An Event in Honor of a Worthy Bishop

Please click HERE to take the 2009 Supporter Survey that will help us know better what you think of our programs and communications. We don't ask for your name, just about seven minutes of your time and thoughtful consideration as we try to improve our ability to communicate HLI's mission. Thank you!

On Thursday, October 8th, the Envoy Institute at Belmont Abbey College is holding a tribute dinner in honor of Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver who will receive the Envoy of the Year Award for his courageous leadership and public witness to the truth, especially on life and family issues. In an age where leadership in orthodox Catholicism and in the life issues is sadly lacking the Envoy Institute is pointing out the positive in our episcopacy.

The Envoy Institute of Belmont Abbey College is dedicated to helping equip Catholics of all ages, especially young adults, explain, defend, share, and live out their Catholic Faith more effectively and joyfully. Because of the recent debacle at Notre Dame and the current effort on the part of the EEOC to force Belmont Abbey College to fund healthcare coverage for contraception, the Envoy Institute thinks it is more important than ever to show public solidarity with courageous Catholic leaders such as Archbishop Chaput.

Where & when: October 8, 2009, Hilton Charlotte City Center, 222 E. Third Street, Charlotte, NC.

Registration and other details of the event are available here: http://www.envoyinstitute.net/events/envoyoftheyear/index.asp

Archbishop Chaput on Healthcare Reform:

From 12 August:

In speaking for the American Catholic community, both Bishop William Murphy and Cardinal Justin Rigali of the USCCB have already voiced strong concerns about a possible stealth mandate for abortion carried out through national health care. A so-called “compromise” solution currently offered by Rep. Lois Capps (D-CA) would seemingly ban abortion coverage as part of a federally mandated minimum benefits package. But it would require at least one insurance plan in each “premium rating area” to cover abortion. In its effect, the Capps approach would lead to elective abortion being covered under a government-operated public plan by allowing federal subsidies to flow to private insurance plans that cover elective abortion. This isn’t a compromise. It’s a shell game.
As the summer draws to a close, it’s very important for Colorado Catholics to contact their federal lawmakers immediately and demand that abortion and abortion funding be completely excluded from any national health care plan. A few key principles should guide the development of any health care reform legislation, especially in light of the mixed and sobering track record of national health plans in other countries:

It should provide access to basic, quality health services for all persons, from conception to natural death, with a special concern for the poor, elderly and disabled, and the inclusion of legal immigrants;
It should protect the conscience rights of individuals and religious institutions;
It should exclude all so-called “services” that involve violence against the dignity of the human person, such abortion, physician-assisted suicide and their funding;
It should be economically realistic and sustainable, with costs spread equitably across all taxpayers.

On the other hand, from 2 September:

First, while adequate health care for all Americans may not be seen by some as a “right” in the same sense as our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, it certainly is an obligation of a just society. If we see ourselves as a civilized people, then we have a duty to satisfy the basic medical needs of the poor, the elderly and the disabled to the best of our ability. This is why America’s bishops have pressed so hard for national health-care reform for so many years, and continue to do so.
Second, a government role in ensuring basic health care for all citizens can be completely legitimate. Historically, Americans have had a prudent distrust of government and expanding state power. But that does not justify excluding government from helping to solve chronic problems when no other solutions work.
Third, the principle of subsidiarity in Catholic social thought reminds us that problems should be solved as modestly and locally as possible. In other words, government involvement should normally be the choice of last resort. Moreover, a proper government role in solving the health-care crisis does not necessarily demand a national public plan, run or supervised by government authorities. Real health-care reform need not automatically translate into federal programming.
Fourth, no national health-care plan can be morally legitimate if it allows, even indirectly, for the killing of the unborn, or discriminatory policies and pressures against the elderly, the infirm and disabled. Protecting the unborn child and serving the poor are not unrelated issues; they flow from exactly the same Christian duty to work for social justice.

I can live with his statement on 2 September (because it talks about last resort and the reference to subsidiarity). But his first one, on 12 August, is problematic.

So which one is the real Charles Chaput?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.