the funding of abortions beyond the restrictions imposed by the Hyde amendment." He added that "laypeople who carefully analyzed the contents of the legislation…freed us, the bishops, to make the necessary moral judgments." Their moral judgment was that, since the USCCB's lay experts found that the legislation allowed abortion funding not already permitted by the Hyde Amendment, the bishops should oppose it. But the bishops conference went further than this, insisting that all Catholics must agree with them: there could be no responsible Catholic endorsement of the final bill.
Cardinal George's argument was later supplemented by a statement written by USCCB staff theologian Fr. Thomas Weinandy. Titled "The Bishops and the Right Exercise of Authority," [3] this statement responded to Gaillardetz's Commonweal article and defended the bishops' final position on the Affordable Care Act. Weinandy argued that the bishops conference acted within its authority when it insisted "that all Catholics and organizations that reside under the Catholic umbrella must agree with its analysis."
Related: Devil's Advocates [4] and Episcopal Oversight [5], by Timothy Stoltzfus Jost
The Limits of Authority [1], by Richard Gaillardetz
Catholic Unity [6] and Crying Wolf [7], by the Editors
From the blog: Jost Jousts [8]
2011-03-25 [9]
Abortion [10]
Health Care [11]
Please email comments to [email protected] [12] and join the conversation on our Facebook page [13].
Share [14]
Twitter [15]
Print [16]
Source URL:https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/uncertainty-principle
[1] http://commonwealmagazine.org/limits-authority [2] http://www.catholicnewworld.com/cnwonline/2010/1121/cardinal.aspx [3] http://www.nccbuscc.org/healthcare/11-01-10-commonweal-response.shtml [4] http://commonwealmagazine.org/devils-advocates [5] http://commonwealmagazine.org/episcopal-oversight [6] http://commonwealmagazine.org/catholic-unity [7] http://commonwealmagazine.org/crying-wolf [8] http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/blog/?p=9146 [9] https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/node/29885 [10] https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/abortion [11] https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/health-care [12] mailto:[email protected] [13] http://www.facebook.com/commonwealmagazine [14] http://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/uncertainty-principle [15] https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/uncertainty-principle [16] https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/print/32310