The problem the bishops have identified in the Senate bill with regards to immigrants is that is prevents undocumented immigrants from using their own money to purchase coverage on the proposed exchanges. The bishops have not asked for federal subsidies for the undocumented, only that they not be prohibited from using their own money to purchase insurance.

Here are two eloquent pastoral statements that carefully explain how to apply Catholic social doctrine (and basic economic principles) to the current health care legislation:

http://www.catholickey.blogspot.com/2009/09/kansas-city-bishops-issue-joint-health.html
http://www.scdiocese.org/Stewardship/healthcare/tabid/416/Default.aspx

Even if the abortion coverage were stripped out, I still couldn’t support this flimflam bill that will miraculously lower costs without rationing care even though it will create an enormous government bureaucracy, and treat 30 million more patients without adding a single new primary care physician.  This bill is immoral on many levels, including the deliberate deception of ill people who believe this is the answer to their prayers. Case in point: Jeanne wants coverage yesterday, but the bill’s provisions do not take effect until 2014 after—four years of funding.

All I can say is that Satan LOVES the political arena and makes a fine living off of the so-called “political process” in this country. So let’s all take our understandable anger and turn it into prayer for those politicians who are the swing votes for this bill, as my State representative is one of them. I’m planning on calling him, yet again, tomorrow to say that I’d like him to please vote no to the bill and to please remember that there will be a judgement day for each and every one of us.

Gina, great question, because supporters of the bill argue that the Senate bill doesn’t fund abortions. It does, however; an amendment to strip abortion funding from the bill was defeated (well: tabled). Here is us USCCB paper explaining how the bill funds abortion.
http://www.nrlc.org/AHC/USCCBrebuttalToJostOnHR3590.pdf

Thank you for asking. On matters where Church teaching is unequivocal, such as abortion or defense of marriage, of course the Church has to take a stand. That is elementary justice and defense of the innocent and a Christian obligation.

What I think is doubtful policy is for the bishops as a body (of course as individuals they have the same rights as all of us) to take stands on prudential matters where Catholics in good standing may disagree about the right course of action. I think it dilutes the effectiveness of their message when they speak about essential matters; and it also seems to contradict the role of the laity. As Benedict XVI repeats almost every time he speaks on cultural matters (and in all three encyclicals!), the Church is not political and has NO political program to offer; she defers to people with genuine expertise on political and economic matters. What she offers is moral clarity by which people of good will can purify their consciences and their reason of the passions that can cloud judgment.

The distinction is between essential matters where Church teaching binds us all and matters where there is no Church teaching as such, only principles which we must try to apply as best we can, with great liberty of conscience.