Very good, with just two reservations
The Manhattan Declaration is the response of principled people to the proposed legislation instituting socialized medicine in these United States, with the inclusion of taxpayer funded abortions and suicides. It also responds to the legalization of "marriages" other than those between a man and a woman. In all cases it decries the possibility that unwilling people will be forced by law to perform abortions and to assist at suicides and and unnatural "marriages," in violation of their consciences.
If there is a "tad too much" in the Declaration, it is in the implication that human rights extend to having services provided by others to alleviate the difficulties of human life. While a person certainly has the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," those rights do not extend to forcing others to make them possible. "Clean water" and freedom from the "suffering of AIDS" might be said to be "rights," there is no corresponding duty in justice for others to provide that water or to invent a cure for the disease. Charity may certainly urge such a duty, but not justice.
If this seems trivial, it has to be viewed in the larger context of the "Progressive" Movement that, today more than ever, jeopardizes the rights of individuals. The "Progressive" worries not so much about the God given rights of individuals, as he does about some nebulous concept of "the common good," or "the will of the people," or some other such phrase that always translates into "whatever the elite want." Having seen how this plays out in tyranny once it becomes official state policy, "Progressives" have recently turned to define "the common good" in terms where everyone has a right to just about anything they might want. The "Progressive" Nanny State is expected to provide provide everything. Rarely do its theoreticians explain from where the resources to provide this universal care will come. For example:
Generally, the "Progressive" imagines that all of these "rights" will be fulfilled by government, failing to recognize that government is not a productive entity, and nearly always acts as a drag on the productive sectors of society.
As this is being written, the Declaration has over a quarter million signatures, including those of many Christian religious leaders, including a number of Novus Ordo bishops. I am going to guess that a significant number of the Declaration's signatories are in favor of government provided health care--after all, if medical care is a right, only government is powerful enough to force the providers to provide it to everyone. They reason, quite fallaciously, that abortion, suicide, and death panels can simply be written out of the legislation, and thereby provide a morally upright system of socialized medicine. Sometimes they don't bother to worry about the moral issues at all, for example, as in this letter of the bishops to the G8 Summit.
Of its nature, socialism must always be anti-life when practiced by governmental fiat. (It differs from the religious community in which the members voluntarily share their goods and labors for the love of God, rather than for fear of the coercive powers of government.)
Socialism destroys the economic incentives to produce and to innovate--to work hard or to risk one's goods in an enterprise that may fail. Not only does this deprive society of productive output and the solution of its technological problems--it reduces the workforce to a vast army of drones. Socialism further decreases productivity and efficiency by eliminating the feedback inherent in a free market system--production is no longer optimized by consumer demand and resource supply, instead it is planned by bureaucrats acting without knowledge of what is needed or what is available to produce it. Large bureaucracies consume many of the goods and services that remain available in the economy--rather than having an incentive to operate efficiently, the incentive is add bureaucrats and to spend at least what was budgeted in order to be able to ask for even more in the future. Rationing, wage, and price controls contribute to the economic stagnation--and when mixed with bureaucracy, set the stage for favoritism and corruption.
As society is forced to be less productive as a whole, and less rational in its production choices, useful goods and services become scarce. Those things which "progressive" society has defined as "rights"--like housing, food, and medical care--may even become unavailable. Government control is the reason for those horror stories one hears about trying to find an apartment in rent-controlled New York City, or getting on the waiting list for a CAT-scan in London or Toronto. From the "progressive" point of view, with its vague concept of "the common good" it makes sense to remove the "useless eaters" from the population. Just as it makes sense to the "global warming" crowd to remove CO2 exhaling "polluters" from the planet. With its self made shortages it makes sense for a socialist system to provide abortions and assisted suicides to those who want them! Should the shortages get even more severe, such "services" may be provided even to those who don't want them--in the US, as in China?
The Manhattan Declaration concludes with the statement:
Perhaps it should have gone a "tad" farther. Saint Thomas Aquinas informs us that:
In the saintly Pope Leo XIII’s encyclical Libertas Præstantissimum, we read:
Pope Leo raises the issue of a law "contrary ... to the eternal law," but also the situation "where the power to command is wanting--which is precisely the case in any federal law concerning healthcare or regulating marriage. The US Constitution is quite clear in stating that:
Perhaps the final question that must be raised is the legitimacy of a government in which the vast majority of office holders took office by an oath to uphold the Constitution, while being ready to violate that oath repeatedly. Is an office validly filled by means of perjury?
This article can be viewed full screen and printer friendly at
[ Home Page ]
[ Comment Archives ]
 Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologiae, Ia-Ilae, q. xciii, art. 3, ad 2m.