Press "Enter" to skip to content

Media Not Pursuing Bishop Swain’s Hypocrisy on Medicaid

An eager reader notes that the Sioux Falls press hasn't done a very good job of following up on Sioux Falls Diocese Bishop Paul Swain's inconsistency on health care policy and official Church positions.

Bishop Swain criticized Sister Simone Campbell last week for challenging bishops in her advocacy for the Affordable Care Act. Yet in her support for the ACA's Medicaid expansion, she is more in line with the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops than Bishop Swain himself, who has resisted calls to put the USCCB's call to expand Medicaid into local action.

Jonathan Ellis noted Swain's awkward, dodging silence on Medicaid expansion last February. But, unless I missed something, in the midst of last week's controversy, as Bishop Swain imposed his patriarchal will but declined to take ownership of his own political and philosophical obligation, that Sioux Falls paper ran only the AP story on Swain's criticism of Campbell, without any mention of Medicaid. Ditto at Sioux Falls's dominant TV station.

I know I don't cover everything in any given news cycle. But does Bishop Swain's resistance to following the diktat of his superiors, even as he publicly whips a nun for allegedly doing the same thing, deserve more coverage from the local press?

99 Comments

  1. Nick Nemec 2013.09.16

    Diktat is a bit harsh of a term to use for the USCCB message. I think they urge expansion of Medicade. It seems as though Bishop Swain is dragging his feet on the expansion issue and has not given any arguments why he is so silent, but has instead preferred to focus on the boogeyman of Obamacare and the prospect of someone using birth control as an excuse to remain silent on this issue.

    Vacillation is his style, he's a cold fish who is hard to talk to and has hesitated in making the hard decisions necessary for the future of the diocese.

  2. caheidelberger Post author | 2013.09.16

    O.K., diktat may be harsh, but here are the USCCB's words:

    "The bishops support the expansion of Medicaid eligibility for people living at 133 percent or lower of the federal poverty level. The bill does not burden states with excessive Medicaid matching rates. The affordability credits will help lower-income families purchase insurance coverage through the Health Insurance Exchange."

    ...and...

    "Advocates are urged to work with state Catholic conferences and state officials to consider Medicaid expansion with prudence, concern for human life and dignity and a commitment to the common good. It is an effective policy to help assure that all people have access to health care."

    The bishops urge expansion and advocacy for it. Swain isn't doing that. Campbell is. Maybe Swain feels the USCCB statement is a diktat, imposing on him a duty he'd rather not carry out, but it's pretty clear he's at least as guilty of bucking the boss as he accuses Campbell of being.

  3. Nick Nemec 2013.09.16

    Don't forget Bishop Swain, before becoming a priest, was a high level policy adviser for a GOP governor of Wisconsin. He seems to be afflicted with the same just say no mentality that Republican members of Congress have whenever there is a hint President Obama supports a certain proposal or course of action.

  4. interested party 2013.09.16

    Swain won't give me an interview, Cory; but a conversation with one priest in the Diocese revealed some insight into his bean-counter motives. Connect the dots, bro.

  5. Jerry 2013.09.16

    It would appear that the Bishop is a racist, pure and simple. He would not be the only clergy that fits the mold, but perhaps the most powerful in our state. Maybe the folks that are in need of Medicaid and medical help in general, could come to his service to remind him of who his boss was and he stood for. Nothing points that out more than a rally on the church steps, a rally for the meaning of Jesus. The Bishop cannot have this both ways. Maybe then the media would come to ask questions and stop looking at their belly buttons.

  6. caheidelberger Post author | 2013.09.16

    I wonder if Bishop Swain is clear on the fact that he works for new employers.

  7. JoeBoo 2013.09.16

    The new Pope has done so much for the Church already, yet we still have guys like Swain that hold too much power

  8. Rorschach 2013.09.17

    No wonder Bishop Swain won't give you an interview, interested party. You're a Catholic basher.

    I'm very satisfied with the direction Pope Francis is taking the church, JoeBoo.

  9. interested party 2013.09.17

    Call me Larry, R: how sad that you're a coward.

  10. DK 2013.09.17

    Just so I'm clear, CAH, who do you think Bishop Swain's bosses are? The USCCB?

  11. caheidelberger Post author | 2013.09.17

    Bishop Swain's critique of Sister Campbell's advocacy for the ACA rested heavily on the statements of the USCCB:

    “I am aware that Sister Campbell supports the law in its fullness despite the critique of the Bishops.... She has also indicated that she does not believe that there is a threat to religious liberty, contrary to the Bishops’ clear warning. In remarks published in the Yankton Daily Press & Dakotan, Sister Campbell erroneously claims that full accommodation to the HHS mandate has been made in response to objections raised by the Bishop’s Conference.”

    ...“Those who seek to know what the Church really teaches should look to the statements of the Bishops..." [Bishop Swain, quoted in Nathan Johnson, "Bishop Criticizes MMC Speaker," Yankton Press & Dakotan, 2013.09.11].

    Bishop Swain makes clear that in enunciating policy positions, one should look to the bishops, as if they are "bosses" and hew to the party line they establish. Bishop Swain is not hewing to the party line on Medicaid expansion.

  12. interested party 2013.09.17

    Draw a line from the South Dakota legislature's passage of limits to litigation of sex abuse scandals.

  13. DK 2013.09.17

    CAH, I didn't ask who you thought Sister Campbell's bosses are. I was wondering who you thought Bishop Swain's bosses are. Unless I am wrong about this, Swain's direct "boss" is Pope Francis.

    "Bishop is the title of an ecclesiastical dignitary who possesses the fullness of the priesthood to rule a diocese as its chief pastor, in due submission to the primacy of the pope. " [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02581b.htm]

    In other words, Bishop Swain doesn't have to be in lock step with the rest of the Bishops. He is in control over his own diocese (as they are in sole control of theirs), and he only needs to follow through on orders from the pope.

    Swain can't feel that the USCCB statement is a diktat, as the USCCB has no power over him.

    Can you post any information/interviews/statements, etc. where Bishop Swain states that he is against Medicaid expansion?

  14. caheidelberger Post author | 2013.09.17

    What I believe doesn't matter; we're testing what Swain believes. He believes that Sister Campbell should yield to the bishops' authority on policy matters. He says "look to the statements of the bishops."

    The bishops have told Catholics to support Medicaid expansion. Swain has speciously avoided doing that.

  15. DK 2013.09.17

    Did you read the part I wrote about how the USCCB has no power over what Bishop Swain believes is best for the country? Even if (though?) the USCCB may believe that Medicaid expansion is a good, moral thing, it isn't doctrine, and Catholics are given lots of leeway to have differences of opinion on things that are not doctrine.

    So your assertion that Swain doesn't believe in Medicaid expansion is based off of a document that doesn't mention his position on it?

  16. caheidelberger Post author | 2013.09.17

    Swain is saying the USCCB has that authority. He uses that claim of authority to criticize Campbell. I am criticizing Swain on the same grounds for not upholding the authority of the USCCB on their clear call for advocacy for the Medicaid expansion.

    Swain's dodge is like this: suppose the USCCB told bishops to back a specific abortion ban. Suppose Swain did not offer his support for that ban. Would he not be defying the USCCB?

    You can't have it both ways. Either Swain and Campbell both have the leeway to have differences of opinion on policy matters that aren't doctrine, or Swain and Campbell both need to reread the USCCB's policy positions. (And remember, on this issue, Campbell and the USCCB agree that expanding Medicaid is good policy; Swain is trying to distract from that central message of Campbell's speech last week in Yankton.)

  17. Jerry 2013.09.17

    DK, I am still under the belief that Jesus is the Bishop's boss. Clergy tells us that all the time. They say they work for the union carpenter and use some of the money they collect to help the poor. I think some call it Catholic Relief and others have their own names attached, but it still means the same for the end result. I meant what I said that it seems as if the good Bishop is a racist as this Healthcare Reform would help those of color and the poor in general to receive a basic human right. I would add that I do not think that he deserves the power that he possesses. The Bishop needs to stand down and support those less fortunate than himself. How can he call himself a Christian, and moreover, a Christian leader, when he allows the less fortunate to suffer and die unnecessarily? Why do you support that DK? Why are you both so, I have mine and you do not deserve the same? The Bishop and you need to go to back to Sunday School to learn about the teachings of Jesus and who he hung around with.

  18. DK 2013.09.17

    CAH, The USCCB is an advisory council only, not an intermediate authority between the Pope and the other Bishops. The USCCB has no authority over Bishop Swain, so by definition he can't defy them. Swain is saying that the USCCB has authority over Sister Campbell, but this is not because the USCCB has authority over her as an organization but rather because the USCCB is made up of Bishops who have authority over her. Does that make sense?

    Why do you believe that Swain is trying to distract from the message in Campbell's speech?

  19. DK 2013.09.17

    Jerry, why do you believe that I do not support expanding Medicaid? I have said no such thing. In fact, from what I understand of the politics going on here, I do support expanding Medicaid. I give to my church weekly, support mission trips for people I know, give with my family to the Banquet in Sioux Falls, and even recently gave a love seat to Catholic Social Services. I'd do more, but those darn student loans really take a cut out of my pay check.

    My point is simply that Bishop Swain hasn't said anything about whether he supports expanding Medicaid or not. Your assumption about me proves my point about the Bishop: Just because there is no statement out there from him on the expansion of Medicaid doesn't mean that he is against it.

  20. caheidelberger Post author | 2013.09.17

    ...and my point is that the USCCB statement appears to oblige Bishop Swain to make a statement in favor of Medicaid expansion, not maintain this coy silence.

  21. caheidelberger Post author | 2013.09.17

    And that question of authority is not addressed in Swain's critique. The words on the page support the equivalency I'm describing.

    I believe Swain is trying to distract from Campbell's advocacy on Medicaid expansion because he supports the position of the political powers that be in South Dakota who are resisting the Medicaid expansion. I believe he is still beholden to his Wisconsin political days and wants to support the GOP's anti-Obama political stances.

  22. Jerry 2013.09.17

    DK, you have said that you now support the medicaid expansion, good for you, now. The Bishop has not when asked, but moved on. As we are all human, we all know that when we choose to not answer a direct question is mostly because we are not in support, and have not formulated a lie to cover for that fact. The Bishop has had ample time to come up with a reason for protecting the less fortunate along with the folks of color, why the mystery I wonder. Are not we all deserving of that basic human right of healthcare? Puzzling.

  23. DK 2013.09.17

    The USCCB statement doesn't oblige Bishop Swain to do anything. Like I said, it is an advisory council. If you don't believe me, I can and will get someone of prominence to go on record saying the same thing. The USCCB holds no authority over Swain in any way. The Bishops do hold authority over Sister Campbell, though.

    You are welcome to your opinion on what you believe, but I find that you have very little to back up your argument.

    I, on the other hand, performed a quick internet search to find this: http://www.priestsforlife.org/magisterium/bishops/09-10-swain-health-care.pdf

    Swain says, "Quality healthcare should be affordable and accessible to all people, no matter their financial status or age. Unborn children, the poor, legal immigrants, the elderly, as well as those nearing death, deserve the same quality and respectful care as those at other stages or conditions in life."

  24. DK 2013.09.17

    Jerry, first of all, can you give me an example of when the Bishop was directly asked whether or not he supports Medicaid expansion and has moved on? I ask for this because I don't know of one concrete time when this has happened. I'm not saying that it didn't happen, only that I don't know of one.

    Second of all, could there not be other reasons why the Bishop has not gone on record on a political issue? Why is covering up something the first that pops into your head? It's certainly not the first that pops into my mind. Do you know Bishop Swain and his character, or is this just a guess on your part?

  25. Jerry 2013.09.17

    Yep,

    http://www.mitchellrepublic.com/content/letter-bishop-needs-state-position-medicaid

    Catholics United, exert

    Although Bishop Swain has asserted it is not his role to be involved in the political process he did speak out forcefully on ballot issues involving abortion and gay marriage in 2006 and 2008, when he said, “…we must take stands on issues in the public sphere when they touch the core of what we know by reason to be true and affect the salvation of souls.”

    Regarding "knowing" the Bishop, good luck with your fishing expedition.

  26. caheidelberger Post author | 2013.09.17

    DK, the Ellis post from February is what you're asking for. Ellis asked the bishop's office about Medicaid expansion; the bishop dodged.

  27. Troy Jones 2013.09.17

    Nick Nemec is mistaken. Paul Swain was Chief Legal Council for Governor Dreyfus, Democrat Governor of Wisconsin.

    The characterization of Bishop Swain as beholding to any political ideology is false and slanderous. In fact, his office and he personally advocated for expansion of Medicaid in this last legislative session.

    Bishop Swain is a Bishop as is the Pope. The Pope has primacy among equals with regard to speaking for the Church. Bishop Swain does not "report" to the USCCB on matters such as these subjects.

    Sister Campbell is a member of the Sisters of Social Service. I could not find anything with regard to their constitution (Papal authority/charism) or governance. I do not know if they have a single international Abbess or national/regional Abbesses and then organized as a federation.

    Religious Institutes such as SOSS exist by permission of the Pope and technically "report" to him. However, practically they report to the Papal Nuncio to the region in which they operate. Additionally, they can not operate in a diocese without the permission of the respective Diocesan Bishop.

    And, I think this is the rub. Sister Campbell is obliged to get permission to come into this Diocese and I suspect she did not based on the letter the Bishop sent. Her failure to follow Canonical protocol left the Bishop with these choices:

    1) Allow her to come without permission and say nothing.
    2) Prohibit her to come.
    3) Allow her to come but make it clear she was doing so without permission/legitimate authority and a faithful Catholic is not to give credence to her visit. He chose this option.

    There is much good the SOSS do in the world. However, their intransigence with regard to respecting Bishops prerogatives in their Dioceses and opposing the teaching authority of the Bishops has gotten SOSS and other religious institutes under an investigation which could in some cases result in the most severe penalty-loss of recognition as an apostolate of the Church (essentially ceasing to be Catholic).

  28. Troy Jones 2013.09.17

    Correction: The Bishop did not take a position on expanding Medicaid but asked Catholics to examine the issue in prayer remembering the preferential option for the poor in Catholic Social Teaching.

  29. Mark 2013.09.17

    Nick Nemec is not mistaken. Paul Swain was a campaign advisor and later policy director and associate counsel (not chief, as I recall) in Governor Dreyfus' administration. Gov. Dreyfus was never a Democrat, contrary to what Jones asserts. As a matter of fact he was not affiliated with any political party until he decided to run for governor --- as a Republican.
    Agree or disagree with Bishop Swain's perceived politics, I believe he is truly a man of God and conscience.

  30. Douglas Wiken 2013.09.17

    Apparently a little noise gets into the direct communication between God and these Catholics...or is it the church filters?

  31. DK 2013.09.18

    So what this boils down to is that in spite of the link I posted above where Bishop Swain says directly that quality and respectful healthcare should be available to all, because he didn't respond directly to one call to explicitly support Medicaid expansion, most people here believe that he is against it? Is that correct?

  32. caheidelberger Post author | 2013.09.18

    Yes, Bishop Swain and Sister Campbel appear to agree on a general principle. But Swain criticizes Campbell for advocating a specific policy to implement that principle. He criticizes her on the basis of disagreeing with the USCCB. Yet Campbell agrees with the USCCB on the specific policy of expanding Medicaid, while Swain declines to support that policy along with them. Swain does not support Medicaid expansion, in violation of his own call for policy fealty to the pronouncements of the USCCB.

  33. DK 2013.09.18

    Bishop Swain SHOULD criticize Sister Campbell for advocating the ACA. You noted in your first article about this that the USCCB is against the ACA as well. There are other issues with the ACA that prevent Catholics from supporting it. That has nothing to do with Medicaid expansion.

    Once again, Bishop Swain does not have to obey the USCCB, but Sister Campbell should listen to the Bishops. Would you like me to get an apologist of note to go on record saying that? You don't seem to be accepting this point for some reason, and I don't understand why.

  34. Troy Jones 2013.09.18

    Cory,

    DK is exactly right. Bishop Swain's views and approach does not have to mirror the USCCB. However, Sister Campbell must conform to the Bishops collectively (USCCB or Episcopal Synod) and to the individual Bishop in whose diocese she chooses to minister.

  35. interested party 2013.09.18

    DK: huh? Why should the Roman church oppose ACA and not oppose TRICARE which pays for birth control, abortions and care for all spouses?

  36. interested party 2013.09.18

    Troy: any idea about the financial health of the Diocese?

  37. DK 2013.09.18

    Interested party, while I think it's well known that the Catholic Church opposes the use of birth control, abortions, and gay marriage, those aren't the foremost issue that the Church has with the ACA. The ACA forces everyone from private citizens to nonprofits (including Priests for Life!) to pay for abortion and contraception regardless of the citizens' and nonprofits' religious convictions. It is the fight for religious liberty that sets the ACA apart from TRICARE. But that's not the point of this discussion at the moment.

  38. DK 2013.09.18

    CAH, can you give me concrete evidence to back up your claim that "Swain does not support Medicaid expansion"?

  39. interested party 2013.09.18

    DK: how's that goin' for ya? Gives transubstantiation yet another dimension.

  40. DK 2013.09.18

    Interested party, how is what going for me? The fight for religious liberty?

    While I don't understand what you're getting at in either sentence of your reply, I do sense a distinct mocking tone. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt this time, but please keep in mind that I've done nothing to you. While it may be amusing for you to mock those who hold different beliefs from you, it comes across to me as the bullying of someone who you don't even know simply because she has the gall to honestly disagree with you.

  41. interested party 2013.09.18

    Religious liberty is hardly absolute: the faithful pay for military adventurism just as we pagans do. Rich people enjoy full reproductive rights while those most unable to afford to take unwanted pregnancies to term usually do. That's discrimination and a chilling effect on the rights conferred by the First, the Eighth and the Thirteenth Amendments.

  42. DK 2013.09.18

    Sorry that I seem slow today. I've had a long, difficult few weeks. Are you suggesting that there should not be religious liberty?

  43. Jerry 2013.09.18

    I think that there should be religious liberty and I also think that with that comes the obligation of paying taxes. If the good Bishop wants to be political, go ahead with his bad self. Then pony up the moolah. At that point, I could care what the oaf says or does not say.

  44. interested party 2013.09.18

    DK: am suggesting that equal access to medical care is as much a national security issue as Troy argues that food security is. Likely you have been caught in some crossfire for that: please accept my apologies.

  45. DK 2013.09.18

    Interested party, I'm happy to accept. Thank you for recognizing that. And, for what it is worth, from someone who has chronic health issues and may now be denied medical care because of a cap on the number of visits I can have, access to medical care is definitely an important issue that must be dealt with, just as food security must.

  46. DK 2013.09.18

    Jerry, from what I've seen Bishop Swain doesn't want to be political. He's not the one calling for him to support expanding Medicaid, whether through the ACA or in any other way.

  47. Jerry 2013.09.18

    Right, of course then, this is in correct, no?

    Catholics United, exert

    Although Bishop Swain has asserted it is not his role to be involved in the political process he did speak out forcefully on ballot issues involving abortion and gay marriage in 2006 and 2008, when he said, “…we must take stands on issues in the public sphere when they touch the core of what we know by reason to be true and affect the salvation of souls.”

  48. DK 2013.09.18

    Catholics (and other religious non-profits) can't win if they do and can't win if they don't. When Bishop Swain spoke about those issues, I highly doubt that he said, "You must vote no on ballot issue x." He most likely simply restated what Catholicism has always taught about abortion and gay marriage. Restating a teaching is not being political.

  49. Bill Dithmer 2013.09.18

    From Troy Jones

    "The characterization of Bishop Swain as beholding to any political ideology is false and slanderous."

    Really? Political ideology and religious ideology become blurred in the real world, how do you tell the difference? Doesn't gay marriage and abortion fall into that category?

    Meanwhile there are so many things that are troubling about this thread. Among them are

    "Catholics are given lots of leeway to have differences of opinion on things that are not doctrine." But

    "The USCCB is an advisory council only, not an intermediate authority between the Pope and the other Bishops. The USCCB has no authority over Bishop Swain, so by definition he can't defy them. Swain is saying that the USCCB has authority over Sister Campbell, but this is not because the USCCB has authority over her as an organization but rather because the USCCB is made up of Bishops who have authority over her."

    And these are DK's words. "Does that make sense?"

    "The Bishops do hold authority over Sister Campbell, though."

    "Bishop Swain is a Bishop as is the Pope. The Pope has primacy among equals with regard to speaking for the Church."

    "Religious Institutes such as SOSS exist by permission of the Pope and technically "report" to him. However, practically they report to the Papal Nuncio permission of the Popeto the region in which they operate. Additionally, they can not operate in a diocese without the permission of the respective Diocesan Bishop."

    Sister Campbell is obliged to get permission to come into this Diocese and I suspect she did not based on the letter the Bishop sent. Her failure to follow Canonical protocol left the Bishop with these choices:

    1) Allow her to come without permission and say nothing.
    2) Prohibit her to come.
    3) Allow her to come but make it clear she was doing so without permission/legitimate authority and a faithful Catholic is not to give credence to her visit. He chose this option.

    "There is much good the SOSS do in the world. However, their intransigence with regard to respecting Bishops prerogatives in their Dioceses and opposing the teaching authority of the Bishops has gotten SOSS and other religious institutes under an investigation which could in some cases result in the most severe penalty-loss of recognition as an apostolate of the Church (essentially ceasing to be Catholic).

    Even as a Catholic don't you have a problem with these words.

    "permission"

    "legitimate authority"

    "get permission to come into this Diocese"

    "they can not operate in a diocese without the permission of the respective Diocesan Bishop."

    This all makes Sister Campbell sound more like a slave then an American citizen. And all this time I thought the church had a country of its own way over there someplace.

    Yes it is political, unless you want to admit it is a business gaming the public for what else, money. In that case lets start seeing some taxes.

    It sounds very much like the church doesn't believe in the first amendment. So many rules impeding that amendment say I'm right. One might ask if the Pope is a religious leader or the unmarried Godfather?

    And I like this pope. Who knew?

    The Blindman

  50. interested party 2013.09.18

    Bill: I had a '85 Renault.

  51. Jerry 2013.09.18

    I think you get an "Amen" there brother Bill. Well said sir.

  52. Donald Pay 2013.09.18

    I want to flesh out the discussion regarding former Governor Lee Dreyfus and Paul Swain.

    Dreyfus was a fiscal conservative, but he was not mean. Swain was deeply involved in policy. Dreyfus cut transportation pretty hard, but not social services. He also cut taxes, which was popular, but ended up racking up a deficit as a result, and handed his successor a failing state economy and budget.

    Dreyfus was a champion of gay rights, signing a bill to prevent discrimination against gays and lesbians. It was the first law extending protections to gays enacted in the United States. I'm not sure what part Swain may have played in that issue.

  53. Bill Dithmer 2013.09.18

    You all need to come on down to THE CHURCH OF BILL.

    We don't care who you are, you are welcome.

    We don't care what color your skin is, you are welcome.

    We don't care who you are in love with, you are welcome.

    And we aren't going to make you do anything you don't want to do, and you are welcome.

    About twenty years ago I did some moonflower. I cant recommend doing that sort of thing without a guide. It wasn't exactly like playing Black Sabbath at seventy eight speed but close. I didn't see god, but I did see where he should have been if there was one. At the time I thought it was strange that the one time I went to his place to visit he wasn't home.

    So much for moonflower.

    Come on down to THE CHURCH OF BILL

    http://grooveshark.com/s/Halls+Of+Karma/3v0Bkk?src=5

    The Blindman

  54. DK 2013.09.19

    Mr. Dithmer, I may only write to you this once because I like to feel respected when I'm conversing with someone. I don't get the sense that you have any respect for Catholics, but I'm going to take the chance that I'm wrong and respond at least once anyway.

    Back before America was a country, a book was put together by the Church Fathers called The Didache. Here is a quote from it (along with the date of the writing):

    "The second commandment of the teaching: You shall not murder. You shall not commit adultery. You shall not seduce boys. You shall not commit fornication. You shall not steal. You shall not practice magic. You shall not use potions. You shall not procure [an] abortion, nor destroy a newborn child" (Didache 2:1–2 [A.D. 70]).

    Long before abortion was a political issue it was a Catholic one. Teachings that are Catholic don't just pop up overnight. Isn't it against free speech to keep Catholics from voicing their beliefs about subjects, even if now they are considered "political"?

    If you honestly want me to explain the Church Hierarchy to you, I'd be more than happy.

    As a Catholic I can say that I have no problem with any of those words or phrases that you listed. However, they have to be understood in the light in which they were meant. If someone doesn't understand them in that way, then of course those words and phrases seem less than desirable. Once again, I'm more than happy to explain what those words would mean to a Catholic.

  55. DK 2013.09.19

    CAH, I'm still waiting for concrete evidence to back up your claim that "Swain does not support Medicaid expansion"? Or do you really think that because he didn't directly answer one editorial in a newspaper that that proves your point?

  56. Troy Jones 2013.09.19

    Bill,

    Sister Campbell has all of her US freedom rights and the Church has no authority to deny them. I wouldn't want the Church to have them.

    In a world that trumpets narcissism (my ethics, my rights) and individuality, the Church asks for one to freely submit (place themself "under the mission" of Jesus Christ and his Church). A critical component of that is to accept the authority and prerogatives of the Bishop who we believe are the successors to the Apostles in the Church instituted by Christ.

    Sister Campbell (and possibly her religious institute) seem to have a problem with this which can have repercussions similar to a quarterback who refuses to call the plays by the coach- benched or thrown off the team.

  57. caheidelberger Post author | 2013.09.19

    DK, if you are lifting something, and you ask me to help you lift it, and I sit in my chair and don't come help you lift it, I'm not supporting the thing you are lifting.

    Unlike the USCCB, Bishop Swain is sitting in his chair. He is not supporting Medicaid expansion.

  58. DK 2013.09.19

    CAH, good analogy. I see where you're coming from. While I would still say that it is likely that he does support Medicaid expansion due to his past statements, I can understand why you claim what you do.

  59. caheidelberger Post author | 2013.09.19

    And I don't see that likelihood. He's espoused general principles that should lead him to support expanding Medicaid. But he's not saying the magic words, words that the USCCB has said and encouraged others to say, words that by logical consistency and cover from above should come easily out of his mouth. Even the dodge he gave Ellis casts suspicion on his support. He doesn't need a specific bill floated by the Governor or Legislature to say that he supports expanding Medicaid under the ACA just like the USCCB does.

  60. Troy Jones 2013.09.19

    CAH,

    The preferential option for the poor (for which Medicaid expansion is designed) is a fundamental component of Catholic Social Teaching.

    This said, Medicaid expansion is a matter for the prudential judgment of the faithful to prayerfully discern if it is the best or even an effective policy to fulfill the preferential option of the poor.

    A good and faithful Catholic is able to discern a different position than the Bishop on matters of prudential judgment without becoming separated from the Church. In such matters of prudential judgment, Bishops are careful and extremely selective when they express themselves lest they become less effective on matters of Dogma, Doctrine, Faith and Morals (capitalized as they have explicit meaning in Catholic vernacular).

  61. Bill Dithmer 2013.09.19

    "I don't get the sense that you have any respect for Catholics" DK nothing could be further from the truth, I have a lot of Catholic friends and twelve cousins that were raised strict Catholics but are all now either with other religions or none at all.

    No my problems with the church is the same that I have will all organized religions, no more and no less. They all seem to want to control people and their lives in one way or another. That's fine if your a sheep but not if you can think for yourself, have a conscience, and believe in the Golden Rule. Or going back even further the Silver Rule.

    If you want my respect, stay the hell out of politics. What are teachings to you mean nothing to me, nothing! It's fine if you want to change things within your church but stop trying to change those that don't subscribe to your philosophy. I am not a sheep, and I don't need advice from the church on how to live my life, when it is clear that while giving advice about the things you mentioned above the churches own back yard is so very dirty.

    If you want your church to engage in politics from the pulpit it's time to start paying the taxes that would give you that right.

    In your own words. "The second commandment of the teaching: You shall not murder. You shall not commit adultery. You shall not seduce boys. You shall not commit fornication. You shall not steal. You shall not practice magic. You shall not use potions. You shall not procure [an] abortion, nor destroy a newborn child" (Didache 2:1–2 [A.D. 70]).

    How's that working out for ya?

    If you really believe these things then why aren't you doing something about the churches involvement in the obvious? Clean up your own back yard before you start on mine.

    You are not alone. The Catholic Church is no different then most organized religions. They all want people to be subservient to a single man, or a small group of people. It's called "The Jim Jones Complex."

    With all due respect

    The Blindman

  62. Jerry 2013.09.19

    It would appear that this will play out like this. The proletariat will have the scales removed from their eyes and they will see the emperor has no clothes. They will see that the bishop and the rest of the republicans have been playing games with their health and well being for their own personal gain. We can speak all that we will, but when the truth starts to come out here in a few days, Denny and Pauly better be ready to be scorned. You can fool some of the people...God does have ways of humbling us and will give these two bozoheads that treasure.

  63. Jerry 2013.09.19

    Here is the latest from a party that cannot and should never be allowed to govern. Waste all of our time and money on a mission to be stupid (they win).

    “We haven’t even taken up the bill and Ted Cruz is admitting defeat?” fumed one senior GOP aide. “Some people came here to govern and make things better for their constituents. Ted Cruz came here to throw bombs and fundraise off of attacks on fellow Republicans. He’s a joke, plain and simple.”
    Another aide said Cruz’s comment “exposes how [Senate conservatives] have deliberately misled their constituents and the grassroots for eight weeks. This isn’t leadership, it’s hypocrisy.“

    Here is the gang that the bishop is associated with. What a crew. Our state seems to follow in lockstep. Great leadership, not.

  64. Troy Jones 2013.09.19

    IP:

    You are correct. Bishop Barber has direct authority over Sister Campbell. But, when she comes into Bishop's Swain's diocese, she must respect Bishop Swain's authority on teaching matters.

  65. interested party 2013.09.19

    in your opinion.

  66. Jerry 2013.09.19

    Interesting article interested party. It is clear that only with Obamacare will this trusted bunch of misfits will ever get covered for healthcare. So, it plays like this, this kind of riff raff gets insured, but the honest working poor and disabled along with the rest of the poor, get nothing. The ones who have help build our state and nation, nothing. The ones who have stolen our youth's innocence, everything. Priceless, the republican way. Reward the crooks and liars and punish the poor.

  67. DK 2013.09.19

    CAH, my best guess for you, and this is just a guess, is that Bishop Swain is more focused on the parts of the ACA that are not supported by the Catholic Church than those that are due to the non-negotiable nature of the parts that cannot be supported.

    I listen to a lot of Catholic radio, and the sense that I get from the people who call in and the hosts from all over the nation is that Catholics are feeling very trapped by the ACA. It's not that we don't want everyone to have access to good healthcare. It's that we cannot personally offer healthcare that we believe will send us to hell. We would prefer that others not offer that healthcare either, but employers who know better are more on the hook than those who don't know better. That trapped feeling can easily give people tunnel vision to the point that they are so focused on the issue that is oppressing us that they don't even think to talk much about other issues that are less pressing.

  68. DK 2013.09.19

    Mr. Dithmer,

    I will respond to you, but I am at work right now and have a limited amount of time to write back. Your response deserves to be thorough, so it will probably be tonight before I can write back. Thanks for the respect, though.

  69. caheidelberger Post author | 2013.09.19

    DK, I can dig focusing on parts of a bill that do more harm than the good done by other parts. I took the same tack on HB 1234/Referred Law 16 in 2012: the teacher scholarships would have been o.k., but the rest of the bill stunk.

    But the USCCB has found time to support the ACA's Medicaid expansion while expressing opposition to the portions of the ACA it finds objectionable. Why hasn't Bishop Swain? Why can he not take time to acknowledge that Sister Campbell is right about Medicaid expansion even while he criticizes her other positions? Is a Catholic woman challenging the church's statements on the ACA and religious liberty so threatening that Bishop Swain cannot grant her credence on any other issue?

  70. interested party 2013.09.19

    Imagine a novitiate taking a vow of poverty with the belief that her/his Order will care for hospital bills and a nursing home then wake up one day and the edifice is financially, ethically and morally bankrupt.

    How is this not the same story the anti-Obamacare corporate right is selling to college-age adults?

  71. Jerry 2013.09.19

    Ruh oh, looks like the Pope himself is kind of slapping down the bishop and his ways.

    The church can share its views on homosexuality, abortion and other issues, but should not "interfere spiritually" with the lives gays and lesbians, the pope added in the interview, which was published in La Civilta Cattolica, a Rome-based Jesuit journal.

    “We have to find a new balance, otherwise even the moral edifice of the church is likely to fall like a house of cards, losing the freshness and fragrance of the Gospel," Francis said in the interview.

    "The church has sometimes locked itself up in small things, in small-minded rules,' Francis said. "The people of God want pastors, not clergy acting like bureaucrats or government officials."

    What a refreshing new stance from the leader of the faithful of the Catholic Church. About time for the Bishop to either change his ways or retire and let a modern thinker take his place. There is still time for the Bishop to change his ways, isn't that what he preaches to the rest of us?

  72. Roger Cornelius 2013.09.19

    With the Pope's announcement today (9/19) about equality and balance on issues like abortion and gay rights, I wonder if Bishop Swain will accept them.

    There are so many "former" Catholics that have left the church over these issues and the church's involvement in political issues in general.

    The Pope, hopefully, has recognized these dwindling numbers and the loss of future members that will make the church an island unto itself.

  73. caheidelberger Post author | 2013.09.19

    I've got to get a blog interview with the Francis dude. "Obsessing" over abortion and contraception appears to be exactly the error Swain is committing in trying to distract us from Campbell's advocacy for Medicaid expansion.

  74. DK 2013.09.20

    Mr. Dithmer, I take offense at being called a sheep. Due to health problems I took a year off of college, and during that time, with an open mind, I explored different religions and ideas. It was the Catholic Church that drew me back because of the logic that was explained to me. I don't blindly follow anything.

    What do you mean when you ask me to stay out of politics? Do you not want me to vote? Do you not want me to campaign for people? Do you not want me to run for office? The teachings of the Catholic Church may mean nothing to you, but I may (and probably do) believe that some of your ideas are flat out wrong. Do you honestly want me to be silent about my views just because we disagree?

    I don't want the Church to engage in politics from the pulpit, but I think that you have a different definition of that than the law does. Just because you consider a subject to be political doesn't mean that a church can't have an opinion on it.

    As far as having a dirty back yard, I won't deny that. No one is perfect, and so an institution made up of imperfect people is going to have problems. However, because you are a human there is no way that your back yard is perfect either. If we all had to clean up our back yards before engaging in politics, there would be no politics because there are no pristine back yards.

    I assume that "why aren't you doing something about the churches involvement in the obvious?" is referring to the sex scandal. That is a horrible, terrible occurrence. I don't have words for how bad that is. However, priests don't abuse at a rate that is worse than anyone else: http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2010/04/07/mean-men.html And I do what I can do to "clean that up:" I pray for priests. There's not much more I can do, but I would if I could.

  75. DK 2013.09.20

    CAH, my guess again is that it isn't "a Catholic woman challenging the church's statements on the ACA and religious liberty" that is so threatening to Bishop Swain.

    My guess (and again, this is just a guess) is that it is THE Catholic woman who is the problem here. When I first facebooked you about this, I told you that she was full of it. I didn't even read your first article correctly because I was so fired up about hearing Sister Campbell's name and statements. It has nothing to do with her being a woman. It has to do with things that certain nuns, including Sister Campbell, have done in the past to anger many Catholics. Just like how things can get out of hand on the blog when two people with "histories" clash, I wonder if Bishop Swain doesn't feel the same way that I do about Sister Campbell and if that isn't why he didn't affirm the Medicaid expansion she was talking about.

  76. caheidelberger Post author | 2013.09.20

    If that's the case, then Bishop Swain needs to be the bigger man, get over that "history" or personal animus or whatever, and acknowledge that the grounds on which he criticized Sister Campbell's position can be applied equally to his failure to support the Medicaid expansion. The bishop and the nun can hash it out over their other issues, but they ought to be able to declare common cause in advocating for ACA Medicaid expansion in South Dakota.

  77. DK 2013.09.20

    Like I said, that is only a guess of mine, and only one of many possible situations. But I do see it as more plausible than that he doesn't support Medicaid expansion (or at least expansion of some type of help for the poor.)

    And while I agree with you that if that is the situation that he should be the bigger man, I think that people on this blog know how difficult that can be. I'm not making excuses for him, but rather trying to humanize him, as Bishop Swain has always come across to me as a very kind, humble, wonderful man, and many here don't seem to have had the interactions that I have had with him.

  78. caheidelberger Post author | 2013.09.20

    I'm sure that, like you, DK, Paul Swain and Simone Campbell are both interesting humans to sit and chat with. I could probably say that about the vast majority of people who comment here or who get commented about here (especially that Dithmer fellow, with all his stories!).

    But nice humanness doesn't change rightness or wrongness. Paul Swain is wrong on Medicaid expansion. He's also wrong, as Sister Campbell has pointed out, in most of his critique of ObamaCare. His distraction and detachment from fact makes it more plausible that he is driven by some other personal or ideological motivation than he simply hasn't gotten around to issuing a memo on the Medicaid topic yet.

  79. Bill Dithmer 2013.09.20

    "Mr. Dithmer, I take offense at being called a sheep."

    That's fine take all the offense you want.I take offense at having someone of faith preach their moral values to me .

    "What do you mean when you ask me to stay out of politics? Do you not want me to vote? Do you not want me to campaign for people? Do you not want me to run for office?"

    Bad choice of words, I should have said the church itself staying out of politics. I'm sorry about that. Just remember that if you drag the church with you, you are in effect representing the church.

    "The teachings of the Catholic Church may mean nothing to you, but I may (and probably do) believe that some of your ideas are flat out wrong. Do you honestly want me to be silent about my views just because we disagree?"

    Now I never said that I was trying to silence you, what i did say was that I wanted the church to stay out of politics from the pulpit. There is a huge difference in the two don't you think? If you want to say any damn thing you want I sure don't care just as long as you don't bring the church up as being morally superior when it comes to how the country should be run. But then you already knew exactly what I was saying didn't you?

    "I don't want the Church to engage in politics from the pulpit, but I think that you have a different definition of that than the law does. Just because you consider a subject to be political doesn't mean that a church can't have an opinion on it."

    My definition, what happens in the church stays in the church. When the Bishop starts to engage in conversation about any subject outside the church about anything political then it is wrong, unless he says that he no longer represents that church. You can write it in the church newspaper but stay out of the national press areas, that would be called a publicity stunt.

    "As far as having a dirty back yard, I won't deny that. No one is perfect, and so an institution made up of imperfect people is going to have problems. However, because you are a human there is no way that your back yard is perfect either. If we all had to clean up our back yards before engaging in politics, there would be no politics because there are no pristine back yards.

    I assume that "why aren't you doing something about the churches involvement in the obvious?" is referring to the sex scandal. That is a horrible, terrible occurrence. I don't have words for how bad that is. However, priests don't abuse at a rate that is worse than anyone else:"

    Don't throw slow pitches, even to a Blindman, there is a big difference and you know it.

    While priests don't abuse at a rate that is worse then anyone else, “isn't the problem and you know it.”

    The problem is, that the church has done everything it could to protect those priests. It would be a different story if the church didn't know in the first place but in most cases they did and choose to look the other way. I'm my opinion that is just as bad as the crime itself.

    "And I do what I can do to "clean that up:"

    I have never seen a sheep clean up its own mess.

    Now don't go thinking that you are special because we are talking now about the Catholic Church. It really doesn't matter what the religion is to me, they, are all the same when it comes to preaching from the pulpit. I don't care if you pray to the goat god, just don't try to make me "and the rest of the country,"to do something that you think is morally right and we will get along.

    Disagreements are what make life interesting. It's why we blog,

    The Blindman

  80. DK 2013.09.20

    CAH, can you tell me what Sister Campbell pointed out about Bishop Swain being wrong on his critiques of ObamaCare? I missed that part...unless its just about Medicaid expansion.

  81. DK 2013.09.20

    Mr. Dithmer, once again, I will have to get back to you a bit later. But don't worry about me thinking that I'm special because we're talking about the Catholic Church. You seem to dislike it (maybe even hate it?) quite a bit, and I don't have any illusions that I can change that. That's not why I'm talking with you.

  82. Bill Dithmer 2013.09.20

    DK, you dont get it. I dont hate the Catholic Church, it is what it is, just like any other religion.The fact that you might or might not be a Catholic makes no difference to me at all.

    I would take exception to any person representing a church, or any other religion for that mater, preaching their values as absolute to the rest of the people that may or may not believe the same as they do.

    The Blindman

  83. Jerry 2013.09.20

    And around and around we go, where this stops, only heaven knows. Bishop Swain is still a bully and a right wingnut who does not support Medicaid expansion (show me where he flat out says he does) Show me the money!

    The sin of this all is that the Bishop hates poor people and people of color. He must because he will not show support to allow the poor and the folks of color to have healthcare. The bishop needs to be reminded that his real boss supports completely the helping of the poor and the wretched. Where is the bishops compassion? Is it just for the moolah? Has he changed his mind of who God is? The bishop should be clear, he needs to stand and deliver.

  84. Bill Dithmer 2013.09.20

    I'm through now Jerry. There are other fish to fry.

    It's friday.

    The Blindman

  85. Joseph g thompson 2013.09.20

    Way too many bigots post here anymore. What used to be an enjoyable blog has turned into one of the most bigoted one that I read. Will continue to read it, because of the insight it gives me as to how progressives think.

  86. Jerry Post author | 2013.09.20

    Have a good weekend Blindman, fishing sounds like a good idea.

  87. Joseph G Thompson Post author | 2013.09.20

    Read some of your posts with an open mind!

  88. Bill Dithmer Post author | 2013.09.20

    Joseph I wasn't going to post anymore but I feel the need now.

    I am not a bigot. On the contrary I believe in this philosophy. Every person should have autonomy over their own body and mind without any outside influence. There wasn't that simple?

    You on the other hand seem to want some kind of control over people that you don't even know." Abortions for women that choose that route and the rights of gay people to live their lives without fear of the intolerance of people like yourself."

    When you point your finger and yell bigot, there are four more fingers pointing back at you.

    Sorry Cory for this much posting I don't do it much anymore.

    The Blindman

    [CAH: no need to apologize for posting lengthily!]

  89. Jerry Post author | 2013.09.20

    Joseph g, you are as correct as you can be. Here is what dictionary says about bigot. "a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices".

    Good news! We all are in some ways. We all have our opinions that we are devoted to because that is who we are as humans. I am afraid that I shall have to include you in this mix as well. No one gets a free ride. Prejudices could be a little more dicey though. I have not seen that on this blog, never have, for that matter. It is clear that there are strong opinions (yours included and accepted as your own), but no sign of prejudice to me. As a matter of curiosity, are you for Medicaid expansion or against? Me, I am for and so says everyone else on this posting. What is your strong opinion on this matter?

  90. Joseph G Thompson Post author | 2013.09.20

    Would like to see Medicaid expanded, but whether or not we like it, the decision is a political one. I am not a Catholic. Posters here who attack the Bishop would attack him for any reason. He really should not be saying expand Medicaid, since it is a political decision. He should not say that a law should be passed forbidding abortion. Both cross the line, it is however, permissible for him to say the Catholic church is opposed to abortion, not a political issue a moral one. If you don't like being called a bigot than don't sound like one and watch the hypocrisy. Don't mind being called a bigot, been called a lot worse on this blog by both the left and the right. Got big melons, right Cori?

    [CAH: Yes you do, Joseph. :-) ]

  91. Jerry Post author | 2013.09.20

    I would argue that it is a moral decision rather than a political one. See, hungry sick poor people should not be political fodder, they are relatives, our friends, they are us. No one has attacked the bishop for anything other than the obvious. The bishop's past has defined him as being political and right wing in nature and has thus thrown himself inside the political ring with his declarations. I do not mind being called anything, they are words. Actions speak much louder than them and you are but a whisper in the wind regarding that. I am clear with what I speak of so there is not a hint of hypocrisy in those words I have written. By the way, the last time I heard the phrase "Got big melons" I was slapped.

  92. Joseph G Thompson Post author | 2013.09.20

    big melons, not my words they are Cory's. I agree that one should morally provide help but how that help is provided is established by law(political decision). For example, I am against abortion morally, but if a woman came to me and said she wanted an abortion but was afraid to go to the clinic alone, I would take her since the law permits it. Would try to talk her out of it on way to the clinic, but she insisted I would escort her inside the clinic. Many things the government does I am opposed morally to, but I support because it is the law. I do however, have a line that government can not step over or I will oppose the government.

    [CAH: Actually, Joseph, now that I check, I didn't say "big melons." I just said the Egyptian fellas might be looking at those melons. But I appreciate your noticing. :-) ]

  93. Jerry Post author | 2013.09.20

    The discussion here is about a bishop and his moral obligation to his flock. He is not supposed to be making political decisions, he is supposed to be making moral decisions for the good all who he represents. I know that there are many many people of faith that are very poor and have many health issues. They do not have anyone who stands for them other than the clergy and they look to them for moral support. They do not go to a priest or a pastor to check on the political points of the two party's as they are to busy just trying to put food on the table. The clergy have an obligation to help make sure the poor are fed and clothed as Jesus spoke of. As a religious leader, the bishop is obligated to do just that and to speak loudly and clearly that stance.

  94. Joseph G Thompson Post author | 2013.09.20

    Not in a political environment only within the church. If he does otherwise he then crosses the line and involves the church in politics for which he should be criticized for in the U.S. and I would be the first to criticize him. His moral obligation to his flock is to say we as Catholics have an obligation to our fellow man, not we as Catholics must support the extension of Medicade. As a non Catholic, who uses the Catholic health care system, I think they do a pretty good job of it. Don't even mind the Priest and the Sisters who come to see how I am doing. Remember, most of the progressive posters here have chastised me in the past for saying we should be a nation based on morals and not law.

    (sorry Cory didn't write big melons only melons.)

  95. Jerry Post author | 2013.09.20

    And a nod is as good as a wink to a blind horse.

Comments are closed.