Father Orthoduck was going to post a follow-up on the post “A Christian View of Wall Street” from a several days ago. However, some news came out yesterday that has him fuming. What news?
New York, January 30 — The United States military has stopped evacuations of critically ill patients from Haiti to Florida until it is resolved who will pay for the treatment.
Until now, planes loaded with earthquake victims had been flown out of Haiti to Florida for treatment. But now the U.S. military has halted medical evacuation.
Navy Captain Kevin Aandahl, a spokesman for the U.S. Transportation Command, told Reuters that at this moment all the flights have been stopped.
“If Florida isn’t taking them … and I can’t confirm this, but I think Georgia has made a similar statement, so if we can’t bring them anywhere for treatment, then they’re staying in Haiti,” he added.
The suspension comes after Florida requested the government to freeze medical aid over concerns that there is not enough money to treat them.
As of now, more than 500 people have been treated in the state hospitals. But now the state is asking for federal money to treat victims who do not have insurance.
Sterling Ivey, a spokesperson for Governor Charlie Crist, stated that Florida is ready to treat Haiti victims, but there is a need for a proper plan of action and “reimbursement for the care we are providing.”
This article is one of multiple articles from multiple news agencies all reporting the same thing. Since Father Orthoduck lives in Florida, his sense of shame is acute. There is little doubt that money issues do need to be discussed. But, for the governors of Florida and Georgia to hold sick people hostage to what is essentially a bureaucratic problem is one of the more unethical things that Father Orthoduck has ever heard. People may die because there is a temporary financial argument going on.
Yes, the financial issue needs to be resolved. Yes, maybe more people need to be shifted to other states after they are stabilized. But, these medical flights are often taking critically injured people from a disaster area to where they can be treated. And, the nearest and most easily reachable medical facilities are–guess where–Florida and Georgia.
The outrage has been so bad that today everyone was quickly backtracking. Father Orthoduck feels for Captain Aandahl who had to pretend that he knew nothing, just like Sargent Schultz from the TV show of yore, Hogan’s Heroes. President Obama insists that it is a very temporary logistical problem, in other words, he is providing some political cover for the governors. Governor Crist is now saying that he never refused to take patients. Now, let Father Orthoduck be very honest. If Father Orthoduck has to choose between believing Captain Aandahl’s version or Governor Crist’s version, uhm, I will go with the military guy over the politician any day.
Meantime all Father Orthoduck can think about is the parable of the Good Samaritan. The governors of Florida and Georgia remind Father Orthoduck of the priest and the Levite. May God have mercy on their souls. Oh, did Father Orthoduck remember to mention that both Governor Crist of Florida and Governor Perdue of Georgia are Republicans? So much for compassionate conservatives!
Father Orthoduck,
You’ ve taken a rather simplistic view of the Haitian situation per the Governors of Florida and Georgia. It’s a sad situation, but even if they were Christians, is it Christian for them to borrow money and then send the bill to citizens of whom some might not be Christians.
Your reference to them as being Republicans is beneath your role as a priest (I assume you are a priest). It is easy to spend someone else’s money even if it is a cause that you support. I know clergy pay very little income tax with the parsonage allowance etc. I have made a personal donation as I am sure you have and as the Good Samaritan did. He didn’t defer to someone else he coughed it out of his own pocket for the person with whom he crossed paths.
Father Orthoduck, not to worry. We can pay for the victims’ medical treatment with the 6.4 BILLION dollars we’ll be getting from Taiwan for selling them weapons of mass destruction.
Kyrie, eleison!
James the Brother:
Another priest here, one who doesn’t Republican ideology very much. Your comments betray a mindset that is all too common, one that ignores that GOVERNMENT is divinely instituted every bit as much as the Church is. See St. Paul on this, Romans 13:1-7:
“Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, AND THOSE THAT EXIST HAVE BEEN INSTITUTED BY GOD. Therefore he who resists the authorities resists WHAT GOD HAS APPOINTED, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of him who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain; he is the servant of God to execute his wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be subject, not only to avoid God’s wrath but also for the sake of conscience. FOR THE SAME REASON YOU ALSO PAY TAXES, for the authorities are MINISTERS OF GOD, attending to this very thing. Pay all of them their DUES, taxes to whom taxes are DUE, revenue to whom revenue is DUE, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due. (RSV –emphasis added)
Thus, the government has a God-given mandate to collect taxes, and doing so is not, in and of itself theft. We are obligated to pay them. Here in the U.S., we have all kinds of rights and can criticize governmental actions and how government spends money, how taxes are collected, etc., etc, but, as Christians, we cannot ever suggest that taxation as such is theft because, according to our Faith, it is not, nor can we aver that government, as such, is illegitimate. It is is not. It is instituted by God.
I am hearing two things–one–which is more likely to be the truth in my humble opinion–is–we need to know how we are going to pay for this–My thought on that is that if you put out the need to the American people, they will respond–and more than respond….
Two–and as a resident of Florida I wish this were the only true reason–that the hospitals that are being used are becoming overcrowded and thus, more hospitals are needed to take up the slack. Being a health care professional, I have seen what can happen in even a large hospital when massive casualties converge on an institution. (Been there done that in the operating room and the intensive care unit–) Not enough operating rooms, not enough doctors, not enough supplies, no0t enough equiptment, patients waiting in corridors, etc.
That being said, if you put out the work that you need extra medical personnel, they will come as well–but in so many square feet of hospital, there is only so much room and so many hands and so much equiptment especially for severely wounded massive trauma patients. In this effort, everybody needs to pitch in–there are more than enough hospitals in Florida, Georgia, and Alabama and if each took some, no one would be overburdened. As far as paying for it–nurses from my place of employment are volunteering time to go to Haiti to treat people on the ground there–tell me that you need me and I will do my best to respond–though this rather crippled nurse might be better doing triage and paperwork–but I would go and volunteer and so would thousands of other nurses and doctors.
We are talking about human lives here–count the pennies later–save the people now.–and how much longer does it take to land in Melbourne or Orlando or Mobile than to land in Miami…..
Alix
Father Greg,
I appreciate your comments and the spirit with which you offered them. I am very familiar with the passage in Romans and over the decades of study came to the conclusion that surely Paul was writing in the context of what the early Christians were dealing with their specific goverment especially as the church was taking root in a pagan culture and society overseen by a pagan/pantheistic government. Otherwise I had to in some way concede that God had placed Hitler, Idi Amin, Mao etc. in power. Those words would have also put true Christians on the other side of the American Revolution, but that is a totally different stroy. If I accede that every government on the earth and those who enforce the will of that government are God ordained in some way then I have to accept that in some way as God’s agents some of those leaders are funding and promoting abortion in and out of the U.S. I must also be prepared for government in the future to possibly build Isamic mosques.
I never accused anyone of “stealing” money/taxes, I only meant to say that it might be sub-Christian to spend the money collected from atheists on what otherwise might be seen as a virtuous Christian act of mercy. I can’t speak for them, but “I would want to treat them as I would want them to treat me”, Jesus circa 30 C.E.
I didn’t denounce government; I think Fr. Ernesto did that with his uncharitable comments about those governors who have a difficult job to do as they uphold the charge of leadership they swore to do affording them a leadership position in a “God ordained” goverment.
I am neither R or D so I have no political axe or axiom to grind.
Father Greg, may God bless you and the precious flock that has been placed in your care.
Actually, there were some serious arguments by Christians at the time of the American Revolution who were truly concerned as to whether a Christian could participate in a revolution. That is a very old argument. However, note that God actually gave permission in the Old Testament for Jeroboam to rebel against Rehoboam.
But, here is a question for you. When is it legitimate to criticize government? To criticize a government is certainly a much lesser action than to foment a revolution. The one is a peaceful rebuke while the other is a violent act. If every time a governor has a “difficult job to do” we are not permitted to criticize them, then when is criticism allowed? And, if a member of government behaves in a way contrary to prior statements about compassion, then can they not be called on it?
Finally, uhm, Father Orthoduck would point out that the atheists are quite in favor of Haiti receiving help, so there is no conflict of interest on this particular issue like there would be on some others.
I keep telling my friends in Canada that the health care debate in the USA is about money. Thy just don’t believe me: they think it’s about care and compassion.
Silly people.
Fr, Huw,
It IS about care and compassion: The lack of it.
Money trumps care and compassion.
So you’re right: It’s about money.
One good thing about living here is that anyone can help out to the fullest extent they deem appropriate. A person could actually sell their house, liquidate any holdings they have and send it to Haiti if they so choose. I know the people of Haiti would appreciate it. It becomes a matter of how serious we want to be with our own assests and how compassionate we want to be. We all usually have a breaking point when our desire to help is overridden by our desire to keep our stuff. So pick your passion or pick your poison. It’s not unlike almsgiving when we have to see our own compassion reflected in the face of others to the extent we are willing to help another human being without demanding others to do the same.
Criticizing government is a very western thing and should not be at the top of our justification hierarchy. That’s too easy even though it makes us feel like we are doing something commendable and plaudible. Again the real challenge is call ourselves out and then look in the mirror and see an almsgiver and not a governmental official. To thine ownself be true and honest.
James:
First, regarding the legitimacy of government in general: That government, in general, is legitimate is well-attested, not only in Romans, but also in I Peter 2:13-17 as well as in the writings of the Fathers. However, there is a complementary principle, “We ought to be obey God rather than men” which must be invoked any time that the state or any other entity attempts to require us to do something that God has prohibited. However, the citation from Romans 13 expressly prohibits us from refusing to pay taxes under the latter principle, and it most certainly excludes any understanding of taxation which would equate it with theft.
You say that you did not intend to imply that, and I will take you at your word on that, but I’m sure you can see how a reasonable person would likely infer that idea from what you wrote, especially since rhetoric similar to yours is often used to advance precisely that notion, an idea which calls into question, explicitly or implicitly, the legitimacy of any government whatsoever and which posits that the right to private property is absolute.
For all that, there is nothing here that stops us from criticizing the actions of civil authorities, especially in a system such as ours. Here, we are almost duty-bound to do so when it is warranted. Making revolution is another matter, and I would note that Mao, Pol Pot, Lenin/Stalin, and Hitler all came to power by overthrowing the government that preceded them. Further, while convinced and devout Christians came down on both sides of the American revolution, I think that it can be seen, not as a revolution, but as the struggle of a people who had become a separate nation in freeing itself from the British monarchy which had gone from being the legitimate government to becoming nothing more than a foreign force of occupation in the colonies.
At the same time, I would not say that revolution is never allowable. It would seem, however, that some theory of “just revolution”, analogous to Augustine’s “just war” must be posited here. Under any such theory, revolution would be the last resort, and the default position would be to assume that a given governmental structure is legitimate; in any event, evacuating refugees from a smaller neighbor undergoing a state of emergency would certainly fall within any conceivable governmental mandate and would therefore be subject to funding by compulsory taxation. (And if anyone chooses to give alms in this regard, above and beyond what they have paid in taxes, may God bless them; however, no one should confuse paying taxes for giving alms.)
James, may God bless you, your family, and the congregation with which you worship.
Father Greg,
In some respect we are trapped by the limitations that facilitate this dialog and possibly even semantics.
Again I appreciate your kind spirit in which you discoursed.
Thank you for the blessing and I certainly hope God grants you many, many years.
Father Greg,
The Romans 13 passages that you quoted earlier are always fascinating, especially around election time. I usually read this around the 4th of July, too, along with the Declaration of Independence, and wonder how the signers of the Declaration dealt with Romans 13, all of them being familiar with it in those days. They wrote that governments derive their just powers “from the consent of the governed”, which must have angered conservatives who insisted that governments are instituted only by God, as in Romans 13.
You mentioned the possibility of “just revolution” and Augustine’s “just war” scenario, and although I’d like to be a pacifist I do agree with these principles when necessary. And I also wonder if Paul did, too. Here’s why:
In Romans 13 I’ve counted at least six or seven times where Paul says that governing authorities are appointed by God, instituted by God, or are “God’s servant for your good”, or “are not a terror to good conduct but to bad.” He says this so many times that I suspect him of irony.
I don’t think he’s going “wink-wink, it’s OK to overthrow the government”—the context is contrary to that—but I do suspect that because of the frequency of his defense of the authorities he may be holding them, also, accountable to what God has given them.
He appears to be reminding the authorities that God put them there—not they themselves, not by armed might, not by inheritance—and that God can take it all away from them one day. This may be along the lines too of Ephesians 5, the command for wives to obey their husbands but for husbands to love their wives; for slaves to obey their masters but for masters not to mistreat slaves.
I also think, from an historical point of view, that Paul is using irony to make a hidden point because of the brutality of the times. Herod the Great was still in living memory, and Paul may have been writing as Nero was in power. And still he says that government holds no terror for those who do good? He may be saying, at least a little bit, that it’s a two-way street. And certainly the reference to Acts 5:29 that you made, “We must obey God rather than men” bears that out.
Thank you for your discussion on this matter.
“…did Father Orthoduck remember to mention that both Governor Crist of Florida and Governor Perdue of Georgia are Republicans? So much for compassionate conservatives!”
That is a bit of a sweeping generalization. Rather than painting with too broad a brush, the focus should remain on just those involved in this situation.
Whether the governors are Dems or Repubs, the issue remains that it is a huge logistical problem that these states are in fact being saddled with… And unless you basically bring things to a halt, people come, go, and then forget. I concur that it seems bad… no doubt. But, the larger question looms: where or does he U.S. responsibility end… Should we airlift aid to every tragedy, without end, because we can? Are we essentially broke, or is that a bunch of baloney? Sees to me either the fiscal situation is dire or it is not, and clarity is lost right now because there is no real honest definitions. My brother was a surgeon in Iraq, and they turned away people who died, lots, simply because of lack of resources and personnel and funds. So the problem is far from theoretical or isolated to non-compassionate conservatives.
Actually I guess in a way China should be commended for lending us (future generations) the money to do these things. Taxes alone can not atone for the $1.2 Trillion shortage we have this year and at least the same if not more for next year. So it’s not taxes that provide these types of funds but borrowing from China. So the care boxes say USA but thank God for the his ordination of the Chinese who lend us the money for these endeavors and also for providing us the funds to buy all of their high quality products.
Per the previous post…from the folks who are financing our fun in the sun.
The last recall pertains to children’s toy jewelry sets imported by Playmate Toys of Costa Mesa, Calif. About 250,000 charms sold with the “Tink Tink and Friends” jewelry sets are being recalled because the charms contain an illegal amount of lead. The sets containing the charm accessory were sold in a variety of styles including Tinker Bell’s Lil’ Tinker Bracelet and Rosetta’s Rosebud Key Chain. The items were sold at retailers nationwide from November 2008 through November 2009.
Well, if one is in favor of laissez faire capitalism, then it is wrong for the government to over-regulate, right?
Father,
I think you are having an economics debate with yourself. I am only suggest the pragmatic approach of being fiscally sound, or at least fiscally honest. It seems to me that it is morally reprensible to borrow money that you know can never be repaid, with those debts being handed over to those in the future to wrestle with again never to be repaid. If this is a dishonest approach Christians, I think, should rebuff it rather than winking and looking the other way . The good Samaritan story would have been a little lame if the Samaritan had ended up “stiffing” the innkeeper because he was over extended.
Again, we are borrowing money from China at interest. Then it is doled out in many many ways for consumption to facilitate ,in many cases, buying all types of goods from China. So we send their money back to them for the goods we buy and in addition we are paying interest on it as well. So they make profit and interest which is wise on their part. Remember the lender always owns the borrower. It’s a proposition that can never be overcome by doing it in greater volumes. As a country we are now in debt over $13,000,000,000,000,000,000. Madoff went to prison for his ponzi scheme; I would just soon not participate in this one but it’s probably too late.
No James, the national debt is presently around 6 trillion, not 13 trillion. Where did you get that number?
“The United States government debt, commonly called the ‘public debt’ or the ‘national debt’, is the amount of money owed by the Federal government of the United States to holders of U.S. debt instruments. Gross Debt is the national debt plus intragovernmental debt obligations or debt held by trust funds like the Social Security Trust Fund.”
Thus the actual Public Debt as of 02/04/2010 is around 7.8 trillion while the Gross Debt is around 12.3 trillion. This is why there is a discrepancy. Thus, it is completely true that “as a country” we are in debt 12.3 trillion but it is also true that the “public debt” is only 7.8 trillion.
There are arguments as to which number should be used. The reason is that intragovernmental debt obligations are not exactly “regular” debt. That is, they are more like you taking some grocery money to buy some post office stamps and promising yourself to pay yourself back. In one sense, you are in debt to yourself. In another sense you are not. I mean, how do you collect from yourself? The other side of that same argument is that if you pile up enough “debt” against yourself, the day will come when you will have to choose to either buy post office stamps or to buy groceries, or to do with fewer of both because you have about used up your available cash.
That is a way oversimplified look at intragovernmental debt, the reality is more complicated than that. What is more accurate would be to say that intragovernmental debt does not hurt us as badly as public debt anymore than owing ourselves hurts us as much as owing a loan company. Nevertheless, intragovernmental debt cannot be completely ignored either.
So, what is our actual indebtedness? Well, the reality is that our strict indebtedness is around 7.8 trillion but our actual liabilities are a number larger than 7.8 trillion but smaller than 12.3 trillion.
This is a report from CBS News in 3/09 for fiscal ’08. We added about 1.5 trillion for ’09 and are looking at the same for ’10. (You can find these numbers from many news agencies of all ilks.)
The actual debt when you throw in unfunded liabilities (SS/medicare/medicaid) is a number so huge the government is scared to toss it out there. Of course it is a raw number not contemplating future revenues or future additional social programs including C.O.L increasings. At this point we are playing with monoply money and it’s okay as long as everyone still wants to play (continue to pray for the Chinese).
The government can do this because they own the printing press and can monetize the debt. I know recently they bought toxic assests from banks at about 10 times there actual value and basically no market for them and then borrowed the money back from the banks with interest. It’s a shell game.
Here’s the CBS story from last March.
(AP / CBS)The Federal Government’s flood of red ink hit another high-water mark as the Treasury Department quietly reported today that the National Debt hit $11-trillion for the first time ever.
To be exact, the Debt now stands at $11,033,157,578,669.78. Divide it by the U.S. population and it comes up to over $36,000 in debt for every man, woman and child among us.
I agree with you that the debt is horrendous and that we need to be careful about our country’s finances. I was simply explaining why different numbers turn up in various reports. In fact, the number I quoted for total debt is actually HIGHER than the number that CBS reported!
I have seen higher numbers too but I was just trying to find one that had a well known source. I also noted the break down of the two major components of the national debt, but it’s all still ultimately owed to someone be it a Social Security recipent, a medicare beneficiary , a veteran etc etc. They have basically broken open Al Gore’s “lockbox”, taken the money and left IOUs. To put a face on it, would be to take the money out of a grandchild’s piggy bank and leave behind a piece of paper and a promise. I would be resistive to do that to my grandchildren short of an all out collapse or crash.
Many Blessings to you Father
Presently it seems that the God ordained Haitian government is not too merciful toward those who try to help children, albeit without proper paperwork. More than likely a paid fine of some proportion will prompt, promote and enliven an otherwise dormant sense of mercy by said government officials. Where is Baby Doc when you need him?
On this one, I agree with the government. To simply go in and assume that you can do some shoddy checking and take children from one country to another with inadequate paperwork is incredibly naive. Just because there was a catastrophe does not mean one can do what one wants.
I think that the church people are totally innocent, but as we love to say in the USA, “ignorance of the law is no excuse.” I suspect something will be worked out and they will simply be shipped back to the USA. The sad part is that with a couple of extra days of work, or by simply asking the help of the USA Embassy, they could have had all appropriate paperwork in place. What a frustration it must be for that poor church group!
I agree with you. Even if we wanted to do the humanitarian thing we still would need to have the legal paperwork all in order