I Don't Know Who Wrote This Op/Ed, Nor Do I Care
Because whoever wrote this, they're absolutely right

Coming from the queer den mother of the Episcopalians in New Hampshire, I can see this. But from the Catholic bishop, this is shameful.

Here's the article in its entirety from The Union-Leader (Manchester, NH);
Christian care: Opposing Obama is Satan's work?

V. Gene Robinson, the Episcopal bishop of New Hampshire, wrote in this newspaper on Friday that the "Christian" response to the health care debate is to support government redistribution of wealth from those who have insurance to those who do not.

John McCormack, the Roman Catholic bishop of New Hampshire, wrote in a separate op-ed column that health care is a "right" and universal coverage a moral imperative.

Both men are entirely wrong.

Robinson confuses the forced redistribution of wealth with charity. It is Christian to give one's own time or treasure for the care of others. It is decidedly unChristian to force -- at threat of fine or imprisonment -- others to do the same whether they have the will or not.

Christianity is based upon free will. God does not compel us to obey Him. He gives us the choice. Robinson would empower the state to deny us the choice that God Himself grants us.

McCormack confuses a moral good with a right. It is good to provide care for others. However, when others are granted a "right" to that care, they then have a claim upon others that cannot be denied.

Again, free choice is nullified. The state would force citizens to fund and physicians to provide care whether willing or not. God does not do this. In many church-based shelters, for example, recipients of the Lord's charity must abide by certain rules. If they drink, fight or drug, they are ejected. Is that unchristian? Receiving food and shelter is necessary to survival, after all. While McCormack's church remains free to deny those services to the needy, he says the state must make us fund and provide health care to all.

A "right" to health care means the state must compel more than just payment. It must compel medical care providers to render their services regardless of compensation or any other consideration. If someone has a "right" to medical care, then a physician may not deny any care for any reason. Doing so would be an infringement of the patient's "rights." Again, that standard is not even applied in existing Catholic hospitals.

Neither the Episcopal nor the Roman Catholic church takes their members' money by force. They rely upon donations to fund their good works. What makes health care so much more important than food, clothing and shelter that it must be financed by forcibly extracting money from some and giving it to others?

What punishment do the bishops suggest for sinners who prefer methods other than taxation for financing health care? They don't say. They leave that to the state. Presumably, whatever punishment the state devises will meet with their approval. After all, by Robinson's logic, it would be unchristian of them to oppose forced financing of universal care, regardless of the details.