Where Do We Go From Here?

[Thy Geekdom Come]

My older brother, who is extensively well-read in history and specializes in the history of communism, and has in the past been invited as a political commentator in a nationally televised round-table on the topic of the War on Terror, sent me an email this evening regarding the socialization of our healthcare.

I wrote this reply, but I want to know your specific thoughts on where we go from here. I think it goes without saying that we cannot trust our political leadership; a grassroots personal, familial, and cultural renewal is necessary. I want your ideas, specifically on how people in different roles, occupations, family situations, etc., can work toward this renewal.

Anyway, here is the message I sent back to my brother:

Matt, I can't say that I have any hope left in our government and I'm fond of mimicking Texas in calling for the withdrawl and secession of the entire Louisiana Purchase. Thankfully, I have the benefit of knowing via theology and history that God has conquered the world and as much as we may have to fear, we still ultimately have nothing to fear. However, the pain and difficulty that will be forthcoming is certainly going to be a crucible. We already pay $680/month for health insurance, simply because Catholic insurance is outrageously expensive and there are no cheaper alternatives for us.

I think in these times, we must look to our Catholic faith. I'm not sure you realize it, but I teach Church history and social justice, and since I follow the revisionist views of neither of these fields, I make it clear to my class how supportive Church teaching is of small government, lower taxes, the dignity of workers, the rights of families, and a little thing we call the principle of subsidiarity, which fully provides grounds for a grassroots model of government. I show my students that when the Nazis invaded Poland, they took over education and anything else they could. In that environment, Karol Wojtyla wrestled with how to respond properly. As the horror ended and the Communists rolled into Krakow, where he lived, he analyzed their actions carefully. He had read the Manifesto years before and was fully aware of their plans and modi operandi. He knew that Communism, which is now being forced on the American people, would try to lead men into the error of thinking that their rights came from the state, but rights correspond to dignity and human dignity most certainly does not come from the state. He knew that the government would attack the human person, the family, the culture, and the Church. He also knew that culture and philosophy shape thoughts and actions which result in real and practical government. He knew that culture depended on the families that made it up and that the family depended on the human person. So, genius that he was, Wojtyla preached the dignity of the human person and the dignity of the family, backing up his preaching with personal witness. You know all about that. It eventually led to the faithful courage of Lech Walesa and his solidarity movement. It eventually, through Wojtyla's papacy and his work with other like-minded folks, led to the downfall of the USSR. Truly just societies can only be built upon an understanding of God; it is from God that we receive our nature and our dignity.

This is why Jennie and I have limited basic cable and don't even watch most of that content. We have been lied to by the media, not just in a misrepresentation of statistical facts relating to politics, but through a deception regarding our nature and our dignity. The God-sized holes in the hearts of all men and women are being filled with junk and empty promises: "you will find your fulfillment in your possessions/paycheck/sex/drugs/mind-numbing entertainment such as Family Guy" and "you will feel accepted if you practice homosexuality/promiscuity/metrosexuality and all kinds and sorts of hedonism." When we have had our intellects dulled so much and our morals corrupted by the falsehoods of ideologies opposed to any honesty or grace, all in a way we accept warmly with the affection we give to "entertainment," how are we to reform society, let alone the culture, family, and the individual? This is why I consider myself on the front lines as a theology teacher. Perhaps you should join me. Good teachers will be needed.

Have you ever read C.S. Lewis' Screwtape Letters? It's really best read slowly and if you give it the careful attention it deserves, I think you will see what a theologian has to say about the roots of the problems we are now seeing and how demonic they really are. I don't need to tell you how that first temptation of man, to be like gods, is played out in the pride we see before us. What is more interesting, perhaps, is the continual thread in the Scriptures of the three chief vices: lust, greed, and pride, embodied in that first temptation in the fruit eaten by Adam and Eve, which was "good for food, pleasing to the eyes, and good for gaining wisdom." Anytime flesh, wants, or exaltation are sought against God's will, they become lust, greed, and pride. These three things Christ, the only perfect King or Ruler ever to grace the world, resisted in the desert (really, Matthew 4, go check it out).

To those naysayers, I can only repeat the words of G.K. Chesterton: "Christianity has not been tried and found wanting, it has been found difficult and left untried."

God bless,

Micah

[Brother Adam]

yup.

[Lilllabettt]

[quote]
I wrote this reply, but I want to know your specific thoughts on where we go from here. I think it goes without saying that we cannot trust our political leadership; a grassroots personal, familial, and cultural renewal is necessary. I want your ideas, specifically on how people in different roles, occupations, family situations, etc., can work toward this renewal.[/quote]

Never trust them.

[quote]He knew that Communism, which is now being forced on the American people, would try to lead men into the error of thinking that their rights came from the state, but rights correspond to dignity and human dignity most certainly does not come from the state. [/quote]

Ummmmmmm.... no. If anything is being forced on us, its socialism. Communism is a specific kind of socialism. That specific kind of socialism is not the goal of the ascendant left wing.

The state is not the source, but the guarantor of rights. Like ... the right to health care. If some people are denied that right, through no fault of their own ... whose responsibility is it to redress that?

[quote]
Have you ever read C.S. Lewis' Screwtape Letters? It's really best read slowly and if you give it the careful attention it deserves, I think you will see what a theologian has to say about the roots of the problems we are now seeing and how demonic they really are. I don't need to tell you how that first temptation of man, to be like gods, is played out in the pride we see before us. What is more interesting, perhaps, is the continual thread in the Scriptures of the three chief vices: lust, greed, and pride, embodied in that first temptation in the fruit eaten by Adam and Eve, which was "good for food, pleasing to the eyes, and good for gaining wisdom." Anytime flesh, wants, or exaltation are sought against God's will, they become lust, greed, and pride. These three things Christ, the only perfect King or Ruler ever to grace the world, resisted in the desert (really, Matthew 4, go check it out).
[/quote]

I have a problem with this. The "tone." These last two paragraphs are true, but I'm definitely queasy about why you included them in an email about the passage of health-care. Desire for universal health care does not rank with "lust, greed, and pride" as "wants ... sought against God's will."

[quote]This is why I consider myself on the front lines as a theology teacher. Perhaps you should join me. Good teachers will be needed.[/quote]

This is lost cause psychology. Re-frame the loss in terms of valiant resistance. Loss as a source of strength and bonding, group identity is solidified through struggle, allowing the defeat to be experienced as victory. The ChiComms did this during the Long March. It's fascinating.

But never mind. When you say "Good teachers will be needed," I assume you mean during the apocalypse to which health care reform has sent us hurtling. Alas, I have heard similar prognostications, questions about "what we do now," when Bill Clinton was elected a second time, when George Bush was elected a second time, etc.

When you ask "what do we do now," who do you mean by "we"? If by "we" you mean Americans ... they should read the bill, inform themselves about how their representatives voted, and prepare to cast an appropriate ballot this Fall.

If by "we" you mean the Conservative political agenda, or Republicans, they should figure out how they can explain the badness of the bill to their constituents, and get ready to start messaging for the Fall.

If by "we" you mean Catholics ... well, Catholics should continue the work they have always been doing (or should have been doing) during the Clinton, Bush, and Obama administrations ... that is, constantly seeking to reform themselves and their communities, resisting evil and doing good.

Good teaches will be needed? What? Good teachers are needed. Good teachers have been needed. The passage of health care reform does not really change much. The Catholic mission is the same; the Republican mission is different though.

Edited March 22, 2010 by Lilllabettt

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Lilllabettt' date='22 March 2010 - 10:09 AM' timestamp='1269266958' post='2077498']
Ummmmmmm.... no. If anything is being forced on us, its socialism. Communism is a specific kind of socialism. That specific kind of socialism is not the goal of the ascendant left wing.[/quote]

What makes you think communism isn't the goal? Of course it is. There's no such thing as a moderate evil remaining a moderate evil. All socialism tends toward communism. Eventually, it will become more and more clear. Furthermore, Obama is a communist, not just a socialist.

[quote]The state is not the source, but the guarantor of rights. Like ... the right to health care. If some people are denied that right, through no fault of their own ... whose responsibility is it to redress that?[/quote]

It is the responsibility of local communities to take care of what they may take care of. Only those things they are incapable of handling should be tackled by a higher level of government. That's the Principle of Subsidiarity in a nutshell. It's outlined in the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church.

Healthcare absolutely needs to be addressed. What the federal government should have done was encouraged local governments to find their own solutions - without stealing money from some to give it to others. Only if that was tried and failed did a larger government (the city, state, and then federal levels) have any right to intervene.

Furthermore, healthcare could be much better handled by doctors who know their patients more personally, but now decisions will have to go through a central bureaucracy that doesn't know doctors or patients. It will be grossly inadequate.

[quote]I have a problem with this. The "tone." These last two paragraphs are true, but I'm definitely queasy about why you included them in an email about the passage of health-care. Desire for universal health care does not rank with "lust, greed, and pride" as "wants ... sought against God's will."[/quote]

Desire for universal healthcare is a good thing. Power-lust, greed, corruption, pride in refusing to acknowledge constituents - these are all evils and are manifested in what you call socialism. It's not the need that's the problem, it's the "solution." This act of Congress was gravely immoral and not just on abortion.

[quote]If by "we" you mean Catholics ... well, Catholics should continue the work they have always been doing (or should have been doing) during the Clinton, Bush, and Obama administrations ... that is, constantly seeking to reform themselves and their communities, resisting evil and doing good.[/quote]

If Catholics had been doing their job, this wouldn't have happened. More importantly, this is a new challenge which requires a specific response. We can't respond adequately by continuing what we've already been doing.

[quote]Good teaches will be needed? What? Good teachers are needed. Good teachers have been needed. The passage of health care reform does not really change much. The Catholic mission is the same; the Republican mission is different though.
[/quote]

Good teachers will be more in need now than ever. When the government starts to eat away at more and more rights, particularly by ignoring the American people and producing a complete nanny state, sure to be followed by massive tax-hikes and low-quality "health care," good teachers will be needed to show students precisely what the government is doing.

As for the partisan comments, I haven't been a supporter of the Republican party in years. Not sure how that's relevant. This was not just an attack on Republicans, this was an attack on hard-working Americans, including Catholics, and it will attack our faith ever increasingly as the fleecing of America continues: abortion, contraception, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, healthcare "rights" for gay "couples," excessive taxation with no real representation, sterilizations. There are already politicians suggesting sterilizing the poor in this climate. This was never about healthcare, this was always about Satan's plans for America.

[marielapin]

The "fix bill" still has to pass the senate folks, and if any changes are made at all, it will have to go back to the House again for a re-vote. They are going to try the reconciliation process there in the Senate, but according to this article, 21 in 22 times when they have tried this process a bill has had to go back to the House to be voted on again. It's not quite over yet. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35977921/ns/politics-health_care_reform/?GT1=43001

[Maggyie]

This new bill doesn't come close to replicating the European model of medicine, which is truly "universal healthcare." The Church has no problem with universal healthcare whatsoever and in fact it seems to be the current preference - hardly an indicator of Communist subterfuge. The Church also does not define taxation as "stealing money from some to give to others." Taxes for the purposes of providing health care are no more theft than taxes for anything else. The Church teaches us that health care is a basic human right, after all. Everyone has the same right to health care as we do to national security.

The principle of subsidiarity does imply that what CAN be handled at the most local level, SHOULD be handled at the most local level. However it does not indicate specifics about what should be handled at the federal level and what should be at the state or town level. Given that healthcare is now a massive and complex part of our national economy wouldn't it make more sense, applying subsidiarity, to handle it at the national level? Think about the disaster of red tape and confusion that would occur if health reform was carried out on a town-by-town basis or even state-by-state. Think how limited you would be in terms of care - you couldn't leave your city or your county to go to a different specialist, a different hospital.

There's no need to be melodramatic about this bill passing. You have to understand that 95 percent of Western democracies live under healthcare plans that are much more "radical" than this.

Edited March 22, 2010 by Maggie

[jeffpugh]

I suppose the only problem is the "economic situation" of today, and the fact that there are immoral factors involved.

[Saint Therese]

The Church teaches that all have the right to access to care, not that the governmnet should tax and spend itself into oblivion so that a dollar based ( not value of life based) health care system, inferior in quality to the one we now have, can be established.

I think that the individual has the real moral responsiblity, above and beyond the state.

The Church does not teach Socialism.

Edited March 22, 2010 by Saint Therese

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Maggie' date='22 March 2010 - 11:29 AM' timestamp='1269271793' post='2077574']
This new bill doesn't come close to replicating the European model of medicine, which is truly "universal healthcare." The Church has no problem with universal healthcare whatsoever and in fact it seems to be the current preference - hardly an indicator of Communist subterfuge.[/quote]

The Church has no problem with universal healthcare, but anyone who reads the documents can plainly see that the way most nations have achieved this is in violation of basic theological principles.

I'm shocked there are so many people here who think this bill could ever be in line with Catholic teaching.

[quote]The Church also does not define taxation as "stealing money from some to give to others." Taxes for the purposes of providing health care are no more theft than taxes for anything else. The Church teaches us that health care is a basic human right, after all. Everyone has the same right to health care as we do to national security.[/quote]

Excessive taxation, particularly progressive income tax, is a violation of the rights of workers to possess the fruit of their labor. It is essentially a monetary form of the communism Pope Leo XIII condemned in Rerum Novarum. Have you read the documents?

[quote]The principle of subsidiarity does imply that what CAN be handled at the most local level, SHOULD be handled at the most local level. However it does not indicate specifics about what should be handled at the federal level and what should be at the state or town level. Given that healthcare is now a massive and complex part of our national economy wouldn't it make more sense, applying subsidiarity, to handle it at the national level? Think about the disaster of red tape and confusion that would occur if health reform was carried out on a town-by-town basis or even state-by-state. Think how limited you would be in terms of care - you couldn't leave your city or your county to go to a different specialist, a different hospital. [/quote]

Certain aspects perhaps should be handled by the federal government, certainly, but the vast majority of this should not be. Do you know what real healthcare reform is? Local doctors being able to give customers a break because they know their needs. This would be more possible if we had tort reform, which the federal government could have done legitimately, which would have driven down costs for doctors and given them more leeway to treat customers freely. The very fact that local solutions were not first encouraged means that the principle of subsidiarity wasn't even considered.

The principle of subsidiarity implies a collaboration between different levels of government. What a more local government can handle, it should. This bill reserves everything to the federal state.

[quote]There's no need to be melodramatic about this bill passing. You have to understand that 95 percent of Western democracies live under healthcare plans that are much more "radical" than this.
[/quote]

Yes, systems that are failing miserably to provide adequate care to anyone. I'm not melodramatic, I'm realistic. If you can't see the gathering storm, then I'm sorry I can't help you.

[Saint Therese]

[quote name='Raphael' date='22 March 2010 - 11:55 AM' timestamp='1269273338' post='2077595']


I'm shocked there are so many people here who think this bill could ever be in line with Catholic teaching.


[/quote]

Me too.

[Groo the Wanderer]

Where to go?

Republic of Texas, of course!

[Era Might]

[quote]
I wrote this reply, but I want to know your specific thoughts on where we go from here. I think it goes without saying that we cannot trust our political leadership; a grassroots personal, familial, and cultural renewal is necessary. I want your ideas, specifically on how people in different roles, occupations, family situations, etc., can work toward this renewal.[/quote]
The more I read and think about modern society, the more I am convinced that the only way to truly change society is to rebuild from within. There is really nothing we can do about the structures on which our society is built, because society is too attached to those structures and is unwilling to seek new ways of living that are rooted in ancient ways of living.

Utopianism doesn't work, because utopianism is inevitably a rigid scheme in which people have to fit. Society cannot be "planned" through social engineering. Our modern society tries to plan and organize everything, which has lead to our institutionalized society where institutions are created to do the planning and controlling.

As I said, I am becoming more and more convinced that the only solution is pretty much to ignore the existing structures and try to build community on the small scale. Of course, we cannot completely ignore the existing structures...that would require us to leave the earth, which is impossible. But I think insofar as we can, we have to be committed to countercultural living. Will this change the world? Probably not. But "changing the world" should not be our goal, because it breeds in us a colonial mindset whereby we want to fit the world into our scheme.

Gandhi referred to his personal practices as "experiments in truth." I think what we need in our society is "experiments in community." There can be many different forms of this, but the unifying principle is that we are trying to create a new society on a small scale. What effect that will have on the future (or on the "official" society) is out of our hands.

Edited March 22, 2010 by Era Might

[Thy Geekdom Come]

http://optoons.blogspot.com/2010/03/smoker-president-signs-government-run.html

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Era Might' date='22 March 2010 - 12:16 PM' timestamp='1269274599' post='2077619']
The more I read and think about modern society, the more I am convinced that the only way to truly change society is to rebuild from within. There is really nothing we can do about the structures on which our society is built, because society is too attached to those structures and is unwilling to seek new ways of living that are rooted in ancient ways of living.

Utopianism doesn't work, because utopianism is inevitably a rigid scheme in which people have to fit. Society cannot be "planned" through social engineering. Our modern society tries to plan and organize everything, which has lead to our institutionalized society where institutions are created to do the planning and controlling.

As I said, I am becoming more and more convinced that the only solution is pretty much to ignore the existing structures and try to build community on the small scale. Of course, we cannot completely ignore the existing structures...that would require us to leave the earth, which is impossible. But I think insofar as we can, we have to be committed to countercultural living. Will this change the world? Probably not. But "changing the world" should not be our goal, because it breeds in us a colonial mindset whereby we want to fit the world into our scheme.

Gandhi referred to his personal practices as "experiments in truth." I think what we need in our society is "experiments in community." There can be many different forms of this, but the unifying principle is that we are trying to create a new society on a small scale. What effect that will have on the future (or on the "official" society) is out of our hands.
[/quote]

I think these thoughts are very much in line with the model Karol Wojtyla gave us. How, though, may we accomplish it?

[Saint Therese]

[quote name='Era Might' date='22 March 2010 - 12:16 PM' timestamp='1269274599' post='2077619']

Utopianism doesn't work, because utopianism is inevitably a rigid scheme in which people have to fit. Society cannot be "planned" through social engineering. Our modern society tries to plan and organize everything, which has lead to our institutionalized society where institutions are created to do the planning and controlling.



Gandhi referred to his personal practices as "experiments in truth." I think what we need in our society is "experiments in community." There can be many different forms of this, but the unifying principle is that we are trying to create a new society on a small scale. What effect that will have on the future (or on the "official" society) is out of our hands.
[/quote]

Utopianism doesn't work because the idea that we can create a perfect society is really a false Gospel.

[Era Might]

[quote name='Raphael' date='22 March 2010 - 12:19 PM' timestamp='1269274798' post='2077623']
I think these thoughts are very much in line with the model Karol Wojtyla gave us. How, though, may we accomplish it?
[/quote]
Well, there are already people who have made "experiments in community." I'm a big admirer of Dorothy Day and Peter Maurin and their idea of "hospitality houses." That is one form of community. Another possibility that they inspired is farming communities. Notice how the hospitality houses can work in cities, while farming communities go outside the city. Solutions have to be able to adapt to different situations.

The point is, I think, there is no one answer to the question "how may we accomplish it." There are any number of ways. The only way to answer that question is to make experiments in community, like Dorothy Day and others have done.

Edited March 22, 2010 by Era Might

[Era Might]

[quote name='Saint Therese' date='22 March 2010 - 12:24 PM' timestamp='1269275052' post='2077628']
Utopianism doesn't work because the idea that we can create a perfect society is really a false Gospel.
[/quote]
Our current society is built on the idea that we can create a perfect society. But what modern society has built is a machine, not a society. Modern society is a machine. Institutions are its cogs.

Modern society is based on the idea that there's nothing it can't fix. People can't read? We'll create schools to "teach" them! People are poor? We'll create social workers to save them! People in other countries don't have democracy? We'll bomb them for their own good and bring them democracy! Drugs and violence on our streets? We'll create massive prisons where we'll house a new class of marginalized people so that we don't have to deal with the socioeconomic issues behind drugs and violence!

I agree that trying to create a perfect society is wrongheaded. Which is precisely why I am opposed to so much in modern society, because our society operates on the assumption that a machine known as "society" is there to plan and fix and regulate everyone's lives.

Edited March 22, 2010 by Era Might

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Era Might' date='22 March 2010 - 12:24 PM' timestamp='1269275077' post='2077629']
Well, there are already people who have made "experiments in community." I'm a big admirer of Dorothy Day and Peter Maurin and their idea of "hospitality houses." That is one form of community. Another possibility that they inspired is farming communities. Notice how the hospitality houses can work in cities, while farming communities go outside the city. Solutions have to be able to adapt to different situations.

The point is, I think, there is no one answer to the question "how may we accomplish it." There are any number of ways. The only way to answer that question is to make experiments in community, like Dorothy Day and others have done.
[/quote]
Two things:

1. All authentic renewal must flow from a Christian understanding of the person, family, and culture.

2. We cannot make the mistake of subordinating the faith to a social goal.

[Saint Therese]

Also I don't think we should forget that poverty is not the worst thing-eternal loss of God is.
So logically, it would be more important to preach the Gospel and evangelize than it would be to give humatiarian aid.

[Era Might]

[quote name='Raphael' date='22 March 2010 - 12:35 PM' timestamp='1269275704' post='2077639']
Two things:

1. All authentic renewal must flow from a Christian understanding of the person, family, and culture.

2. We cannot make the mistake of subordinating the faith to a social goal.
[/quote]
I disagree that Christianity is necessary for rebuilding society. I would argue that this is a colonist mentality, because it inevitably equates the spreading of the faith with the spreading of the civilizations that are built by Christians.

I do not subordinate the faith to a social goal. That is precisely why I do not want to equate society with Christianity, because the faith is eschatological. As St. Paul says, "here we have no lasting city, but we seek the city which is to come" (Hebrews 13:14).

If we are going to equate society with Christianity, then we are dooming society to failure, because most of the world is not Christian. The Gospel should not be used to spread "civilization." The Gospel transcends any civilization. Non-Christians are fully capable of participating in the renewal of society. In fact, we can learn a lot from non-Christian societies in our own attempts to build new societies.

Edited March 22, 2010 by Era Might