<deleted; see TOS>

The care in question that will decrease costs is preventative care. America does not have the most advanced healthcare system in the world. If you believe that we do you <deleted, see TOS> in denial as well. Government insurance doesn't actually impact the care, or the ingenuity of such. At no point will allowing the impoverished to access healthcare lead to the <filtered word> that you are spewing. Now back to my original premise: <deleted, see TOS>.

Socialized health care has always been the linchpin for a socialized state. No thanks. Our care is the most advanced in the world, and after ten years of socialized medicine we'll join the ranks of the under-served in Canada, England, and the rest of the socialized medical world. As of now the poor get access to the most advanced health care in the world for free. It's not perfect but I'm not complaining that I don't have the health care that my Senators get at my expense - because I'm not a Marxist. I actually believe that just like others have more (and less) brains, friends, and beauty than I do, other have more comfort and convenience and it's not government's job to even out the score. The virtue of charity, not government foisting itself upon the masses, is the way to ease the suffering caused by a lack of comfort and convenience.

I think if the bishops in question were thinking that way, they would have said so. But I think overall the answer would be no: Catholic social teaching, especially since Paul VI, has favored what gets called "integral human development"--physical, moral, spiritual, esthetic--which is far more comprehensive than "medical care," although that is certainly a component of it.

I think what the captioned bishops have done, which reveals their bias, is speak about issues Catholic social teaching simply does not touch, the specific mechanisms--market forces, gov plan, co-op etc.--about which the church doesn't claim competence. In other words, these bishops are basically speaking as private citizens on these matters, not as official teachers.

The mechanisms of paying for health care are hardly a matter of faith or morals (save for paying for procedures the church teaches are immoral), which is the extent of the competence of the bishops as magisterial teachers. The church's moral teaching says only that, as images of God, human beings have certain rights and there is a binding moral obligation to meet them. The Vatican or the pope may have opinions about what they think is the best way to get there, of course.

That is one issue that dogs some of bishops and Catholics. The magisterium of the church is assured of divine guidance on matters of faith and morals--that is, in the interpretation of the revealed deposit of faith--not on any old thing they think up. (That is one reason why Catholic social teaching is more disputable than, say, the teaching about the Trinity. It's a lot more contingent.) The bishop of Fargo has no more competence to bind the consciences of Catholics in this area than I do; we both have none. He knows this as well as I do (I hope, anyway), which is why I think it is legitimate to question his actions here. In other words, even though it's accurate, you won't hear Bishop Finn of Kansas City say, "This is only my personal opinion ... " These guys seem to be content to let people presume they speak with "church authority," which they do not on this matter.

Bryan Cones