"... people who claim to be Catholic and then publicly undercut the teaching and leadership of their bishops spread confusion, cause grave damage to the believing community and give the illusion of moral cover to a version of health care “reform” that is not simply bad, but dangerous..."

So are Catholics allowed to disagree with the bishops, publicly about anything? Ever? Can we disagree, but just not publicly?

Archbishop, let me offer a little bit from my recent experience. The only way my employer kept our insurance premium increases to 2% instead of 25% was to cut 33% of the employee base off the plan. They have said they anticipate having to do something similar next year and I am reasonably concerned that I will be in the next tranche cut loose. At the same time:

Elderly relatives can afford their medications through medicare part D until about July or August - at which point the "doughnut hole" kicks in and they go back to having to choose between drugs and rent or drugs and food or drugs and other bills.

A trip to the emergency room in January to investigate an episode of fainting wound up costing $5400, even though I was only there six hours. Essentially, emergency room care costs about $900/hour - all of it falling on the individual if they are not insured.

I understand that the measures being debated in the Congress right now are not perfect. But they are a start, and this household at least desperately needs there to be a start.

Regards,

David Morrison

It's a blessing to have you as our archbishop. Can't remember the last time (if ever) that I disagreed with your moral stance, which grows more influential with each passing day. As a spectacular example, there was the time people in Denver were rejoicing that Timothy McVeigh was going to be executed, and you came out with a column condemning capital punishment. Or the time you reminded pro-choice members of your flock that they ought not call themselves Catholic. I could go on (having learned from you for many years), but this will convey the idea. Long may your banner wave!

Don't forget the "Catholic" politicians who wrote the bill in the first place.

Thank you dear Rev Bishop, I just read Ann Coulter's health care plan on her website. It's a winner politically, economically and culturally. As a regular reader of Catholic publications from church bulletins to diocese weekly papers, I have yet to see the USCCB's health care plan.

My dear Bishop, I believe there much more to this than what is being portrayed. For example, Professor Timothy Jost presents a strong case that the health bill does in fact include anti abortion language that is as strong as the Hyde Amendment. Secondly, where we are bombarded with phony claims about death panels, or that the majority of the people do not want health care reform presented in this bill which by the way is unsubstantiated how can the average citizen determine who is actually telling the truth? It surely is not all on the side of the right.

Thank you Reverend Bishop, I just read Ann Coulter's plan for health care reform on her website. It seems like a winner politically, economically and culturally. As a regular reader of Catholic material from church bulletins to diocese papers, I have yet to see exactly what the USCCB's health care plan is.

AMEN!!

Some of those "Catholic" voices will be having their annual convention assembly in Denver three short months from now. The theme? "Strengthening the Ministry through Turbulent Times". I wonder if they invited Archbishop Chaput?

What a skewed and biased article. AB Chaput makes three points - every point could also apply to his stance, arguments, and ally, George.
- he and his fellow bishops (not all) are just as partisan as the ones he is pointing a finger at. He has repeatedly trumpeted abortion as the "foundational issue" - that may be partly correct but not to the degree of single focus that he has given it. His brief comment about a 30 year history is simplistic at best and he makes no reference to the church's own abortion statements over the centuries
- his usual stance....obedience to the magisterium comes above justice, mercy, love, and other gospel imperatives. It is a sad commentary. Given the recent and current track records of most bishops on pro-life that is much larger than the single issue of abortion e.g. abuse of children; non-response to the rights of women; non-response to economic disparities even in the US; etc. Yes, some passionate folks may undercut the bishops but the bishops have lost all credibility because they are hypocritical; two-faced; and do not live much less speak the universal rights and dignity of all peoples. Recent example from AB Chaput - his Boulder parish school decision to refuse a pre-school & kindergartner access to their catholic school next year because their parents are lesbians. Let's see - church baptized them with the promise to raise them catholic; now that is not possible in a catholic grade school; but, by the way, they can attend CCD. What hogwash!
Third - let's change his own langauge......."for supporters of the Stupak Amendment at any cost, facts don't seem to matter when a coveted goal is within reach. Sorry, who says that bishops have all or only the answer to pro-life - they are self-appointed experts - oh yes, with plenty of their own insurance coverage e.g. George has spent tens of thousands of medical insurance dollars over the past three years and it is why he is still alive. Yet, his principle would deny another 31 million Americans the same basic access to support their human dignity and right to life??
-
-

When Bishop Chaput speaks about Catholics undercutting the teaching and authority of their bishops and causing confusion, I wonder what he is thinking. Sadly, our bishops lost of lot of their teaching authority years ago when they covered up the sexual abuse crisis. They further eroded their authority when they joined hands with the Bush administration on so many issues. I am a faithful Catholic priest and I uphold the teaching of our Church. However, the way bishops have tied this entire health care reform to their interpretation of the present legislation is not helping their teaching authority. I am as opposed to abortion as Bishop Chaput. I still support the present effort at health care reform and pray that it passes, without Catholic bishops' support and without one Republican voting for it. I admire Bishop John McCarthy, retired bishop of Austin, who came out in support of the bill.

Are these voices really Catholic any more?
Bishop Chaput - thank you for your columns this week.
You are a good man.

I am grateful for Archbishop Chaput’s clear and persuasive writings, but there is an aspect of the current thrust toward health care reform that seems not to have been considered in the Church statements on healthcare that I have read. I’d like to raise the point in this forum because since I ‘m sure Archbishop Chaput’s writings are widely read, my comment might also be widely read.

In a government run single payer health care system, (which is clearly the long-term objective of many of the strongest supporter of current health care reform efforts) the enrollee premiums charged, plus the maximum share of federal tax revenue consistent with a sustainable federal budget over the long term, will determine the upper limit of the share of national income available for health care expenditure.

The combination of an aging population, improving medical technology, the kinds of medical services covered, and the pricing system that characterizes a single payer insurance system, will likely generate a demand for health care well in excess of the maximum funds that can be raised by taxation and premiums. Decisions on allocation of these limited funds must be made, and, how they are made has serious moral and political implications.

In a nation as large as the U.S. the allocation decisions inevitably will rest in the hands of a small centralized bureaucracy, and It will be virtually impossible to subject this bureaucracy to effective democratic control. This strengthening of centralized bureaucracy at the expense of participatory democracy is undesirable. But what is worse is that inevitably, the principles of allocation developed to direct the envisioned single payer system will reflect the moral and political views of this small bureaucratic elite. And it is the moral thinking of that elite that should be considered by voters as they ponder the wisdom of moving toward a single payer system.

The ethical and moral theory that presently guides much expert thinking reflects a utilitarian cost benefit analytical framework. The ethical views of men like Peter Singer and Ezekiel Emmanuel appear increasingly to dominate elite circles. I do not want these views to shape the centralized funds allocation process necessary under a single payer system, and it a major reason why I am quite skeptical about the wisdom of establishing a single payer system.

I am quite concerned that every person has access to a reasonable level of health care. But, I prefer that specific problems in our healthcare system be identified precisely, and specific changes to improve access and efficiency be carefully designed to respect the moral standing of the individual human subject, and to keep heath care decisions as close as possible to the families affected This, I believe, is more likely to be achieved in a decentralized multiple payer private-public system with multiple options.

I disagree with Charles J. Chaput on nearly all parts of his analysis and his understanding of how Catholics are to regard the bishops leadership on this issue with their own subjective interpretation. I hope the bill passes otherwise, ass Charles says, "we'll have 'Catholilc' voices partly to thank for it. And hold responsible."

President Obama recently called on Congress to be courageous in passing his healthcare bill. The tricks they're using to do this are truly shameful and cowardly and beneath so many people elected to that body. As the Archbishop points out, this cowardice seems to extend to some Catholic organizations who have abandoned their faith and rejected their shepherds for a cause they want to see furthered at all cost. The ends never justify the means and what a sad state our nation has devolved to when we sacrifice the unborn for the sake of those this side of the womb.

True courage is what the Archbishop gives us in his letter and I am very blessed to be a member of his flock.

Good article by Archbishop Chaput. He might have added the prominent catholic democrat politicians involved here who can and should be grouped with the "worst side of a certain kind of “Catholic” witness": Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden, John Kerry, and the late Ted Kennedy. All have sought to define their own Catholic morality and catechism.

Thank you Bishop Chaput!

It just goes to show how many pseudo-Catholics just do not care if the President and Congress further enshrine *homicide as public policy*.

Archbishop Chaput

Thank you for speaking truth to phonies.

Bravo! How about Nancy Pelosi, in all her confusion, claiming to pray to St Joseph the Worker on the solemnity of St Joseph, Husband of Mary. A perfect pro-life occasion passed over.

Thank God for the outstanding and courageous leadership of Archbishop Chaput. As Catholics we all need to faithfully witness the truth of the Gospel and never be afraid to do so when challenged. Our world is certainlly in a secular chaos and the Church needs to stand tall as a bullwark of truth, as well as Charity and Social Justice (in that order.) Let us all pray that God will abundantly bless those who fiercely fight for and to protect the great Gift of Life - from fertilization to natural death.

We need strong leadership, as the Bishops provide, with the backing of the Vatican to excommunicate these so-called Catholics. If you are not in union with all the teachings provided by the Catholic Church, then consider yourself not Catholic. I am reminded of scripture; Mathew 15:8 "These people Honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far away. Their Worship is a farce, for they replace God's Commands with their own man-made teachings."

They must be called out and the must be punished for co-opting the faith outside the teachings of the Church. It's modern-day heresy and it needs to be stopped.

Catholics agree that abortion is wrong and a sin. The bill does not pay for abortion unless you listen to what Fox News is spreading (not fair, not balanced).

Why defend Congressman Bart Stupak when he takes his marching orders from the very NON Catholic "Family" on C street in Washington DC? See it is politics, not religion.

"The American bishops have repeatedly shown their support for good healthcare reform."

Really? Republicans have controlled Congress for 18 of the last 23 years and the White House for 20 of the last 29 years. When were the bishops pressuring Republicans to tackle health care reform?

If the bishops can muster this much opposition, it would be nice to also see them muster more support than written statements.

Someone on another blog pointed out that, in his writing, the Archbishop calls Catholics who disagree with him "Catholics". (with the quote-unquotes). I guess he also objects to social justice, since he also referred to that using "quote-unquotes" . Like some others on this post, I am as opposed to abortion as the Archbishop; unlike him, though,I support the legislation because I do not believe it funds abortion. The Archbishop has a right to respectfully disagree with people like me, but no right at all to insult us by calling us "Catholics". It's very offensive and, to my mind, seriously detracts from his argument.

I, too applaud Bishop McCarthy for his courage in supporting this legislation. I wish we had more men like him among our leadership.

John's comment pretty much says it all. The Church needs to excommunicate everyone not aligned with it totally. In fact I think the Church should make up a loyalty oath and if you don't take it, you are anathema. And part of the oath should involve attesting to a complete lack of knowledge or caring about the moving of pedophile priests from parish to parish over decades to abuse and destroy young lives. All that matters really is life right up to the time of birth. After that, not so much.

And by the way, did anyone notice how much this bishop and others love to work the word "grave?"

In a news report: "Denver Archbishop Charles Chaput complained that Network and the Catholic Health Association "have done a grave disservice to the American Catholic community by undermining the leadership of the nation's Catholic bishops, sowing confusion among faithful Catholics, and misleading legislators through their support of the Senate bill." "

Sorry, Arch. Chaput, but the nuns have not "undermining the leadership of the nation's Catholic bishops"; the bishops have done that to themselves by taking extreme positions on issues about which sincere people can have differences, and by publicly rebuking catholic politicians trying to do their job within the confines of a secular, pluralistic democracy. This was abundantly demonstrated with your full-court-press to stop the election of President Barack Obama, which led to the catholic vote for President Obama exceeding that of the general population. The catholics put President Obama in office!!

Sorry, Arch. Chaput, but the bishops lost their influence on the election and are now clearly losing their influence on this major piece of legislation, Health Care Reform.

The basic rule of the catholic church is that a person must act according to his/her conscience REGARDLESS of outside influence. Bishops can teach but ADULTS must decide and vote their conscience. The nuns are brave catholics, like Kennedy, Biden, Pelosi and Sebelius, who are following this rule; they have clearly demonstrated their right and obligation to stand up to the bishops and fight for what they see as right.

Best regards

RCharles

In a news report: "Denver Archbishop Charles Chaput complained that Network and the Catholic Health Association "have done a grave disservice to the American Catholic community by undermining the leadership of the nation's Catholic bishops, sowing confusion among faithful Catholics, and misleading legislators through their support of the Senate bill." "

Sorry, Arch. Chaput, but the nuns have not "undermining the leadership of the nation's Catholic bishops"; the bishops have done that to themselves by taking extreme positions on issues about which sincere people can have differences, and by publicly rebuking catholic politicians trying to do their job within the confines of a secular, pluralistic democracy. This was abundantly demonstrated with your full-court-press to stop the election of President Barack Obama, which led to the catholic vote for President Obama exceeding that of the general population. The catholics put President Obama in office!!

Sorry, Arch. Chaput, but the bishops lost their influence on the election and are now clearly losing their influence on this major piece of legislation, Health Care Reform.

The basic rule of the catholic church is that a person must act according to his/her conscience REGARDLESS of outside influence. Bishops can teach but ADULTS must decide and vote their conscience. The nuns are brave catholics, like Kennedy, Biden, Pelosi and Sebelius, who are following this rule; they have clearly demonstrated their right and obligation to stand up to the bishops and fight for what they see as right.

Best regards

RCharles

God bless you, Archbishop, for your faithful adherence to Catholic teachings. Abortion is intrinsically evil. It is not Health Care, it is murder! How can anyone condone it? Thanks you for speaking out. I will pray for those whose comments dissent on this website. God have mercy on them and God bless you.

Catholic Social Justice is NOT Socialism. There are other ways to cut medical insurance costs , such as tax cuts for employers and allowing insurance to be sold across state lines, increasing competition. No wonder we cannot get rid of abortion in this country, politicians, religious and lay people are always ready to sell out the least among us. American Catholics no longer have a claim on the Pro Life position. Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden are given a pass because there is no passion for protection of the infants by those who vote. There is just an increasing desire to be handed everything, no matter who suffers in the exchange.

Sister Carol and these other nuns, and those here who support them, for a few pieces of US silver, have betrayed their Lord. They have shown that they have no faith that by obeying His commandment not to kill that He would have found a way for them to continue their corporal works of mercy. These nuns and their supporters have replaced God with the craven image of the US government. They will soon have blood on their hands. The unborn are not the only ones who are slated for death in the Senate bill, so are the elderly.

There are other alternatives to reform health care...that are actually about preserving life, not extinguishing life to save a buck.

God bless you Arcnhbishop Chaput.
We need leaders like you in the Church to stir us and lead us on.

Thank you for demonstrating that all-important quality we need in every corner of
our sad and lonely culture - leadership.

Dan Hoffman

Thank you for your strong moral leadership at a time when we really need it.

The hierarchy of the Catholic Church starting with the Pope might have some moral credibility when more of them are in jail for child abuse. Until then, they don't.

"Some Catholics have an almost frantic unwillingness to see the abortion issue for what it is—a foundational matter of social justice and human rights. It can’t be avoided in developing our public policies without debasing the whole nature of Christian social teaching. No rights are safe when the right to life is not."

This is the heart of Catholic teaching and the critics of Archbishop Chaput, in these comboxes and elsewhere, are owed an apology for receiving faulty teaching at some point in their formation. That, or they fall under the Archbishop's other points...in essence they are Democratic catholics, for whom "facts don't seem to matter".

Archbishop Chaput speaks the truth that some do not want to hear. I doubt the posts with such anger towards the Archbishop and the Catholic Church are from Catholics. They all sound like pro-choice Catholic haters. I will disregard their comments and support my Archbishop. They can disregard my comment and support their bishops Drs. Carhart and Tiller.

I thank God Archbishop for your life and leadership; another tremendous article.

I am wondering if there will be any consequences for these so called "catholic" groups?

"He has repeatedly trumpeted abortion as the "foundational issue" - that may be partly correct but not to the degree of single focus that he has given it. "

What an extraordinary comment. If life isn't the foundation issue for everything, what is? Of course it is the primary and first focus of every law. How weird that anyone could think otherwise?

" abuse of children; non-response to the rights of women; non-response to economic disparities even in the US; etc."

Abortion is abuse of women and detrimental to the "rights" of women. Nothing is more distructive. The Church works hard everyday to help the poor and raise their standing in society. How in the world could this person believe it has been "non-responsive"? Who does he think runs most of the charity in this country and has for more than a century? Again, a very strange and uninformed view.

"and do not live much less speak the universal rights and dignity of all peoples"
No, the democrats are the ones who hope that abortion kills the most vunerable of all people, the unborn. The bishops, while not understanding that wealth redistribution will wreck the economy of the US and make the entire world poorer, at least stand fast on teaching that all people have dignity by their very nature of being created by a loving God in his image with a soul--even the unborn. The Church never taught anything differently--Nancy Pelosi thinks so and is very wrong. The Church fathers have always taught that all human life is sacred.

The Church cannot condone even the sacrifice of one life on the hope that that sacrifice might save another life in the future. Every life has immesurable value, every life has supreme dignity, every life is created by a just, loving, omnipotent, omnicient God.

The parents of the children not allowed into the Catholic school are not lesbians. One of them might be a parent but both cannot be. Legally, they may be parents but it still takes a man and a woman to conceive a child. Lesbian couples raising a child cannot raise that child Catholic. The school and the parents are partners in that child's education and the school cannot partner with an unnatural arrangement. The school will teach that homosexuality is disordered. The lesbians will counter that argument. The arrangement would only cause pain and confusion in the child and in the school. Not allowing it is the most compassionate response.

This afternoon on the O'Reilly Factor, Laura Ingraham questioned Illinois Representative Luis Gutierrez about his announcement that he will vote "Yea" on the health care reform bill. He admitted that his vote is tied to a commitment from the President that comprehensive immigration reform will be pursued with vigor and energy.

Laura went on to ask Gutierrez about how he squares his position on the bill with his being a Catholic, given the Church's teaching on abortion and on conscience protections. Gutierrez stated that he believes in the separation of church and state.

So, I presume that the "non-state" part of him will be presenting himself for communion this Sunday while the "state" part is away voting for a bill that will facilitate abortion against the consciences of those forced by state to pay for it.

What is the opposite of "at-one-ment?"

And, just two weeks before Easter.

Dear Mike Gunderson:
Jost's points are refuted on the USCCB website (in detail) and also in an article on the Mother Jone's website in which he lets slip that the Community Health Center funding does not contain the explicit language required to prevent funding of abortions.
sincerely, D

I agree with the Stupak side, and I do not actually think the health reform bill, abortion aside, is a good one. But this language about going against the authority of bishops and creating confusion is regrettable. Bishops should be listened to but do not have the authority to prescribe on the application of principles to public policy, and people who disagree with them are not ipso fact confused or sowing confusion.

Thank you, Archbishop Chaput for bringing the truth and light of Christ to this sea of darkness. How sad it makes me to read these remarks and see how misinformed so many Catholics are regarding the true teaching of our beloved church on the primacy of life issues.

The current health care bill does, indeed, allow for taxpayer funding of abortion. The right to life has always been a bedrock principle of the Catholic Church. Those who would attempt to ignore that fundamental right to life of the unborn by citing bishops involved in the sexual abuse scandals are looking for an excuse not to uphold that right, just for the sake of passing this bill. There is a way to reform health care without providing funds for abortions. This bill does not contain that specific language. Thank you, Bishop Chaput.

Thank you Bishop Chaput. You are a voice of sanity in a world of E. J. Dionnes.

Thank you Excellency, for your fine examination of this matter before Congress. As usual, your patience with some nuns and a few priests who apparently don't understand basic doctrine and especially fundamental moral principles, is generous, and yet exposes reasons for why the laity can hardly be faulted for knowing so little about the teaching function of the hierarchy.
For me the most basic issue involved in the destruction of babes in the womb is PRIMA AD RIPA (I got here first), and therefore get to decide who lives or dies in my body or in my life. I've found, as well, that arguing with abortionists is very like arguing with slave-owners a hundred and fifty years ago. For those that have the historical knowledge, the debate is deja vu.
Thank you once again.

Greta as always ArchBishop Chaput. As always, you will be hounded by those who have lost their soul and we should all pray for them who have posted their venom and hatred here. Killing babies with our tax money is not healthcare reform. bribing for votes is not the way we should have reform. Passing reform without any attempt to have bipartisanship is wrong and of course that means passing it without any of the thousands of amendments offered with many important measures like tort reform. Passing a bill where every American is not treated the same and where healthcare is not improved but destoryed is not healthcare reform. Why do those in one state have more rights than in another state? Not sure that this even passes the muster of the Constitution and we all know this baby if forced down our throats is going to end up in court because of the way they have handled this legislation.

This is a mess and clearly shows that the democrats left on their own create a mess that exceeds any in the history of our country.

How did it happen that the commitment to life came to be narrowed only to the rights of the unborn? How is it that the needs of the unborn trump the needs of those who are already born? This health care bill is far from perfect, but it will serve to save millions of lives by extending health care to a significant sector of the currently uninsured population. Bishop Chaput believes that the bill is fatally flawed. I believe that his position to deny the extension of health care to millions of uninsured is fatally flawed.

LIFE must be primary, life is not primary to the people who contstructed this bill, it is not a social justice bill, it is a power bill. The evil one is at work in this legislation, hence the endorsement of Planned Parenthood as well.

I agree that there is confusion among the faithful - but I believe the USCCB shares in causing it. They naively believed they could do a deal with the devil to get healthcare, when it was quite obvious that the president and his party would include abortion funding in any legislation. "Past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior" is a maxim the USCCB should've heeded. Now they'll have to deal with "Catholic" hospitals that accept this funding, without protection for conscientious objection to abortion and contraception. The unraveling is just beginning, and the USCCB shares some blame.

Who, in this world, will hold them accountable. Without action, the threat of accountability is moot. All this divisivness adds to the low opinion our religion has with our Protestant brothers. What is unity worrth when we are not united internally. We need real action by the Bishiops, and NOW!

your a good man and Bishop thanks for standing up for the unborn. They could put some protection for the unborn into their health bill if they wanted to. so my question is why don't they want to???????? If people want an abortion let them pay for it themselves.

Let me add my kudos to AB Chaput's article? I can feel only sadness for those that somehow think abortion is NOT the foundational issue of our times.

The Archbishop is correct as is the Church's teaching on this matter. Those people who call themselves Catholic and then support abortion, gay marriage, etc., bring scandal to the Church much like the fallen religious who brought scandal through their failings. One wonderful thing about our Catholic faith is that the story of the prodigal son can still apply to each of us who may have fallen away from true faithfulness to the Church, one only needs to seek forgiveness and reconciliation through the sacraments. It is truly sad to hear that religious and members of the Church who may have a public forum deride the teachings of the Church when we know that the Holy Spirit guides her. May God continue to bless and protect his Church, the Holy Father and all of our Bishops, especially Archbishop Chaput. We must all pray for our priests and religious that they would be faithful to the teachings of Christ, the will of God and to their vocation (which is really all the same thing).

There seems to be a factual dispute whether the Senate Bill in fact does risk public financial support of abortion, not a moral dispute whether it's OK to tolerate abortion in order to get medical care for 30-some million uninsured people. And there seems to be a move afoot in Congress to move in Rep. Stupak's direction with a companion bill to tighten restrictions, being put forward under the so-called 'reconciliation' method. Thus the factual assumptions underlying the Archbishop's opinion may be honestly erroneous. Further, some argue that giving 30,000,000 people health insurance may reduce abortion significantly. Lastly, is it not time to take a two-pronged approach to abortion? A constitutional amendment to overrule Roe v Wade as one, and major improvements in support for life after birth such that no woman need fear disastrous loss of income or major loss of education because of an unplanned pregnancy?

The point is clear. Bishop Chaput does respect the teachings of our church and, in that sense, does speak for our church.

"Catholics United," on the other hand, does not respect the teachings of our church. Catholics United is simply abusing the church by speaking against our teachings while claiming to be speaking in our name. It's a form of false witness. The 8th commandment was not intended to be optional.

Questioning your bishop is on thing. Catholics United making demonstrably false claims that they speak for the Catholic Church is another.

While I am in complete agreement with Bishop Chaput I believe we tend to be focused on issues rather than the overarching substance of the challenge at hand. We are heading into a corruption of our country far worse than anything we have endured before. The corruption is the complete ignorance of the United States Constitution and a very important Commandment. Nowhere in our Constitution is a service considered to be a "right". What others earn is not the government's to give. The Commandment is "thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's goods".

We are embarking on a journey that will destroy us as a people of freedom and mark us as the generation that gave away our birthright of liberty. The system of health care is seriously flawed and the problem must be handled in the only way it should be handled. Get the government out of it. Open it to free and robust competition. Competition is what drives down cost not more government. Socialism, facsism, marxism, communism or any other "ism" is not who we are.

The inablility of these psuedo-catholics to see the "light" is the work of the evil one. Nothing will change them. But, with real Catholics speaking out like the bishops who adhere to the magisterium of the church, we at least have a beacon of light in this dark time of our nation. Yes, there are bishops who are not in total agreement much to the detriment of the church, but Jesus said the gates of hell will not prevail against us. I believe Him and know these bishops and denigrators of the church will not prevail in the long run.

In reading the comments it becomes clear even here that the folks who do not support the bishops are missing the point once again. Abortion is the foundational issue. David (above) paid $5400 to go to the emergency room and that sucks but guess what? He is alive! No one snuffed him out of existence because of "choice." Bottom line is if you are a Catholic you are 100% pro-life and 100% supportive of your Church. You do not start a "Catholic group" that dissents publicly from your Church. You can work from within your Church in holy obedience and humility to change things from within. If you do not do this then you are not Catholic so stop saying you are. You've started your own church with yourself as the God.

About this notion that the bill "covers abortions"; from what I have seen, that is not true. The ones claiming this, do so on the slender grounds that funds are "fungible", so if a person gets health care coverage, and is able to pay a separate fee for a separate insurance policy that does cover abortion, then the entire edifice is deemed to "cover abortion". I think the logic of this is pretty weak.
Using that same logic, I could argue that giving a bowl of soup to a poor person allows them to spend the soup money on abortion, so soup kitchens are then deemed to "provide abortion".

But there is another more utilitarian issue that should be considered- even if abortions were free, would the rate of them rise? Does the cost of abortion ever in any way affect the decision to have one? I don't think so.

The stakes here are huge- tens of thousands of people each year die, or are driven into financial ruin and misery by the current system.

So it seems profoundly cynical and craven to use such a slight slender possibility of people getting financial covereage for abortion, to reject such a profound and life-saving reform. I would urge Catholics of good conscience to consider the greater good the bill would do, rather than use it as a bludgeon to win the abortion war.

Thank you dear Bishop for some clarity amidst the present confusion.
The faithful of your Diocese are blessed, and I hope they pray for you
day and night.

Right on, Liberty60. And right on to those that actually read and understand what the Health Care Reform bill actually says instead of getting their information exclusively from the bishop. That was the way life was in the Middle Ages but things have changed haven't they?

Let's take the issue of abortion head on. For those for whom the issue is "foundational" as AB Chaput maintains, how can they possibly resolve the excommunications of doctors and a mother in Brazil???? Sure there was an abortion....to save the life of a nine year old child who was abused, raped and violated for THREE YEARS by her step father. So the doctors said she was carrying twins and her slight nine year old body could not bring the children safely to term and birth. A bishop like Chaput then excommunicated the mother and the doctors that performed the procedure. The child herself probably also would have been excommunicated but she was too young. And the step father.......no action from the Church. What kind of moral leadership is that?? But if you are tempted even so to defend this warped bishop know that although the Vatican originally approved the action, a high ranking Vatican person said the excommunications were a mistake. This sort of thing makes it very clear that those whose position on abortion is so rigid and extreme are really only invested in some sort of personal moral superiority to make themselves feel good, and on a higher moral plain than the rest of us.

Liberty60 - Your name is at odds with your message.

How can it possibly make any sense to enslave everyone to a government system for provision of care when most are capable of providing for themselves through voluntary associations? That is the ultimate goal of this plan, as employers increasingly dump their employees on the public plans because the cost of the penalty for doing so is substantially less than the cost of employer-based plans burdened with new requirements. Public plans will lower reimbursements, doctors will leave their occupations rather than be enslaved, and the American health care system will become little more than nursing services, pharmaceutical distribution and hospice care, with ever-decreasing access to advanced technologies and skills.

Our existing health care system is an established order which is becoming too costly to bear, but the answer is in correcting the distortions that past actions have built into it. Those distortions were caused by interventions which have destroyed underlying relationships. One generation is taxed to pay for another. Tax benefits are offered to employers providing medical benefits which are not available to a person providing such benefits for himself. Medical benefits are provided chosen interest groups whose conditions would never have been provided by individual citizens without accompanying requirements that the behavior causing their conditions be corrected. Insurance companies have increasingly become less involved in "insurance" against catastrophic loss and more involved as "payment processing utilities" with little power to define limits or define risks they must underwrite. Laws and juries encourage the pursuit of "jackpot justice" which heavily rewards talented and aggressive plaintiff's lawyers while doing nothing to improve the provision of care while raising it's cost. Always, always pitting one group against the other, indulging the belief that someone else can afford what a person himself knows he can't, while deferring the cost to another day - selling the promise that we have no limits.

If you were truly for liberty, you'd promote solutions that serve freedom rather than build the power of the federal government, such as equalizing tax treatment of costs paid personally (rather than through an employer) for medical costs and insurance, allowing deductibility for medical costs incurred on behalf of extended family members or offered as charity to the poor, allowing insurance companies to cross state lines and to offer exclusively catastrophic plans that fit people's needs, and limiting punitive malpractice awards in such a way that they encourage better care, rather than reward plaintiffs' attorneys against the common good.

The Catholic Church teaches the principle of subsidiarity; where solutions can be found closer to home, it is those that should be sought. The common good is served when rights are enjoyed within the context of human relationships rather than imposed as obligations without relationships. Leveraging entitlements against some without their consent for the benefit of others only minimally related to them disintegrates what little unity holds them together.
A civic right can only be claimed and enjoyed within the reach of recognizable civility.

See Catechism, Article I, Section I, 1878-1885.

Dear Archbishop Chaput:

Thank you for your moral leadership.

Your critics appear to assume that this so-called 'healthcare' legislation is the only solution to the healthcare problem there is, or could possibly be, or ever will be.

No, it isn't.

To call this legislation "imperfect" is to damn it with faint praise. Its intent is not to reform healthcare; in that sense it is a red herring. This bill is a trojan horse. Its intent is to redistribute wealth, subborn the rights of the individual to those of the state, and to create a permanent Leftist, statist majority--to consolidate Democrat power. This bill's passage marks the end of our precious and irreplacable republic and, in an ideal world, would be vigorously combatted by both pro- and anti-abortion Catholics alike. That the Catholic voter has reduced the fate of our republic to a debate over who's paying for an abortion is pitiful and terrifying. The abortion issue, in fact, isn't about babies; it is about all of our lives--yours included. When we permitted a baby's life to be forfeit to the state, we ceded the sanctity of our own lives, as well. Many still do not realize that, but the fact will become more clear if we adopt this legislation. We can't fight for the sanctity of anyone's life--baby or mother--when our personal freedom has been compromised; it's like fightng over who gets to sit in the last deck chair on the Titanic. The ship is going down.

Do you honestly believe that the state, with its considerations of cost, efficiency and political control is going to let us make all the decisions about your health and that of those we love? Go to any of the British newspaper sites online and read the first 10 articles that pop up after you search for "NHS" or "National Health Service". It's heartbreaking. Once the state is paying the bills, you are not "in charge of your own body," not by any means.

Consider this, if you will: a genuine attempt at healthcare reform would leave intact that which is, in fact, satisfactory--85% of the population is quite happy with what they've got--while remediating that part which has failed--a project everyone agrees on. The process would be thoughtful, deliberate and call for the best thoughts on the subject from every conceivable source, both civic and religious. In a republic, compromise is of the essence; it's what keeps America afloat and legitimizes our government, whether Democrat or Republican.

Obama and Co. have gone at this not with a scalpel, but with a bludgeon. They consult only themselves and brook no dissension. They don't want us to know what's in the bill, it true costs, its tax implications, its down-sides, its precise terms--hell, they refuse to be bound to its terms themselves--and they are so adamant about not wanting their names to be associated with it passage that they are prepared to destroy the United States Constitution. On top of that, they want this law to be passed without any due deliberation or public input practically in the middle of the night. In fact, much of their deliberation has been behind closed doors; they have even refused to let their Republican colleagues into the room. Is any of this sinking in? Anything dawning on you? At its very heart, this a rotten, cruel, faithless, inhumane bill, and it deserves to die. It's the kind of legislation you find in China, Cuba, the Soviet Union.

This is still the United States. Today, at least.

People of good will admit there's a need for some type of reform, but at what price? Is it really worth turning ourselves and our children into serfs of the state, and ceding decisions about our personal welfare to state functionaries, for the priviledge of waiting in line two years to get life-saving surgery for "free"? What if government actuaries think your 80 year-old mother is not a good investment? What if they terminate your child against your will because they don't want to foot the bill for years of therapy to maintain its congenital illness? All of this currently happens in the UK. It is not about babies; it is about all of our lives. We can do much better than this.

Archbishop, the degree to which your critics attack you with calls of betraying "social justice" demonstrates the degree to which Karl Marx's ideas have poisoned the Catholic church over the last 40 years. It's the Father Michael Pfleger school of Marxist Catholicism--which isn't Catholicism at all. Thank you for your courage.

Liberty60 says: "About this notion that the bill "covers abortions"; from what I have seen, that is not true."

Then open your eyes! "Consider the greater good". Your an absolute idiot! Kill the babies, but consider the greater good. Why are you even on this site? Don't even try to call yourself a Catholic.

"The stakes here are huge- tens of thousands of people each year die, or are driven into financial ruin and misery by the current system." BS! Where did you get that stat genius? Pulled that our of your fourth point of contact!

You kill babies by supporting those who do. Your a baby killer! Just cut 'em out of there, no biggie, who cares who pays for it, doesn't matter, they would do it anyway.

Stay out of the church you nay-saying non-believer!

This article is "little more than a mixture of emotion and disinformation." How preposterous (and telling) to suggest that publicly disagreeing with a prudential judgment of bishops either calls into question one's catholicism (Chaput says that they "claim to be Catholic" rather than simply calling them catholics, as if anyone who dares call his prudence into question is somehow less than catholic) or "cause grave damage" to those whose prudence leads them to judge differently. Bishops have authority in matters of faith and morals. As Chaput demonstrates so nicely, they are not particularly well equipped in judgments about particulars. In addition, it seems as if they need to learn a little more about the concept of soft power. They seem not to imagine any ways in which their goals can be advanced without the use of direct laws, and their heavy handed approach risks alienating those who understand differently. The American catholic church is in trouble so long as men who think like Chaput lead it.

All the people in the Senate or the House or even Speaker Pelosi or President Obama need do it put in Stupak-Pitts language. What's so hard about that ? Must be a Planned Parenthood payoff preventing it - talk about preferred special interests. Oh, and Henry: it isn't the place for the USCCB to formulate health care or other bills. It IS the USCCB's place to determine the morality of any bill or anything else for that matter. John, SFO

Liberty60: You are absolutely right. Sad to say, this has been the tactic(stating false facts) of the opposition to the health care plan for everything. Be it death panels, the suppose majority against it, false memos, or sadly attacking some democrats in the most personal way such as the recent one by Rep from Georgia on Nancy Pelosi. You would think that the ones who frequent and comment on the "First Things " blogs would be above this silliness. If one does not like her ideas, fine , but to go into the gutter and issue out and out insults is beyond the pale.

Dear Archbishop Chaput:

Thank you for your moral leadership.

Your critics appear to assume that this so-called 'healthcare' legislation is the only solution to the health care problem there is, or could possibly be, or ever will be.

No, it isn't.

To call this legislation "imperfect" is to damn it with faint praise. Its intent is not to reform healthcare; in that sense it is a red herring. This bill is a trojan horse. Its intent is to redistribute wealth, undermine the rights of the individual to those of the state, and to create a permanent Leftist, statist majority--to consolidate Democrat power. This bill's passage marks the end of our precious and irreplaceable republic the idea of which, in an ideal world, would be vigorously denounced by both pro- and anti-abortion Catholics alike. That the Catholic voter has reduced the fate of our republic to a debate over who's paying for an abortion is piteous. The abortion issue, in fact, isn't babies; it is about all lives--yours included. When we permitted a baby's life to be forfeit to the state, we threw the sanctity of our own lives away, as well. That fact will become even clearer if we adopt this legislation. We can't fight for the sanctity of anyone's life--baby or mother--when our personal freedom has been compromised; it's like fighting over who gets to sit in the last deck chair on the Titanic.

Do you honestly believe that the state, with its considerations of cost, efficiency and political control is going to let you make all the decisions about your health and that of those you love? Go to any of the British newspaper sites online and read the first 10 articles that pop up after you search for "NHS" or "National Health Service". It's heartbreaking. Once the state is paying the bills, we are not "in charge" of our own bodies--not by any means.

Consider this, if you will: a genuine attempt at healthcare reform would leave intact that which is, in fact, satisfactory--85% of the population is quite happy with what they've got--while re-mediating that part which has failed--the need for which everyone agrees. The process would be thoughtful and deliberate and call upon the best thinking on the subject from every conceivable source, both civic and religious. In a republic, compromise is of the essence; it's what keeps America afloat and legitimizes our government whether Democrat or Republican.

Obama and Co. have gone at this not with a scalpel, but with a bludgeon. They consult only themselves and brook no dissension. They don't want us to know the truth of the bill, it true costs, its tax implications, its down-sides, its precise terms--hell, they refuse to be bound to its terms themselves--and they are so adamant about not wanting their names to be associated with it passage that they are prepared to destroy the United States Constitution. On top of that, they want this law to be passed without any due deliberation or public scrutiny. In fact, much of their deliberation has been behind closed doors; they have even refused to let their Republican colleagues into the room. Is any of this sinking in? At its very heart, this a rotten, cruel, faithless, inhumane bill, and it deserves to die. It's the kind of legislation you find in China or the old Soviet Union. This is still the United States. Today, at least.

People of good will admit there's a need for some type of reform, but at what price? Is it really worth turning us and our children into serfs of the state, and ceding decisions about our personal welfare to disinterested bureaucrats, for the privilege of waiting two years to get life-saving surgery for "free"? What if government actuaries think your 80 year-old mother is not a good investment? What if they terminate your child against your will because they don't want to foot the bill for years of therapy to maintain its congenital illness? All of this currently happens in the UK. It is not about babies; it is about all of our lives. We can do much better than that.

Archbishop, the degree to which your critics attack you with calls of betraying "social justice" demonstrates the degree to which Karl Marx's ideas have poisoned the Catholic church over the last 40 years. It's the Father Michael
Pfleger school of Catholicism--which isn't Catholicism at all.

Thank you for your courage.

Thank you Archbishop Chaput for speaking the truth.
I am praying for all the dissenters on this site.

Let's be clear - ABORTION IS NOT HEALTH CARE - what does it cure?
Why is it in the bill at all?
Abortion - one dead, one injured.
Choose life.
Kill the bill.

I've been thinking I'd be a better fit with a Lutheran or Baptist church for a long time now. Perhaps now is the time. The mantle of social justice(code for redistribution of wealth) is more than I want to fight or tolerate. The radical agenda of the Catholic left has usurped the one, true church.

Liberty60, where does one begin? Your argument is an edifice of held together by the glue of "I think." Let's try a thought experiment: if it didn't cover abortions, would the abortion supporters in the House and Senate be voting for it? They must be happy with its provisions, because they've already stated that they'll oppose it if explicitly exclusionary language is enacted. So that part of your argument fails ab initio. Second, the utilitarian argument has nothing whatever to say to the foundation principle of the sanctity of life. Third, your assertion that "tens of thousands...die or are driven into financial ruin and misery by the current system" is conflates two completely different points. No one dies because of the current system. Many are "driven into...ruin and misery" by many things. Shall the government provide all those things, and remove all hazards from life? It would be impossible, even if it were somehow desirable. What is "profoundly cyncial and craven" is to assert one's opinion as fact, to misuse facts, and to claim as true that which is false. This is no "profound and life-saving reform." This is a blatant attempt to deny life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness by giving the government power it can neither use responsibly, nor afford to pay for.

I couldn't resist writing lyrics this morning for a song called "Big-Government Legislation," about the health care bill. Rather than type it out again, I refer interested readers to it in the comments to William Murchison's recent blog piece at chroniclesmagazine.org.

Dear Archbishop Chaput,
Thank you so much for your courageous leadership. I cannot imagine how difficult it must be to stand so firmly against such a tide of criticism and defiance...from your own flock. How like Our Lord you are....please know that you are such a strong light in a land that seems to be filling with such darkness. God Bless you, dear Bishop!

It's interesting in a tedious way to see the dull similarity in tone and substance of the several postings hostile to Archbishop Chaput and his straightforward message. They are revelatory of the need for quotation marks when certain "Catholics" are identified as such. I can recall several years ago at a conference when the "feminist theologian" (more quote marks needed) Rosemary Reuther was asked a pointed question by a member of the audience why she still insisted she was in the Catholic Church when she rejected so many of the Church's teachings. Unlike the tired smugness emanating from so many on this blog, her answer was rather charming in its directness and bluntness: "Because that's where all the Xerox machines are!"

I certainly don't understand all the issues involved here. I am a "new" member of the Roman Catholic Church and I sometimes err when counting stuff.

That being said, in the huge number of words used in the posts so far (I didn't count them all) I only saw the word Jesus once and the word Christ once!

Can't help but wonder if (and this is not meant as criticism) no matter how sincere and insightful-we Catholics tend to go around in circles sometimes and overlook His simple (at least to me) words.

It seem the Bishop cannot resist supporting the conservative, republican catholic talking points whenever he writes or is speaking about the Health Care Bill. As someone has already inferred in their comments, the Bishop is out of place in the 21st Century, he would be much happier in the Middle Ages. God Bless all who show compassion for the poor and needy who do have not health insurance ( over 30 million people and growing every day).

Thank you Archbishop! Support and pray for our Bishops and Priests!
For those who really care, look up the press conference on Friday the 19th with Richard Doerflinger, associate director of the Secretariat of Pro-Life Activities for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB). He said that the present Senate version of health care reform frees up “billions” of dollars for abortion. In his words: "federal statute trumps federal regulation..." Abortion has a court mandate “unless Congress stops it specifically.” Thus - Rep. Bart Stupak and his valiant efforts.
How many of you who oppose our Bishops on this actually consider unborn children human beings? Think about it! Sandra Smith criticizes Archbishop Chaput above by asking: "How did it happen that the commitment to life came to be narrowed only to the rights of the unborn? How is it that the needs of the unborn trump the needs of those who are already born?"
Sandra - what if the bill mandated the use tax dollars to fund the killing of unwanted children between the ages of 1 and 5? Would you oppose it? I hope so. And by doing so, would your desire to protect the 1 to 5 year olds be a NARROWING of your commitment to life? Of course not! Rejection of a bill which demands federal funds to kill ANY human being - whether born OR unborn - is the ONLY morally correct choice. Do you think it is ok to sacrifice the lives of some people so that others can have a better life? Then be honest and admit that such a position is totally at odds with the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Those of you who think that we who are blessed to have emerged from the womb trump the helpless, voiceless ones within the womb because we are bigger than them and they can't do anything to stop us are very, very wrong. African slaves in this country were once treated with similar disdain.

I will allow that almost all of you are sincere. There is one truth that deep down we all understand but most want to ignore. It is this: when we have any national healthcare even one that initially proscribes public abortion funding, we will have such funding sooner or later with an expansion of coverage which will be inevitable. We all know this. Just say no.

The Archbishop seems to get his theology and politics more from the atheist Ayn Rand, who inspired the Satanic "bible," than from the gospel.

How does the bill fund abortion? His excellency doesn't say - he just asserts it.

There are many POLITICAL reasons to disagree with the bill, but I wasn't aware that it was the role of the magesterium to turn political disagreements into dogmatic discussions.

If this bill funds abortion, then so too do tax cuts that enable individuals to subsidize abortions. So why isn't the Church calling out conservatives who support such tax cuts?

I am a Catholic and deeply admire the leadership of Bishop Chaput and agree with his writing wholeheartedly (though I do agree that Catholics may differ with the Bishops on the prudential matters and the application of moral principles to political solutions.) Universal healthcare does not mean government run healthcare, for example.

However, you don't need to be a Cathoilc to understand that brutally dismembering a living unborn baby and sending the parts down a medical waste sink is profoundly immoral and a violation of the natural and inviolable right to live.

So any "universal healthcare" plan that countenances such practices against the weakest and most innocent members of the human family is not universal at all.

For those who do not believe the Senate language will provide public funds for abortion, you are not doing your homework. In 2007 Barack Obama stated very clearly that "repruductice choice is at the center of any healthcare proposal he would support." National Right to Life has made the case and it is simply irrefutable.

Codifying in law that now we all must participate in killing little babies will divide this country more than we've ever been divided before - that, my Catholic friends, is Satanic and its sacrament is called abortion."

Health insurance companies have a 3% or less profit margin. It is highly unlikely that govt will be nearly as efficient. However, once Obama controls the health sector, he will have total control of services, if any are left. At that time it may be better to euthanize our children and elderly. They will be better off dead than living under fascism.

Thank you, Archbishop! May all Bishops proclaim the Truth of Jesus Christ like you do! I pray that politicians and others that claim to be Catholic, but do not follow Her Teachings, will stop their heresies and may God convert their hearts to be like His.

Thank you, Archbishop Chaput, for your courage and moral leadership.

Most of the comments have concerned the abortion issue, but the right of conscience issue is nearly as important. The democratic congress refused to include a "right of conscience" clause in the legislation. This will open the way for the Obama administraton to require Catholic hospitals to perform abortions or lose federal monies. We have already seen Catholic dioceses' forced to include coverage for contraception in insurance plans, Catholic adoption agencies closing because they would not place children in single sex "families," pharmacists losing their jobs because they would not fill prescriptions for the abortive morning after pill, medical students denied acceptance into Ob-Gynecology residencies because they refuse to perform abortions, etc.

Granted, these issues (abortion, gay adoption, abortifacient contraceptives) are controversial, and are supported by a substantial number of Americans. But what about the liberal's treasured virtue of tolerance? Liberals preach tolerance, but in action are hypocrites.

The Church is called to stand for Truth, regardless of the cultural trends of the times. To paraphrase Chesterton, I would rather belong to a church which stands for the Truth than a church which changes its teachings to accomodate the fashion of the day.

Michael Wulfers MD

The authentic Catholic witness is actually being destroyed by two opposing forces at once. My Archbishop Chaput (I live in the Archdiocese of Denver) is only addrssing one of the problems. Unfortunately, he is a part of the other problem.

It isn't just the funding of abortion or the absence of a conscience clause (both of which the Archbishop is entirely right to condemn) that makes the bill objectionable. The entire thing is objectionable. The very ideas, philosophies, attitudes, dispositions, and assumptions embedded in this or any other such universal health-care bill ought to be opposed by every faithful Roman Catholic. Sad to say, the USCCB and Archbishop Chaput have consistently failed to provide any effective leadership in these matters.

The last-ditch letter from the Bishop's Conference inveighing against the bill's passage begins by saying that "[t]he Catholic Church teaches that health care is a basic human right, essential for human life and dignity." In fact the Catholic Church teaches no such thing: because the statement is absurd, and the Church cannot teach absurdity. Health care can never be "essential" for human life and dignity unless one takes a very metaphorical view of what the term 'essential' means. To say nothing of the fact that there is much more Christian dignity in someone who quietly bears the physical sufferings that Christ appoints to him than in someone who insists that the human community at large has an obligation to pay for his medical treatment, there is also the purely definitial matter that each man's essential dignity derives simply and solely from the fact that he is a human being made in the image of God. His particular state of health at any given time is *accidental* to his nature, not *essential* to it. The Bishop's statement formally excludes any notion of what it might mean to suffer deliberately, or to bear one's unavoidable sufferings with heroic resolve. Quite ironic, considering what our Lord did.

Furthermore, any proposed scheme of universal coverage is both economically ruinous and politically unjust. It distorts the market relationship between supply and demand which, for all its imperfections, is the only feasible means for the allocation of scarce resources; it removes the freedom of patients and doctors to make vital medical decisions, and awards this crucial power to federal bureaucrats; it forces people to pay for coverage they may not want, not because it is really good for them that they have it, but because the government desires their money and so will rob them via legislation; and it burdens the nation with massive fiscal liabilities at a time when we are already deeply in debt. Is Social Security solvent? Is Medicare/Medicaid solvent? Are any of the welfare states in the EU solvent? Why do the Bishops think that universal health care will fare any better than the rest of these failures?

Universal health care is not a fundamental feature of Holy Mother Church. It is a fundamental feature of socialism and the hackneyed tyrants who use it as a means for their own advancement. Sadly, whenever Archbishop Chaput and the USCCB express their desires for universal health care, the abolition of the death penalty, the "rights" of illegal immigrants, etc., they are simply throwing a bone to liberals and apostates in the Democratic Party who would fain destroy the Church and all she stands for. If only they had avoided taking the Church into the "social justice" arena, if only they had upheld the sound, rigorous, and manly Catholicism bequeathed to them by the Apostles (without these heretical modernist admixtures), then we wouldn't be staring down the barrel of this catastrophe in the first place.

The oldest Catholic Church in the nation is in St. Augustine Fl. 1565. On the clock tower it says.....The hours pass and you will be held accountable. The oldest bell has an inscription that says "St. Joseph pray for us." May we not be the church dormant, for I deny them the Christ that is in me when I remain silent. The modern crisis in the Church.....Pope St. Pius X said it,"We may no longer be silent lest we should seem to fail in our most sacred duty." Some of us forgot the mission. There have not been enough voices like a friend of mine who spoke up in church when a visiting priest said,(at a youth mass)"What makes us think that heterosexual marriage is any better than homosexual marriage.?" She said, "Father, you are doing our Lord an injustice today with your words." May we all have similar courage to give a right response to reality especially today. Our representatives have a social justice issue on their hands of epic proportions. May they remember that the right to life is first and foremost at the core of social justice.

The "social Justice" argument used by proponents of tax-paid health insurance coverage is immoral even beyond the obvious and disturbing issue of abortion. Jesus teaches us to use our time, resources and love to support others. This is not the same as these facile, evil, glib admonishments that using the force of law (taxes must be paid or jail will follow) to take other peoples money and redistribute it to different people. This outrage has no support in Christian or Catholic teaching. The silly, lazy, childish left in our church and country uses convenient tidbits from scripture as justification for what is utterly wrong. I'm instructed to take from my personal resources, not allow the forced taking of money at the end of a gun. This is simply ignored by fashionable "Catholics," and others in what is humorously called the Progressive movement.

God bless you, Matt Beck, and thank God we share the same communion rail.

For the record, it is not just the market relationship between supply and demand that is distorted. As human beings look to the state to attend to their needs (rather than to their spouses, their children, their parents, their families, their chosen communities and those whose hearts are personally touched by their appeals), they will increasingly feel themselves alienated from humanity. The state is a fickle spouse, a spoiled child, a disinterested parent, an irresponsible family, and a disinterested collective. It measures humanity by the pound, rather than by the person, and it is eager to lighten the weight, all the while blaming others for the limited capacity to carry it.

It is human relationships that will suffer under the delusion that the best they have to offer can be ordered and channeled "for the common good" outside the boundaries of the relationships themselves.

Whatever happens today will be God's will and I pray that we have the wisdom to see Him in it.

Here's the nub: It's a battle between Christianity and Utilitarianism.

A moral compromise America made with Utilitarianism 30 years ago has resulted in the deaths of millions of innocent infants. The pending "healthcare" legislation will impose Utilitarian--not Christian--moral values on all aspects of our lives. We will soon discover that we ARE that innocent baby. The utilitarian "social justice" of the Marxist, so-called "liberal", Left is not the justice of Christ.

There are better, more humane, more sacred, ways of addressing this issue without losing our personal freedon.

Matt Beck-Hopefully you do not really mean the following to be all inclusive "To say nothing of the fact that there is much more Christian dignity in someone who quietly bears the physical sufferings that Christ appoints to him--". You must not have a child/friend or relative who cannot make their own choice to "bear the physical sufferings" for if you did you would have been more clear regarding your wording.

Additionally, what about you? Are you saying you and/or those you are responsible for will/should "quietly bear/s the physical sufferings that Christ appoints--" without seeking/accepting health care?

I hate to say this, but it is time to start excommunicating Catholic politicians who violate the right to life with their votes. When Pelosi said publicly that she is praying to St. Joseph to pass health care, it made me sick to my stomach. She has repeatedly ignored the counseling of her bishop. If this monstrosity of a health care bill passes, it's time to clean house.

Some here have already drawn the relevant distinction between moral and prudential judgments. And while the prudential judgments and recommendations of a bishops' conference do not carry the same moral authority as their statements of universal moral teachings, still, as a Catholic, I very seriously consider those judgments and recommendations in my own deliberations. That is to say that I believe that the teachings and recommendations of our bishops are an indispensable resource for the faithful, even regarding empirical and practical matters that are essentially strategic and political and not otherwise solely moral in nature. Furthermore, our bishops deserve respect and deference, even on such prudential matters, and should not be undercut by incivility and intemperate speech.

I have to agree with Archbishop Chaput that attack-ads against Congressman Bart Stupack and E. J. Dionne's hypothetical sanctioning of moral opprobrium against the bishops are examples of the worst side of Catholic witness. Some might recall the following lament regarding certain alleged past failures of the bishops to distinguish between moral and practical matters, a conflation once described here on FT as overreach: "While individual bishops may be prudentially gifted or challenged, problems are multiplied when prudential judgments issue from the bureaucratic sausage-grinder of the bishops’ conference." That rhetorical heat, from the late Fr. John Neuhaus, was another sad example of the worst side of Catholic witness as he, too, publicly undercut the teaching and leadership of the bishops on prudential matters. In the same vein, other forms of ad hominems and innuendo (including the overuse of 'apostrophes' and italics and quotations - e.g. 'Catholics' - to characterize others as so-called or quasi and any overuse of the word alibi in characterizing others' motives in one's writings) also contribute to the worst side of Catholic witness. Who hasn't thus lapsed? On the other hand, such lapses become defining moments if followed by enough reinforcing moments as isolated excusable events become unacceptable patterns.

All that said, ad hominems and tu quoques aside, I don't consider polite public disagreement with the bishops on prudential matters to be an undercutting of their teachings and recommendations. I'm sure Archibishop Chaput is not suggesting THAT!

Accordingly, I respectfully disagree with the bishops' conference regarding their empirical and practical assessment of the Senate healthcare bill vis a vis abortion funding. Timothy Stoltzfus Jost, a host of historically pro-life House & Senate members, Retired Bishop John E. McCarthy, the Catholic Health Association and many others, in my view, make a much more compelling case regarding the pertinent facts and interpretations of the proposed legislation than Richard Doerflinger, just for example. No need to rehash them here.

Obebedience to the teaching Magisterium is central to what it means to be a faithful Catholic. We may like it or hate it but that's the choice.

In most of the world, people are subject to the state. In the United States, the state is subject to the people. And that puts American Catholics in an odd position. Whereas we are accustomed to being subject to the Church and to the state, here we are subject to the Church and we are each sovereign. We owe obedience to the Church, the government is our servant. We must get that through our head. This is what it means to be an American Catholic.

I am so grateful that Bishop Chaput has made it clear that the nuns who have come out in support of the health care bill are causing confusion amongst the faithful. I am also grateful to God that abortion, conscience protection or any other issues cause the bishops to oppose this bill because whereas abortion is an absolute deal breaker (the blood of 50 million babies is already on our hands) I don't think the bishops have gone far enough.

As Grace commented, subsidiarity is also central to Church teaching. In simple terms, we are to govern our own selves and love our neighbours as locally as possible. We cannot get away with sending a cheque to DC in the form of taxes and have DC love our neighbour for us. We must do it ourselves because the goal of this whole thing is holiness and we only get that by loving one another as Christ loves us.

Charity is a good thing. Church charity, local charity, personal charity are all good things. The Church teaches that health care is a right but how we provide it is left to us. The Church (both Catholics and other Christian denominations) provide an enormous amount of charity health care. We need to support them with our money. We need to provide for our brothers and sisters who are in need, which many do. It's our job. The state can't do it.

Accepting charity is tough. I know this personally. As I write this, I am disabled and in pain (in 15 min I can take my pain meds). I am in one of the many doughnut holes waiting for my disability insurance company to begin making payments to me. Disability has always been part of my salary package and I have paid for it for many years. I never intended to get sick and am hoping to either get better or figure out something I can do to earn a living while being sick. But right now, I'm too sick to work and don't have any savings left and I must wait. But in my wallet are a number of cheques from friends and friends of friends that will pay for meds and utility bills and food. Friends have paid my bills over the past three months. Of course, I can't buy clothes but then I don't need any clothes. I've been fine. I've had what I need. I've had to give up my pride. It hurts. Being homeless and without food and medicine would hurt more. My pride isn't worth keeping. I've been afraid and then I've asked for help and the community in which I live my life has helped me and I am beginning to be less afraid of being in need, in general - my body is learning Christ's mercy.

Charity is a good thing. And it is available to those who want it. It's easier if one is part of a community but it is available to those who want it. We need to do a better job of letting that be known. And we need the Church to stop making negative statements about picking up the pieces of a flawed healthcare system. That is the Church's job and it's a good thing. (It would be even better if we could get rid of the flawed healthcare system but that's another post.)

We have a nation of people who are badly catechised, have poorly formed consciences and are poorly educated as citizens. The Church must do a better job of catechising us. We need the bishops and our parish priests, to remind us regularly of Church teaching on the sanctity of life AND of social teaching including subsidiarity (which many have never heard of before). We need homilies and teaching on pride and all the other deadly sins. We need modern references for humility and love. We need the Church to be more specific and proclaim Church teaching rather than the general homilies about how special we are and how much God loves us.

I pray this bill doesn't pass because I am sick and though I have private health insurance, I will be one of the many who are given pain meds and sent off to die because it is too expensive to pay for my healthcare. I pray it doesn't pass because I know babies will continue to be slaughtered on the altar of convenience. I pray it doesn't pass because the elderly will die of treatable illnesses because some central bureaucracy decides it's too expensive. I pray it doesn't pass because suicide will be recommended. If this bill is passed and actually enacted, death and misery will spread throughout the country but we will have paid our taxes so it won't be our fault.

The Church needs to make it clear from the pulpit that anyone attending Mass or a service who supports "choice" when it comes to abortion should get up and leave, like it or not. I agree with Grace McLaughlin's comments completely about the incomprehensible ignorance of Catholics who could support legislation that deals the final death blow to the Constitution. Their attitude stinks of Dostoevsky's Grand Inquisitor.

Thanks to Grace McLaughlin, Matt Beck, and others for explaining the bishops' feckless concession to an ideology that would outlaw the Church, given half the chance, and exposes not so much their compassion, but lack of faith.

Excellent post, Matt Beck. I couldn't have said it better myself. I'll only add three things...

1) Examine the composition of Congress. Only 14 members (2.6%) have medical degrees or experience. Only 6.7% have an undergraduate degree in economics. And some think they have the expertise necessary to reform and effectively manage 1/6th of the US economy with a bill slapped together in under a year?! There are clearly many who are deranged.

2) The Church teaches that the principle of subsidiarity should guide social interactions. The most effective (efficient, just, and free from the possibility of future abuse and tyranny) means of dealing with a problem is at the lowest level of organization possible. For example, if two children lost their parents in a plane crash, the worst way of caring for them is to have politicians in Washington raising them. The best is to have grandparents or godparents--individuals who already have personal knowledge, love, and connections with them. So too with healthcare. There can be no solutions from the top-down. They must start from the bottom and work their way up.

3) So divorced from human charity and intimate relationships (which themselves factor heavily into good health), this government bill is all the more of an abomination because it is symptomatic of a society that has made an idol out of government, and false messiahs out of presidential candidates of both parties. How many times must politicians of both parties fail to deliver their promised solutions before humanity takes the hint and stops placing so much trust in those with feet of clay?

Interesting that President Obama is signing that strongly pro-life Executive Order; so all of the criticisms about him turned out to be wrong. Would the Archbishop care to make any additional political predictions?

Matt Beck

Agreed.

Chickens have come home to roost. For most of the last century the bishops have been in bed with the Democrat party. (sotto voce). Even as it was clear that alleged Catholics were in the Vanguard of the abortion rights movement, ie the late Senator Kennedy who hosted meetings in his Hyannisport homes dealing with avoiding he political pain of universal abortion rights. His bishop allowed a regular private mass held in the same home so the senator would not have to rub elbows with , maybe real Catholics.

They have sold there souls long ago. why should we follow them now. Yes I agree they happen to be right now, but I suspect the are Stupaks, waiting fo a better deal.

See them in Hell.

I like the fact that Obama caved (somewhat) and I see that NARAL doesn't like it. All good signs, but forgive me if I sleep with one eye open . . . . .

Kudos to John Sylvest. That is an excellent post that I wholeheartedly agree with.

Dan, you said-"The Church needs to make it clear from the pulpit that anyone attending Mass or a service who supports "choice" when it comes to abortion should get up and leave, like it or not." Astounding comment!

I guess you don't accept the Church's primary purpose of Evangelicalism. As a Catholic myself I cannot imagine "kicking" anyone out and therefore refusing them the opportunity for fellowship, preaching/teaching of the word/salvation etc. (refusing to distribute the Blessed Sacrament to an abortionist is one thing) but for a person to refuse an attendee the opportunity for Gods Grace by evicting them from Church, to me, smacks of a person who is quite judgmental and deserving of the label of "Pharisee".

Sorry, but I just cannot imagine Jesus "kicking" anyone out of His presence and/or refusing them the opportunity for fellowship with Him because of ANY misguided beliefs. For example, isn't the Church a place of learning? Oh, I know about the moneychangers etc. but it was their actions not their opinions that got them "booted".

Irene: It ain't over 'til it's over. Obama is a doctrinaire Leftist: he just lied like a rug to get the thing passed. Stupak has been had. Abortion funding is going back into the stew. Don't blink your eyes, or you'll miss it. In fact, I suspect you'll discover a whole slew of unpleasant surprises--surprises to you, at least--when the smoke clears. If this thing can't be killed, you'll also some day discover how much in tax dollars your life is worth. You may not be priced as reasonably as you now believe.

In the meantime, try reading the British newspapers on the National Health Service. Reading improves the mind.

As we reap, so shall we sow. THE USCCB, has, for years, endorsed
every liberal social program in the United States.... instructing the faithful to support health care as a "Right," and for it to include illegal immigrants,
they have consistently supported the Democrat social agenda and then
they act surprised when, wonder of wonders, the sanctity of human
life is forgotten in Democrat legislation. Now we have the sacrilege of
taxpayer supported abortion funding in healthcare... Bishops, embrace
capitalism and freedom and perhaps you will find that politicians
who believe in those ideals actually respect life as well.

And I thought Roe v Wade was a dark day...71SZWN

davanna, on matters of faith, you can't be in disagreement since to do so places you outside the Catholic Church (or Orthodox Church for that matter). Anyone that doesn't like this need to do some soul searching and perhaps move to a more liberal church like the Anglicans or a church that doesn't have bishops.

WRT this issue, the argument seems to be, so many people would benefit that the abortion issue can be placed on the back burner since you're placing more weight on the unborn than the born. Personally, I don't like abstract terms like 'abortion' since they cloud the real issue. When pro-choicers hear the word 'abortion', they think 'harm reduction' and 'prevention' and not what it really is...the murder of pre-born infants. For such murders, there can be no choice. To say so, would be to affirm the "Dreed Scott" case, that humans are all created equal, but some "those people" are not humans so they don't count.

Put in these terms, the health care reform comes down to choosing between insuring more people or murdering pre-born infants. It's very clear which side has the moral high ground.

Mr. Damon (3.22.2010 | 10:01am), indeed, there is a need for more clarity in discussions of the complex moral reality of abortion. However, attempts to redefine words that one does not like are not always helpful. Your strategy will not succeed unless you can establish the grounds for why one should consider all abortions murder. What are your grounds? To what authority do you appeal in so narrowly defining that word?

"Complex moral reality of abortion"?! Take a look at some of the graphic pictures of abortion, then come back here and tell me it's a "complex" issue.

There is only one legitimate instance in which abortion is not murder (ectopic pregnancy, which will kill both mother and child unless an abortion is performed--saving the mother). Even then, we are still killing a human being, though it is of necessity to save another.

From the moment of conception, we are talking about a unique and distinguishable genome, and individual, (invalidating the "it's just a part of the mother's body" argument). One has to engage in denial of science to be pro-abortion/pro-choice.

The Catholic bishops' principled stand against taxpayer funding for abortion in health care reform has come in for sharp and vitriolic rebuke from elements of the Catholic left. Just witness some of the comments posted here. But, as a practical political matter, we didn't hear from these individuals when organized labor threatened to scuttle health care reform and withhold its support from Democrats in the 2010 mid-term elections if the tax on "Cadillac" health plans wasn't eliminated or substantially revised. Nor did we hear from them when AARP conditioned its support for reform on the elimination of the "doughnut hole" in the Medicare prescription drug program. One could cite numerous other examples of organizations and individuals, including members of Congress, who promised to withhold their support for reform if their particular interests weren't addressed, viz., "the Cornhusker Kickback," the "Louisiana Purchase and vigorous "pro-choice" opposition to the Hyde/Stupak amendment. But where was the liberal Catholic indignation to these threats to reform? Why were they strangely silent? And why did we only hear from them when the bishops spoke up? In our democracy, the bishops have every right, even an obligation, to make their views known and to insist on them -- especially on a matter that touches so consequentially on human life, as does the Senate abortion funding language. If the Senate abortion language so obviously precludes funding for abortions, why did the president find it necessary to issue an executive order to clarify the intent of his administration? If the Senate bill had included the Hyde/Stupak language, the EO would not have been necessary. Or was the EO just a ruse to get his bill passed by providing cover for the "pro-life" Democratic votes he needed?

The bishops, individually and collectively, have been among the strongest voices for health care reform for more than a century. In the current debate, they made it clear that they had three important principles that had to be met: 1) There must be no taxpayer funding for abortions; 2) Subsidies had to be sufficiently generous to enable all low income people to afford coverage; and 3) Our nation's immigrants had to be treated fairly with regard to health insurance coverage. During the entire debate the bishops were consistent, when others were not, in their support of these three conditions, none of which is reflected in the legislation the House passed this past Sunday.

Finally, and beyond these critically important matters, there is much else to be concerned about in the recently passed House legislation, not the least of which are the following: 1) Our growing senior population and rising medical costs are making the Medicare program the single biggest driver of unsustainable federal deficits and debt. But the House passed health care reform bill cuts $500 billion from Medicare, not to make it fiscally sound, but to create an entirely new entitlement program that itself has few effective cost controls. When you think of the burgeoning national debt and America's future, think first of your children and grandchildren, then think Greece. 2) The nearly $500 billion in new taxes, which are certain to slow economic growth and job creation when the highest priority for millions of American families is to find a job; and 3) The flawed process -- reconciliation -- being used to fundamentally change 1/6th of the US economy. A host of reliable public opinion polls -- and recent state elections -- reveal that millions of Americans view this process as little more than a form of legerdemain. When major legislation is widely perceived to have been imposed through an unfair sleight of hand, it will lack the public legitimacy required to sustain it. In many ways, the unfair "process" the majority party is using to pass health care reform is becoming the "substance" of the legislation in the public mind. This reality threatens even the good provisions -- and there are many -- in the recently passed reform bill. As president Lincoln once noted, "Public sentiment is everything. With public sentiment, nothing can fail. Without it, nothing can succeed." And our current president recently emphasized, "That's what elections are all about." Stay tuned.

In the process of assimilating what is really rational and rejecting what only seems to be rational, the whole Church has to play a part. This process cannot be carried out in every detail by an isolated Magisterium, with oracular infallibility. The life and suffering of Christians who profess their faith in the midst of their times has just as important a part to play as the thinking and questioning of the learned, which would have a very hollow ring without the backing of Christian existence, which learns to discern spirits in the travail of everyday life. ~ Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger.

Mr. Sylvest: Thank you for introducing Cardinal Ratzinger's rich insight into this discussion. I and, perhaps, others would benefit from knowing how you think it applies to the US bishops' position on and involvement in the health care reform debate.

Yes, when it comes to matters of morality and conscience, we are bound, as Catholics, to listen to what our bishops, the successors of the Apostles, say. Unfortunately, the teaching office of Catholic bishops is routinely ignored by many Catholics in this country. The Health Care issue has been a cause of concern among the bishops for years. Many of them have proposed, individually and in groups, initiatives that would better health care for all. But supporters of the present Health Care Law had an all or nothing, do it my way or else, attitude from the beginning. Accept abortion or you don't get the bill passed. Accept virtually no conscience protection or you don't get the bill passed. The headlong dash to pass some sort of Health Care Initiative led to the acrimonious debates and proposals of the past few days. Sad to say, many so called Catholics can't seem to get Health Care separated from abortion. The abortion issue is fundamental because it goes to the heart of Catholic social teaching and beliefs: care for the innocent and vulnerable is paramount. If the unborn can't be protected then no one is safe at any stage of life. The Executive Order signed today is only as good as the word of the politician who signed it. And, as we all know, many politicians, on both sides of the political spectrum, do whatever needs to be done to get reelected. Basing the protection of unborn children on an Executive order that can be changed, rescinded or ignored beginning tomorrow by the same people who support it today is reckless. If it came to having to receive reduced or no Health Care benefits in order to save the lives of unborn children, I know what I would do.

With all due respect to Archbishop Chaput, for whom I have the greatest admiration, the problem is not with "people who claim to be Catholic and then publicly undercut the teaching and leadership of their bishops [and] spread confusion". It is the bishops themselves who have done that by blurring the distinction between speaking authoritatively on faith and morals and offering prudential opinions on the political issue du jour. They have made it easy to reject their moral pronouncements by making it easy to reject their political solutions - and by making it anything but easy to separate the two. The groups that the good Archbishop rightly condemns have only walked through the door that was opened for them by the bishops themselves.

So, taxpayer funding of abortions, which will surely increase their numbers, can be reduced to just another "political issue du jour"? The moral equivalent, say, of deciding whether denture replacements should be covered in a government supported health benefits package? And, by advocating the inclusion of the Hyde Amendment in health care reform, the bishops undermined their teaching authority and invited other Catholics summarily to reject it? On what grounds and on what hard won experience? The bishops and their competent lay advisers have more than thirty years of experience in this area. When it comes to defending the unborn, they know what works and what doesn't; what the courts will and will not sustain. Their experience has taught them (and others) that Hyde is the only proven means of restricting taxpayer funding of abortions. On this life and death matter, prudence would suggest that other Catholics provide them with great deference.

BCNVA, the insight of then-Cardinal Ratzinger was very well illustrated in your last post re: consultations with competent lay leaders on matters of jurisprudence and legislative expertise.

RE: certain appellations, qualifiers, quotation marks, italics, air quotes used to distinguish one group of Catholics from another

On matters of prudential judgment, which invite a legitimate diversity of opinion, it is one thing to invite deference. Regarding same, we do not want to imply that agreeing to disagree, in a deferential manner, engages a question of fidelity or involves dissent, which, itself, can be both legitimate and loyal. In my view, the use of scare quotes or sneer quotes as a rhetorical device to qualify another's witness or voice as so-called Catholic is out of harmony with both truth and justice.

Google this syntax: +Chaput +"so-called Catholics" and read a sample the hits to get an idea of the types of conversations such rhetorical strategies encourage even when employed on matters of prudential judgment. We need to cease, desist and abstain from this type of rhetoric.

From: AD BEATISSIMI APOSTOLORUM, ENCYCLICAL OF POPE BENEDICT XV

23. As regards matters in which without harm to faith or discipline - in the absence of any authoritative intervention of the Apostolic See - there is room for divergent opinions, it is clearly the right of everyone to express and defend his own opinion. But in such discussions no expressions should be used which might constitute serious breaches of charity; let each one freely defend his own opinion, but let it be done with due moderation, so that no one should consider himself entitled to affix on those who merely do not agree with his ideas the stigma of disloyalty to faith or to discipline.

24. It is, moreover, Our will that Catholics should abstain from certain appellations which have recently been brought into use to distinguish one group of Catholics from another. They are to be avoided not only as "profane novelties of words," out of harmony with both truth and justice, but also because they give rise to great trouble and confusion among Catholics. Such is the nature of Catholicism that it does not admit of more or less, but must be held as a whole or as a whole rejected: "This is the Catholic faith, which unless a man believe faithfully and firmly; he cannot be saved" (Athanas. Creed). There is no need of adding any qualifying terms to the profession of Catholicism: it is quite enough for each one to proclaim "Christian is my name and Catholic my surname," only let him endeavour to be in reality what he calls himself.

Some of the posts here and elsewhere in response to the bishops' position on abortion funding in health care reform are lacking in civility and thoughtfulness. Unfortunately, they typify many of the posts (from the right and left) that comment on other public policy matters in a host of other publications; and they exemplify the rancor that has invaded our discussions of public policy. They are also the price anyone pays, who states even a reasonable position on pending legislation or candidates for political office. Let's hope, however, that they do not deter the US bishops from publicly defending the unborn when public policies attack, or undermine, their right to life. Back in the early '60s, the late Cardinal Cody excommunicated a New Orleans Catholic, who publicly opposed the integration of Catholic schools. No reasonable person or publication criticized his action, even though it may have violated the "prudential" judgment and racism of many New Orleans' residents. After all, his action was designed to affirm the Church's commitment to human dignity. No bishop has suggested that Catholics who differ from the USCCB's position on "Hyde" versus "Nelson/Casey" in health care reform be excommunicated. But many bishops' have properly challenged the judgment of Catholics who claim that "Nelson/Casey" is as effective as "Stupak/Hyde" in precluding taxpayer funding of abortions. The differing Catholics can claim that the benefits of the new reform measure outweigh the value of insisting on "Hyde." They cannot however claim, as many have, that "Nelson/Casey" is as effective as "Hyde" in protecting the unborn. The bishops strong insistence on this matter is designed to affirm the Church's commitment to the human dignity of the unborn -- even as many of them recognize that aspects of health care reform also advance human dignity. The bishops have an obligation to speak out publicly and responsibly on such matters, even if it invites vituperative comments from some.

In the 2008 election "modernist" Catholics voted 66% for Obama; 34% for McCain.
Either they agreed with Roe v. Wade or took advantage of the then Cardinal Ratzinger's statement on "remote material cooperation in the presence of proportionate reasons". In both cases they were wrong! This man should never have been elected, based on his background and experience.

I had a dream to begin my commerce, nevertheless I did not earn enough of money to do this. Thank God my fellow told to use the lowest-rate-loans.com. So I took the car loan and realized my dream.

Stupak also said he suspected groups such as the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, the National Right to Life, and others were actually “just using the life issue to try to bring down health-care reform.”

Independence of conscience has long been supported in Catholic doctrine. Catholics for Choice, in a 2008 document, “In Good Conscience,” cite various sources including St. Thomas Aquinas — ignoring an erroneous conscience is a mortal sin — to St. Paul — one’s conscience is primary but should not trump that of others. The Commonweal editors cite their own source: The USCCB’s 2007 statement “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship” in which, “the conference insisted that ‘we bishops do not intend to tell Catholics for whom or against whom to vote,’ and that ‘the responsibility to make choices in political life rests with each individual in light of a properly formed conscience.’” It’s a mandate that is supported by US law regarding “separation of church and state” and the tax-exempt status of churches.

Every one should respect and care about other people believes and the way of life as every one has the full right on their lives.
They are also the price anyone pays, who states even a reasonable position on pending legislation or candidates for political office. Let's hope, however, that they do not deter the US bishops from publicly defending the unborn when public policies attack, or undermine, their right to life. Back in the early '60s, the late Cardinal Cody excommunicated a New Orleans Catholic, who publicly opposed the integration of Catholic schools. No reasonable person or publication criticized his action, even though it may have violated the "prudential" judgment and racism of many New Orleans' residents.

Amen?