How often are people who have incurred latae sententiae excommunication ever informed of it?
The list must be long: Catholic doctors, nurses, hospital administrators, &c. 

Yes, a member of the religious is a special case but excommunication seems to me a rusty sword which needs to be either retired or sharpened and used much more widely.

Clear, compelling and thorough as usual, Jimmy. Kudos.

Jimmy,

Great job. Logical and concise.  Brilliant.

If anyone calls this post “cavalier and sarcastic” as she did in comments to the other post, then I’ll know she’s not serious at all.

Dear Mr. Akin,

I have read your post carefully.

Having read - and re-read it - I have a question. I quote from your text>

“According to the Bishop, she “automatically excommunicated” herself. He informed her of this fact.”

I assume that people who abuse children also “automatically excommunicate” themselves from the Church. I also assume that the Bishops where these people live (or work) also take the time to inform them of the fact.

I would like to know if, as in this case, Bishop Olmsted has also acted in regard of pedophile priests informing them of their excommunication and making such excommunication public. I searched the Diocese of Arizona’s website without finding any details about such a case.

Hopefully you, Mr. Akin, who seem to be so well informed, can enlighten me in this regards.

Correct me if I’m wrong but I believe one of the provisions for a latae sententiae excommunication was that the offender must know that the offence has a penalty attached to it.

This could be the reason we have not heard this explained from the pulpit very often: it give the offender an out by letting them explain that they were not aware or the latae sententiae excommunication and as such cannot incur the penalty!

Where is Nancy Pelosi’s excommunication? ;)

“I assume that people who abuse children also “automatically excommunicate” themselves from the Church. I also assume that the Bishops where these people live (or work) also take the time to inform them of the fact.”

Why do you assume this? Because the sin is severe? So is murder, but that doesn’t automatically excommunicate either. The seven sins resulting in automatic excommunication are:

1. Apostasy, Heresy, or Schism
2. Desecration of the Eucharist
3. Physical force against the Pontiff
4. One who actually procures an abortion and all accomplices
5. Priest who absolves a partner in adultery
6. Priest who directly violates the sacramental seal of confession
7. Both parties to the consecration of a bishop without a pontifical mandate

Your second assumption presents logical problems. Abuse cases are not performed in public. It would be impossible for a bishop to notify of an excommunication for an act that he is not aware. When a case is made public, an investigation must done as well. Allegations alone are not proof of guilt.

Still, allegations are serious enough. In Denver any “credible allegation” results in the immediate removal of priestly faculties as happened twice with in the last month to two priests for acts that allegedly took place more than 30 years ago. Any priest who is found guilty has priestly faculties removed permanently. This is more severe than excommunication, which is intended to be a temporary state with the ultimate goal being to return the person to communion with the church.

It doesn’t sound if excommunication would really be the solution that you desire.

You say of excommunication,  “It is a spiritual work of mercy because it gives her occasion to pause, reflect, and take the steps necessary to be reconciled with the Church (which is the purpose of excommunication to begin with; it is medicinal in nature, intended to facilitate repentance and reconciliation).” 
Then perhaps it is only fair that pedophile priests be shown the same mercy.  Is the dignity of a living child not at least as sacred as that of an unborn child?

Ah, it only took 3 posts before someone brought up pedophilia.  Not a record, but close.

Sara, if you have any evidence of any priest abusing a child in Bishop Olmsted’s diocese, you should bring it to his attention.

Automatically playing the pedophilia card just shows how slow and ignorant you are.

Jason,

You explanation was excellent but it will not be good enough.  Just wait and see.

““Posted by Sara on Thursday, May 27, 2010 3:54 PM (EST):”“

THANK YOU Sara for your post - the absolute absurdity of clarifying or obfuscating catholic ‘law’ gives me a migrane - obviously the ‘bishop’ would rather have the mother and the child die rather than save a life, which as everyone knows is the physicians PRIMARY DUTY - the idea that any medical professional should be compelled to stand by and do nothing in the face of the demise of the mother is patently lucicrous

- as far as ‘carbon m.‘s illuminating post concerning the ‘pedophile card’ please do me a favor and talk with some of the victims of clergy sexual abuse, as I have, and then tell me the church’s pathetic response to a global scandal should be minimized to what you belive to be a cheap talking point - the treatment of Sister McBride is WHOLLY IN KEEPING with the church’s decades long silence on the rape and abuse of it’s child parishoners, and their humiliation of this, by all accounts, decent, good women is yet another nail in the coffin of the CC.

Further to ‘carbon m.‘s lame point, From the Seattle Intelligencer:

“In a question and answer document the Diocese of Phoenix provided National Public Radio, church officials say the purpose of excommunication is “to repair scandal, to restore justice and to reform the offender.”

Given this definition, excommunication seems a strikingly fitting punishment for some members of the Catholic church who have received far more national attention than McBride for committing another sin: sexually abusing minors.

The growing number of priests charged with molesting children has muddied the church’s name with scandal and eroded its foundation as a just institution.

And I think there is a sense of general accord that anyone who ties a 16-year-old altar boy to a bed and rapes him—a crime recently brought against 44-year-old priest Marcin Michal Strachanowski in Brazil—is an offender in dire need of reform.

According to Catholic teaching, McBride committed a crime against an unborn child. “The direct killing of an unborn child is always immoral, no matter the circumstances, and it cannot be permitted in any institution that claims to be authentically Catholic,” Olmsted said in a May 14 statement.

But priests like Strachanowski are not “automatically excommunicated” for their crimes against living children.

Instead, the National Conference of Brazilian Bishops said it hopes to draft a manual to help church officials prevent pedophilia, according to an Associated Press article Tuesday.

McBride’s sin saved a woman, and she received the church’s most severe reprimand. Strachanowski’s sin left a teenager irrevocably scarred, and the church responded with a guidebook.

“In the case of priests who are credibly accused and known to be guilty of sexually abusing children, they are in a sense let off the hook,” said Rev. Thomas Doyle, a Catholic canon lawyer, in a May 19 interview with NPR.”

Carbon Monoxide:

Like the name and appreciate the comment, but let’s keep it civil. Don’t call people slow or ignorant.

Sarah:

Currently canon law does not provide an automatic excommunication for clerical sexual abuse. It’s certainly legitimate to hold that it should. It may in the future, or the whole concept of automatic penalties might go away. We’ll have to see.

Jimmy:

I appreciate the objectivity and calm with which you’ve handled this whole, sorry subject. The controversy has seen even more demonization, of and by both sides, than usual. I’ve been pilloried by the Right for refusing to infer that Sr. McBride was acting in bad faith; I’ve been pilloried by the Left for refusing to depict Bishop Olmsted as an ogre who would rather have seen both mother and child die than approve killing the child. I think your approach is mostly correct.

The one point I want to stress, though, is this: even if Sr. McBride was objectively wrong to believe that the abortion was morally licit according to Directive 47 of the USCCB ethical directives, the question whether she acted according to a culpably malformed conscience in this case is entirely separate. That’s a question which we are not in a position to answer; but the answer is quite relevant to discussing the usefulness of LS-excommunication. Ed Peters has that question right.

Best,
Mike

Play with the words however you want, this exposes the hypocrisy of the Catholic church and its disconnect from truth and its gray areas. It may be a correct action within the boundaries of the “faith” but the larger good and the best decision was made be the Sister. Jesus would have signed off on this one and the Bishop is acting like a Nazi “just following orders.” wake up Catholic Church. You must leave the dark ages or your days are numbered. I predict the latter.

So far we’ve three “pedophiles” and one “nazi.”

Isn’t the internet wonderful?

I didn’t say he was a Nazi, I said that it’s the same syndrome of blind obedience to a doctrine over common sense and mercy. Don’t try to mask the issue by cherry-picking the more extreme comments, BillyHW.

I’m with you, BillyHW.  Thank God for the Catholic Church.

Lemmings. Think for yourselves instead of falling in lockstep with an organized racket that is so far removed from the intent of Christ that he would find it hard to forgive. You don’t even see it do you?

Jim, no they do not. It’s that pesky log again, stuck in their eye that keeps them blind.. Shameful and regrettable that the ‘boy’s club’ still insists that it and it alone has the only correct answer. The Church Eternal is NOT the Church Militant. One IS the infallible Word, the other a social club with appalling membership rules. Christ indeed would be disappointed.

I am surprised that Catholics are upset by #4 above, that is that Sr. was moved from one position in the hospital to another position.  I would actually take this the other direction.  All are shocked and angered that any priest who abused children and would then be relocated to another position somewhere else.  Is abortion not a grave abuse of a child?  Moving her to another position is tantamount to shuffling a abusing priest around.  She should be moved to a monastery somewhere where she can live out the rest of her life in prayer and repentance just like any abusing priest should have been.  I personally find it a scandal that she would be quietly moved to some other position in the same hospital.

I wished more bishops acted like this one. Bravo for him.
Maria-Pilar Royo
Spain

Remember the source friends. The Register is the voice of Maciel, The priest who respected women and children

This case reminds me of a child in elementary school who gets a D on his report card and says to his parents, “look what mrs. doe gave me! The parents rush to school to see why the bad teacher gave the boy the D.  The boy received the D because he deserved the D, period.  Put the blame where it belongs, on the boy, he got what he deserved.
Sr. could have removed herself and went to her superiors on this one, don’t blame the Bishop for her willing excommunication.  I had 2 abortions, I was excommunicated,so I went to confession and was taken back. I was divorced and remarried,
I was in an abusive marriage, I divorced and remarried, hence excommunications, so I got an annulment and was taken back into the church to receive the sacraments.
If you chose to be Catholic, u then chose certain morals and values to follow which are under the auspices of the Churches teachings.  Stop paving the road to hell, abortion is never the right answer, never, and Sr. excommunicated herself and Bishop did what a bishop SHOULD do, he did not reward this type of behavior, kudos to Bishop!

I do not accept for one minute that this was an abortion.  What occured here was the death of a fetus in an attempt to save the mother. The word “abortion” is used with much too liberty by some people. It would have been a greater tragedy if both the mother and fetus died.  Then this discussion would have been about murder.  What if the mother, faced with this dilemma, had elected to be removed from the Catholic hospital to a public hospital that would save her life?  Can you imagine the headlines, “Catholic hospital moves woman to public hospital for abortion.”
There was no abortion her and the num was not excommunicated!!  But, I believe that Rome should carry out an investigation as to why the Bishop released this information to the press since patient information is protected by law.

Joe at Ips,

You are confused on both of your points.  First, whether or not you accept that this was an abortion, that is the medical truth of the matter.

Second, Protected Health Information as defined in HIPAA must connect medical information to an identifiable patient.  Nothing about the patient has been made public so no breach of privacy laws has occurred.

As a member of the modern world, unencumbered by a medieval philosophical system (though burdened with existential crisis), I cannot understand the values of the church.  I don’t think the Bishop is a monster - your post makes it clear he is just following church doctrine.  It is the doctrine itself that is monstrous.  A kind, wonderful, caring woman makes a tough decision informed by love - and is consigned to an eternity of hellfire.  Selfish, damaged, destructive men prey on those they are assigned to protect and they have hope of everlasting bliss.  How can this prima facia hypocrisy of the church be ignored?

Joe, Why refer to the baby as a fetus? It is a baby, it is not part the woman’s body, it is the baby’s body and it was killed to supposedly save the life of the mother,was consideration examined to help her and “baby” until it reached viability and then removed through a c-section and it’s life too could have been tried to be saved, instead of playing God and just dismembering it?
That woman will suffer with grief, guilt, sadness and terror for the rest of her life, believe me, at some point it will hit her.
Have you ever been involved in an abortion?
Denial is a long river!

I can totally understand that many people can’t understand this at all.  If someone is coming at this based on situational/relativistic ethics, which most people are, this will not seem to make any sense.

The principles though, which should not be hard to understand, even if you disagree with them, are:

1) The ends do not justify the means.  (The best of motives is not a sufficient justification for any evil act)

2) It is always wrong to directly and deliberately kill an innocent human being.

Take a case which someone brought up in the other thread:  if a mother and child are stranded on a boat with little hope of rescue and no provisions, would it be OK then for the mother to kill and eat the child in order that at least one of them might survive?  If you say no to this, what is the difference between this and the scenario we have been discussing?

Or how about this example…if a mother and small child are drowning and the mother realizes it will be likely that they will both drown in the process of trying to save the child, would it be OK for the mother then to simply shake the child off and swim away to save herself?

Some may say yes to this, and most would understand it at least as an act of desperation, but would it actually be RIGHT?

Well written and well reasoned article. But we do not live in an age of reason, it appears, Jimmy and maybe you know what that means. Nonetheless keep them coming.

I do not understand this part of the article:

On the other hand, I could imagine one saying, “I defer to Bishop Olmsted on the question of whether Sr. McBride excommunicated herself. Let’s say that she did violate the law in this way. But I think it’s a bad law.”

That’s a position a Catholic (or anyone else) can legitimately hold.

Specifically, I do not understand how, or that, a Catholic can think the law of automatic excommunication for direct abortion is a ‘bad law’. No Catholic can morally or legitimately hold such a position. The automatic excommunication is not evil, illegitimate or immoral. The holiness of God and life is being witnessed to. The act of willful, direct abortion, the Magisterium is saying, intrinsically produces this excommunication. We cannot believe or think this is intrinsically or extrinsically bad.

Sam Dickerman:

“consigned to an eternity of hellfire. . . . “

This is simply not true.

At least get your facts straight before handing down such sweeping condemnations.

I am in a quandary.

Correct me please if I am wrong. I understand that the RCC considers a fetus a person from the moment of conception, so aborting a fetus at one day or eight months is murder. If that one day fetus is a person then it has a soul according to the church.

I have read that the reason that a priest or cleric is not excommunicated as a result of sexual abuse of a child is that they did not commit murder, unlike the aborting of a fetus.

To my simple mind, an aborted person is completely innocent, has a soul, and therefore upon its death it goes to heaven. A sexually abused child may have psychological difficulties its whole life, may enter into abusive relationships, may be unable to maintain normal relationships, and may even commit suicide. So that abused child leads a life less than perfect, and upon its death, depending upon the circumstance MAY go to heaven, it is by no means certain.

What has caused the most harm to a human soul? abortion or abuse?

Anyone want to tell me where my interpretation is wrong? because if my interpretation is right, then the church has it all wrong.

In the particular circumstance of this case, what would Jesus want? Would Jesus want this mother to remain alive so that she could raise her other children? Would Jesus welcome the aborted child into his arms knowing that the mother had been spared, and was able to protect and raise her existing children, or would Jesus prefer that the mother die?

Would Jesus be compassionate, or would he stick to the letter of the law?

Bishop Olmsted followed the Law. This sister was in a position of grave authority, made a decision contrary to CIC, and the proper action was taken.

Michael Copwtan,
The penalties are based on the seriousness of the sin, not on the eternal harm caused.  If your reasoning was correct, it would not be a sin to harm a holy person at all, since they would go straight to heaven.

Anyway, using listed excommunicable offenses as a basis to determine the seriousness of sin is itself a questionable exercise, as it is not meant to reflect a full and complete list of the most serious offenses according to the Church.

Stating “the penalties are based on the seriousness of the sin, not on the eternal harm caused” is flawed reasoning, as the two are indistinguishable.

I have finally understood.

Sister McBride, an outstanding Catholic who has lived all her life in application of Christ’s principles, was excommunicated (the most serious penalty that the Church can inflict) for allowing not a plain and unjustifiable abortion but a procedure without which both mother and a non viable child would have been condemned to die. A mother of four small children was saved thus.

On the other hand, the priests who committed child abuse - people who I shudder to call Catholic -  have not and will not be excommunicated, because their sin is not in the list that the canon law contemplates as pertinent.

I would like to see Mr. Akin and Bishop Olmsted trying to explain such decision and such different outcomes to Christ. “You see, dear Jesus, we *must* follow the letter of the law. And please, do not argue. You see, Bishop Olmsted *is* a canonist. You, dear Jesus, are not.”

Perhaps some people should go back to the source:

“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you tithe mint and anise and cumin and have left the weightier things of the law: judgment and mercy and faith. These things you ought to have done and not to leave those undone.”

‘Stating “the penalties are based on the seriousness of the sin, not on the eternal harm caused” is flawed reasoning, as the two are indistinguishable.’

Not at all.  Murdering a holy person causes them no eternal harm; in fact, it will increase their heavenly merit, especially if they are killed because of their faith.  However, murdering a holy person is still just as serious of a sin as murdering an unholy person, not because their eternal fate might be different, but because it is intrinsically a gravely immoral act.

If it isn’t obvious by now, I am talking about the eternal harm to the victim, not the perpetrator.

Well, It is all so much clearer now.

It sounds like “Do as we say, not as we do”, combined with “what has Jesus got to do with anything, those are the rules”

A pox on all your houses

Sara, i appreciate your passion. But the law is not some arbitrary, artificial assignment of protocols. It is rooted in the Gospel and Church traditions. Christ set the tone for Divine Providence “Thy Will be done”; the sister did not allow for this.

In a time when Bishops as a whole are being severely criticized for not taking action to remove an offending priest in a case of performing sexual acts with a male (or female) child or youth, it seems ironic that this Bishop - who is taking action against a religious whom he believes approved the direct killing of a child - is being criticized for taking decisive action to prevent her from being able to make such a decision in the future. Both are terrible acts performed against the innocent. In one case, the victim has to live with this incident the rest of hie life whereas in the other case the victim gets to live none of its life except the brief time in his mother’s womb.

I keep hearing that the Church needs to get in step with the times….well that has done well for the 30,000 different protestant denominations hasn’t it.  The Church has survived for 2,000 years because she has not bowed down to the whim of the day and thank God for that.  We must remember that the leaders of the Church are human and humans are not perfect. The Bishop did what he had to do in this case and he should not be lambasted. Other bishops across the world have not done their duties in properly punishing the pedophile priest and they should be brought to task for that.  Jesus promised that the gates of hell would not overrun his Church and he has held up his end of the bargain. Bringing up the pedophile issue in this matter and any other matter just creates confusion. And confusion is exactly what the devil wants.

People do not fully comprehend the love behind excommunication. It removes the person so that they can not continue to hurt their soul or lead others astray which they would have to answer for when they go before God. It’s not the church saying we hate you but we love you and you need to ammend your ways. There are several people who should be removed from the body but because of the misunderstanding of this procedure it doesn’t happen and things grow worse.

I applaud Bishop Olmstead’s strong response (as thus far known) and appreciate Jimmy’s article.  The fact that there are still Catholics out there who don’t seem to know that it is never permissible to directly and intentionally kill a human life – whether pre or post-birth – is proof enough that **more**bishops need to step forward in such ways.

One apparently pro-life commenter above gave an example of a woman and her child both drowning in the water together with the mother ultimately deciding to leave her child so that she could swim to safety.  While I like the example, I think it could be improved upon.  Abortion is not merely like the mother swimming to safety while leaving the baby to fate because she could not make the shore while also holding that baby.  It’s worse.  Abortion is like the woman directly and intentionally **drowning** the child first and then swimming off to safety herself.

The Church does not forbid taking medical actions to save the life of a mother that may **also** unintentionally/indirectly result in the death of the unborn child.  There are basically three criteria that work in tandem to make the killing of any human impermissible:  1) the killing is intentional, 2) the killing is direct and 3) the killing is of an innocent human being.

Abortion incorporates all of these aspects and is therefore always gravely immoral, without exception.  It is no act of charity for anyone to perform an abortion, to seek an abortion or to aid another in procuring one.  Period.

Lot of comments seem to be away from the core of the subject.  The only thing a lay person wants to know is whether Sr McBride recommended abortion against the guidelines set out by the Church. If so she has committed a serious sin.  If not there is no need to make a hue and cry. No lay person has a right to question the authority of the Church. There may not be anything wrong with opinions and suggestions but condemnation and judgement should be avoided.  A catholic has to view everything in the most christian way in obedience to the Church

Good point, Mike F….

My drowning example would be more comparable to the situation if they had simply caused the mother to deliver the baby prematurely (at 11 weeks).  The baby would then not have been DIRECTLY killed, although both the small child left to drown and the 11 week born without the ability to survive as of yet would still surely die.  In that case, at least it would not have been direct murder, although it is still causing the death of the innocent, so cannot be seen as a good act.

Minor clarification on my previous post.  I wrote:  “it is never permissible to directly and intentionally kill a human life.”  While it becomes clearer further on, I meant to write, “it is never permissible to directly and intentionally kill an innocent human life.”

Rose said,

“Lot of comments seem to be away from the core of the subject.”

It has become blazingly obvious that most of those deriding Bishop Olmsted have no interest (or ablity) to engage in any moral analysis of the medical procedure which was done to proportedly “save” the mother’s life. 

They don’t care: if it was a “child”, “human”, “fetus”, “embryo” or “alien” - if the procedure used was dialation and curettage, suction aspiration, or “heimlich maneuver” - if the abortion was directly intended, indirectly intended - if the mother could have survived ‘till fetal viability - or if the procedure even was “treatment” for the mother’s condition. They don’t care if Bishop Olmsted was faithfully interpreting the Church’s moral teaching or not. It doesn’t matter - they don’t care!

That is why their standard arguements are (by order of frequency): sexual abuse scandal, patriarchy in the Church, Church is in the dark ages, Bishop Olmsted is a heartless cur.  Did I leave anything out?

Sadly, many want to simply exploit this notably “hard case” to demagogue the issue and attack the Church.  So, we have a lot of “heat” and very little “light”. Those who exercise a teaching charism in the Church need to turn this into a moment of education.

Once again, Mr. Akin puts us at the forefront of a controversial issue with this very timely and concise information.

Thanks so much Jimmy.

Also, I appreciate all those posters who take the high road and refuse to get into the name calling, anti-Catholic rants, and personal attacks. It ain’t easy.

Thank God for the Catholic Church which gives the only moral direction left in this world, even with all of its flaws.

She new it was a sin——she give full consent knowing the consequenses—-and proceded to allow a baby to be murdered———————————————-We should pray for her!

Barbara,

You’ve misspelled “knew”.  How do you “know” what she “knew”?  She may have (like many Catholics) had an ill-formed conscience.  The question then would be, was her ignorance “vincible” (culpable) or “invincible” (inculpable)?

That question is for her and her confessor; but the Bishop needed to act to prevent public scandal from the incorrect judgment call…

My thoughts keep turning to the woman at the center of this. I know that if I were in such a situation—having to choose between a procedure that would kill an unborn child or continuing with a pregnancy that was going to end in my death, leaving my four other children without a mother, I would be unable to continue with the pregnancy. Not to sound like a pro-choice advocate, but every man who has commented here will never have to face that decision. He will never have to decide to die with an unborn child or live with already born children. It’s much easier to say what she should have done and what Sr. McBride should have done when you will never have to be in that situation personally.

Lynda,

  So men are disqualified from using the gift of reason combined with a conscience informed by the Church and applying it to this situation?

Lynda King.  The moral position you assert is ethically called consequentialism and proportionalism.  That our choices should be determined by the expected outcome of our actions not the morality of our actions themselves.  Many sins are done with good motives.  We want some good thing (saving the life of the mother).  There is some evil which you would not like to do (dismember a baby till it dies).  Consequentalism ignores the morality of the act and simply weighs outcomes.  On one hand the mother and child both die on the other hand the mother lives and the child dies.  Consequentialism / proportionalism / utilitarianism (all relativistic “ethics”) tell us to go for the best outcome.  The problem is that if you raise the cost high enough any atrocity is justified and nothing is truely good or evil it is all relative to the circumstances.  The truth is that acts are evil, good, or neutral.  If it is evil then we must say no and entrust the situation to God even if there are sorrowful consequences.  No one here claims that is a day to rejoice.  None here wants a woman to die.  Catholics however believe that there is good and evil in this world and we cannot do what is intrinsically evil.  If you really examined the consequences of consequentialism in which there are no good or evil acts only consequences to be weighed you will see that a world in which this ethical system ruled would be a true horror show.  We are not angry bitter Catholics, we morn the fact that evil happens in this world, but this is in God’s hands.  It is ours to do good acts and entrust the consequences to God.

What about the woman?  What if she is not brave enough to die with her unborn child and leave her other children without a mother?  She is excommunicated and doomed to hell because of her lack of courage?

Y’know, maybe she’s better off excommunicated. I wouldn’t want to be a member of this club anymore after this. This has all the makings of a new film along the lines of “Doubt.” Moral dilemma cinema.

Excommunication does not doom one to hell.  They simply must repent and go to confession, as with any other grave sin.

People do bad things in desperation all the time for which they may not be completely at fault morally, but that doesn’t change the objective rightness or wrongness of the act.

I would never presume to judge that woman, as she was put into the crucible.  Who can say what they would do in the same situation?  Still, once again, that doesn’t change the fact that the abortion was objectively wrong.

Lynda,

“What about the woman?  What if she is not brave enough to die with her unborn child and leave her other children without a mother?  She is excommunicated and doomed to hell because of her lack of courage?”

Well, assuming that she is acting with full knowledge and consent, she is “doomed to hell” for murdering her baby, not for a lack of courage. 

No one ever wants to address the life-boat analogy which illustrates the flaw in the pro-death argument.  The action is a direct attack intended to cause the death of an innocent human being.  That is the definition of murder.  The starving woman cannot murder and eat her child, even to save her life.  The sick woman cannot murder and discard her child, even to save her life.

The common thread is that you cannot murder a child.  To do so, is a grave offense. 

Thank God for the sacrament of Reconciliation!

Red_Beard, can you explain in full the life boat analogy.

I’d like to read it and use it in my pro-life exploits.

What does it matter what people think of this nun and her excommunication?  Abortion is murder.  Anyone who facilitates this murder is guilty of murder.  It is a very simple issue.  Not a complex one that Planned Parenthood and others would like us to believe.

Thomas,
Excommunication should not be retired. It should be sharpened and used as a penalty whenever allowed under canon law.

red_beard, and so the saga continues, thank God u r here!

The Bishop is a hero standing up for the truth and the unborn babies that are the children of the living God.  All those who promote or protect abortion are in grave sin and risk the fires of Hell if they do not repent.  Let us pray for those brothers and sisters who are clearly in the dark and on the wrong side and let’s applaud the Bishop for his stand against any religious that are erring.

Okay, I’m in the wrong room. Many of you are out of your freakin’ gourds and your opinion about a situation that has NO impact on your life is NOT a factor in the lives of those who are facing the crisis. Back off. Who do you think you are? Ted. Um…“the fires of Hell?” Are you kidding? You believe this crap? This is mythology and symbols, not reality.

Dear God, give us more holy priests and bishops like Bishop Olmstead.  Please bless him and grant him long life and health, strength, and continued wisdom.  Comfort him in the times of persecution that he is facing for doing the duty he has been ordained to do in obedience to the teaching of your church, which was granted the authority to teach by your son, Jesus Christ.

Amen. 

Blessed are they who are persecuted for justice’s sake.  For theirs is the kingdom of Heaven.

Jim writes,  “Many of you are out of your freakin’ gourds and your opinion about a situation that has NO impact on your life is NOT a factor in the lives of those who are facing the crisis. Back off. Who do you think you are?”

The same could have been said (and probably was said) about anti-slavery whites in the North in regard to slavery.  The same could have been said (and probably was said) about Germans who opposed “The Final Solution.”

One the value of one of us is diminished, we are *all* diminished.

“One the value of one of us is diminished, we are *all* diminished.”

Should have been:

Once the value of one of us is diminished, we are *all* diminished.

Jimmy,
Brilliant article - however, I believe all bishops and priests should have the courage (many don’t it would appear)to warn that abortion including the use of abortifacients (unless I’m mistaken)leads to automatic excommunication. Unless I’m mistaken the main time an abortion wouldn’t lead to an automatic excommunication would be if the woman had to have her womb removed e.g. cancer to save her life in which case (if the unborn child’s life could not be saved - in some cases it could e.g. if the unborn child is viable which can be seven months or occasionally earlier). In cases where I have just mentioned but where the unborn child’s life can not be saved his/her death would be seen as a tragedy - whereas the wod ‘abortion’ implies the wilful destruction of a living but unborn child. Such an act (no matter what some Catholics today believe) is murder and cries to Heaven for vengeance. I am also fed up with the nonsense where people believe the lies in the media about paedophile priests. I challenge them to read ‘THE JOHN JAY STUDY’ http://www.usccb.org/nrb/johnjaystudy which states most cases of abuse and alleged abuse between 1950 and 2002 involved males (81%) the majority of whom were pubescent or post-pubescent (11-18) not pre-pubescent (under 10)which is what paedophilia is. Brian W. Clowes has written a report about this which is on LifeSiteNews.He quotes studies which show there is a link between homosexuality and paedophilia e.g. NAMBLA but there is not a link between paedophilia and the priest abuse crisis.He also quotes studies showing teachers and Protestants are more likely to be paedophiles than Catholic priests are.http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010_docs/Homosexuality_Church_Crisis2.pdf

I think it is about time our Bishops show some courage!

Jimmy,

  You said:

“Unless I’m mistaken the main time an abortion wouldn’t lead to an automatic excommunication would be if the woman had to have her womb removed e.g. cancer to save her life in which case (if the unborn child’s life could not be saved - in some cases it could e.g. if the unborn child is viable which can be seven months or occasionally earlier).”

Just as a clarification, Abortion is a particular direct action to kill a child in the womb.  It is always wrong.  Removing a cancerous uterus is a hysterectomy, not an abortion, even if there is a child who dies as a result.  It may or may not be moral based on the circumstances. 

Removing a cancerous uterus is a good act by its nature.  Cutting a child to pieces in the womb is a bad act by its nature

Remember, we can never do bad.

We need to be clear that abortion is never a legitimate option as it is the direct murder of a child.  Actions that have a secondary effect of indirectly killing a child, even if it is a known but not intended consequence, may potentially be moral based on the principal of double effect, which I am hoping Jimmy will explain in detail.

We need to keep the terminology clear.  Abortion is the direct killing of a child in the womb, and it is always and in every circumstance wrong.

Ok, I read the posts wrong.  My last post should have been addressed to Brian, not Jimmy.  Sorry for the confusion.

Have anyone including the author ever heard of St Gianna Molla??? What is the point of these exchanges??? To challenged the authority of the Bishop?? What is purpose of these opinions to denigrate his decisions and proof it the decision is solely of a personal basis excluding the Light of the Holy Spirit??? And, lastly, popular opinion, philosophical insight, democratic input supercede and invalidates the Bishops actions? The article and comments are moot. Truth is truth and its defense shall not be limited to protocol, cannonical standards or stances unless it is in own right is true and affirms Truth. This is why God says man’s wisdom is folly and His ways or not the ways of men, and lastly, why God is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. There is only One Truth. More than One Truth is a lie or a contradiction unless affirms what is true. Stop creating situations that pits it’s members against the body…that is not normal it is called sickness

St. Gianna Molla didn’t die as a result of having carried her child to term.  She died because of really crappy medical care after a C-section that resulted in massive infection.  Doesn’t make her act less heroic, but she and the baby both survived the birth.  St. Gianna died because of septicemia, not childbirth.

The medical industry lies all the time to people, sometimes on purpose and sometimes by human error.  The amount of people who have been misled my the medical industry in immeasurable, abortions are performed all the time by mislead medical advice.  This is a form of coercion! Up to 85% of all abortions are a direct result of abortion and believe me it hurts the mother and father almost if not more as it does the baby that is dismembered.  We have sometimes, a lot of people not wanting to see the elephant sitting in the middle of the room, be it because of their own involvement in abortion or their refusal to look at a situation with out anger at the Catholic Church.  The issue at hand here is abortion, not pedophilia, don’t try to pave the road to hell with good intentions, what’s right is right, whats wrong is wrong! The mother will suffer from what the medical industry advised or scared her into doing.  Believe me she will suffer pain, heartache, grief, guilt etc. when she is alone with her other 4 knowing that one was taken. I know this first hand, and for those who put us down and try to demoralize us, maybe you should not be her trying to defend evil, maybe another site would be more appropriate.  Again people “denial is a long river!.” How many who put down the few who stand for life, have on some level, been involved in an abortion themselves? A child was lost without even a chance and a mother was saved, she herself will come to regret this one day as so will Sr., again, Sr. excommunicated herself.

Whatever you believe about God, omniscience is not something we humans have. I am amazed how many here think they know the Truth and then I remember how often I make that mistake. When I let it, the knowledge of my ignorance humbles me.

I learn from Jimmy Akin’s approach: careful, slow, reflective. Let’s look for explanations rather than blame. If a breach of responsibility is involved, let’s talk to that. And let’s remember our judgments are limited by our limits as human beings.

Assume that it is known to a moral certainty that the only available options were either (i) do nothing and both mother and baby die or (ii) directly kill the baby so that the mother can live. Quibbling about the truth of that assumption is unhelpful to the discussion given that this is reportedly the Hospital’s position and the morality of their decision must be evaluated based on facts as the moral actors understood them.

Catholic teaching is clear that the direct taking of an innocent human life is always wrong. That is the point of Directive 45. Catholic teaching does, however, permit in some cases the indirect taking of a life under the principle of double effect. This is the point of Directive 47. But the key is the word “effect.” In order to be permitted the action cannot be the direct taking of the life (i.e., an abortion). But instead the action must be a treatment of the mother than has as an indirect consequence the (i.e., the second effect) of death, even the foreseeable or inevitable death, of the baby. This is why a pregnant mother can ingest medicines or receive therapies directed to curing a pathology even though such medicines or therapies are understood to be harmful, or even lethal, to the baby. Based on the facts as reported in the Hospital’s own statement it appears that the procedure approved was a direct abortion prohibited under Directive 45 and not a non-abortive procedure permitted under Directive 47. The Hospital appeared to have tried to suggest that Directive 47 permits direct abortions if necessary to save the life of the mother (at least if it is understood that the baby will eventually die anyway), but such a suggestion is not tenable. The meaning of Directive 47 is well-established and fully understood by all competent ethicists. Accordingly, it does appear that the Hospital violated its own Directives and in doing so also violated rather unambiguous Catholic moral teaching.

Some have asserted that Catholic moral teaching is simply wrong in this case, and therefore the Hospital should be congratulated for its courage to follow the consciences of its Ethics Committee rather than Church teaching. In particular, these critics of Church teaching claim that at the very least the teaching is inadequate to address this rather rare situation in which the baby was going to die regardless whether option (i) or (ii) is elected. This analysis is basically one of consequentialism, which evaluates moral choices by examining outcomes. In other words the ends justify the means. Many moral thinkers have advanced this utilitarian approach, but the approach has be explicitly rejected by the Church.

The Church’s view can perhaps better be crystallized by the following hypothetical: Gunman breaks into home. He tells mother that he will kill both husband and daughter unless mother shoots and kills daughter, in which case husband will live. Mother is confronted with two outcomes: one with both daughter and husband dead, the other with just daughter dead. Catholic moral teaching plainly would not permit Mother to kill her innocent daughter, even though daughter would die anyway.

Another hypothetical, which though perhaps far-fetched medically is quite useful logically: Pregnant mother is dying and unconscious. Baby can be saved, but only by directly killing mother (in other words, there is no treatment of the baby as such — or the mother). Catholic moral teaching would not permit the direct killing of the mother, even if such killing allowed the baby to survive and even if baby and mother would both die otherwise.

Last one: Terrible war is raging. In order to secure a just victory our army will have to take up to one million casualties and enemy casualties would include ten times that number with many innocent civilians as “collateral damage.” One bomb successfully and intentionally targeted at 50,000 innocent civilians (not a military target) would force a peace. Catholic teaching would not permit such direct and intentional bombing of innocent civilians, even though it is believed with great confidence that many more lives would be saved.

Now, admittedly these are all very tough cases. And I would never judge the soul of those who would lack the moral fortitude to resist the temptation to commit an immoral act under such horrible circumstances. And I am sympathetic to the position that Sister McBride was in. I don’t know what I would have done under her circumstances; just as I don’t know what I would have done in Truman’s shoes. I’m just a sinner relying on God’s mercy. That said, I would not try to explain to God or His Church why my intentional taking of an innocent life was not a sin. Good people do and can commit sin in order to obtain good outcomes, and it is tempting indeed to conflate good outcomes with good reasons. This appears to be what the Hospital did.  While moral utilitarians are free to disagree (they view good outcomes and good reasons as more or less coterminous), as are those who do not regard an unborn baby as human life, the moral calculus under Catholic teaching and our Creator’s Natural law is quite clear. 

Recent reports state that Sister McBride now also agrees that she made a moral error, and that her excommunication has now been lifted.  That is exceedingly happy news.

If Catholics aren’t even allowed to tell a white lie (there are four lights) to save someone’s life, why should we be surprised that we aren’t allowed to directly abort to save someone’s life?

I believe Jimmy’s article assumes that a direct attack is unjustifiable even to save a life but that an indirect procedure (e.g. hysterectomy) which still results in the death of the unborn child is justifiable under the principle of the double effect.

I also believe that critics of the Bishop and Jimmy don’t accept this distinction. In which case it’s the Catholic doctrine and the Bishops and Jimmy who are monstrous.

If Sr. BcBride agrees that she mad a moral error and that her excommunication was lifted, where is the argument?

Well, Darlene, apparently the argument is not from her. But moral utilitarians will nonetheless insist she did the right thing.  And those who evaluate all questions through the political lens of feminism will do so as well since it indulges their impulsive meme that all women are victims and the Church will continue to be evil until its patriarchal structure can be reformed, bla bla bla. 

As I’m more charitable than Mr. Marshwiggle, I do not view moral utilitarians as monsters; I just view them as mistaken.  Moreover, because consequentialism is incompatible with Catholic moral teaching, it is hardly surprising that its exercise by a Catholic hospital would be disciplined by the local Catholic bishop.

Sorry ‘redbeard’ (whoever you are - you have criticized me but I use my proper name no matter where I write). I have even sent letters condemning abortion and homosexuality to the secular British press,calling on them and their readers to repent and accept Christ,to save their souls. In two cases these letters were returned: one said ‘drop dead’ on it and the other said ‘kill yourself’. These letters did not say who had written these comments or what newspaper(s)they were from.Thanks for the word - I did mean a ‘hysterectomy’when I wrote last night but I couldn’t think of the word. As for your criticism of me - I have never condoned abortion. What I stated is there are times when the death of the unborn child can not be prevented e.g. in some cases during a hysterectomy.If it is at all possible to save the unborn child as well as remove the womb this should be done,however,there are times when this is not possible.I also said this is totally different from abortion. Abortion is the intentional killing of an unborn child whereas the example concerning a hysterectomy for cancer is not.For many years I have actively opposed the pro-death, anti-life movement by having information on my websites about the unborn child being alive from the first moment of conception (outside the womb).I also placed a link to the website of ‘THE SILENT SCREAM’ on my sites.Have you done the same? Or sent this information etc.,. to politicians. Don’t judge me as you do not know me.I chose to state what is canon law(or used to be)i.e. the law of as I shall call it unwanted consequences. Perhaps canon law has changed so a woman who has a hysterectomy for cancer is automatically excommunicated - however, I don’t think so. I then said the fact the nun (sister) has excommunicated herself,under canon law,for abortion seems to me to imply that this did not involve the rare exceptions I had given but had excommunicated herself because she believed it was acceptable for Catholics to have abortions i.e. kill unborn children even if the mother did not have to have her womb removed.Canon law also states a person only automatically excommunicates themselves for sins like abortion if they know this sin incurs that penalty.Automatic excommunication only incurs the moment the unborn child dies.

Brian:
You misread Red_Beard.  He was not remotely criticizing you.  He was just trying to introduce more precise language for the purpose of clarity.  For example, he was trying to make clear that there is no exception to the rule prohibiting the *direct* intentional killing of an unborn child.  The rule addressing the treatment of pregnant mothers that may result in the death of such a child permits only *indirect* killings—not abortions.
I believe he was agreeing with you, but just trying to make sure others would not misunderstand you.

Thank you Mike for clarifying this, sorry Red_Beard.I do believe the bishop was correct to rebuke Sister McBride and warn her that her actions had brought upon her self-excommunication.If it is true that Sister McBride has accepted she made a moral error which led to her excommunicating herself and that the bishop was correct to warn her about this I am delighted.Unlike in the past abortion (or playing any part in it)can be forgiven by going to Confession.Once the sin is confessed and absolved unless I am mistaken excommunication is automatically lifted, however, it would be nice if Sister McBride would tell both the secular media and liberal Catholic and non-Catholic Christian media she had made a mistake and that the bishop was correct to warn her about this.I don’t believe it would be published in the liberal secular or religious media - they have their own agendas.

Sister McBride was only one member of this hospital board who approved the abortion procedure. While I assume she was the only religious member might there not have been other practicing Catholics on the board? Since this was a Catholic hospital I would assume that to be the case. Were any other Catholics approving of the abortion procedure? If so, were they also affected by laitae sententiae? Did they receive notice of this by their Bishop? I have not seen this reported anywhere.

Again, all this effort to lay a definitive moral grid over a population that will account for and direct behavior in a consistent fashion is the basic mis-step of much religion. These semantic tiffs about “what if this” or “but what about that” ignore the fact that most people are not asking you your opinion, guidance, judgment, or interference.

Brian,

  I’m sorry for any confusion.  We are on the same side and I definitely didn’t intend to criticize you.  I didn’t intend to come off that way.

Jim,

 
  If your argument just amounts to “nobody cares,”  then it doesn’t exactly add the the conversation.  Some people care very much about the behaviors of the characters in this drama and the principles that guide those behaviors.  To those who don’t, perhaps it is a wast of time to read such threads.

  The Catholic Church is not imposing anything on anyone.  They propose principles that they believe to be true.  Those that say that they agree to those principles and name themselves Catholics can legitimately be held accountable based on their stated position of unity with the Church.  Those that reject the Church’s authority and teaching can freely do so.  We’re not stopping anyone.

 
  Personally, I believe that the Catholic faith is true and that it is the most sound and reasonable position - the natural side effects of the Truth as error will inevitably be contrary to reason.  I am attempting to logically defend the reason of the Church’s position and would welcome any reasoned arguments against those positions. 

I repeat the popes invitation: Come and let us reason together.

adele,
I would suggest you read Jimmy’s earlier report.  Basically, we don’t know much for sure because the diocese has not disclosed anything other than what it had to to counter the Hospital’s press release.  But I do believe that others have been implicated, but their names were not disclosed.

Based on what we know of this case, I continue to support Sr. Margaret McBride as courageous, and correct in choosing to save the life of a dying mother of four in a hospital emergency room. I continue to think that the Bishop has given grave scandal by choosing to discuss this matter publicly and by condemning Sr. McBride.  I continue to think pregnant women should be very careful about allowing themselves to be treated in Catholic hospitals.

Anne,

  No one can debate your feelings as they are yours alone.

Could you give us some argument or principles upon which you base your position?

Anne,
Aside from seconding Red, I have just a few questions?
Have you even bothered to acquaint yourself with the moral theology here?  For instance, do you think it is morally acceptable for the mother in my earlier hypothetical to murder her innocent daughter? 
Did you bother to read Jimmy’s previous article wherein he explicated the facts as they are best understood?  If so, aren’t you the one giving scandal by accusing Bishop Olmstead of commiting acts that are not remotely in evidence?

This post and your original one dismiss the public outcry over this episode by omitting the crucial step. Canon law by itself is inert. The “automatic” part of latae sententiae excommunication is a formal notion. It becomes a material fact only after a bishop chooses to become prosecutor, judge and jury and declare that such excommunication has occurred. The first step, as in any legal action, is prosecutorial: the bishop decided to treat the matter juridically, and further decide to apply those specific canons. This isn’t in any way as automatic as the chain of events you describe.

The Diocese’s statement says “Catholic health care institutions need to be concerned about the danger of scandal in any association with abortion providers.” So what is at stake is not the state of Sr. Margaret’s soul or her relation to the Body of Christ, but scandal. In the larger case of scandal involving the Church, the bishops made misguided attempts to avoid scandal by treating abusing priests pastorally rather than juridically. In this case, Bishop Olmsted decided that scandal would be avoided precisely by invoking the canonical equivalent of the death penalty.

The simple fact that many educated, informed Catholics have written thousands of words about why this incident might or might not meet the conditions for latae sententiae excommunication is evidence that at the very least it was unwise to mention excommunication even privately. To do so publicly was indeed scandalous. It shows astonishing insensitivity to the sincerity of the family involved, the hospital staff, and Sr. Margaret.

Sr. Margaret and the hospital staff may have been wrong, but even if they were wrong it seems clear that they were well intentioned and acted with careful consideration. Bishop Olmsted’s actions were monstrous.

Denis,
It seems to me that you are taking profoundly unfair inferential liberties with the sequence of events that gave rise to the publicity that you so decry.  Did you even bother to read Jimmy’s first submission wherein he actually tries to probe such facts?

Thank you, Denis Lynch for a well reasoned and compassionate statement above.  Much appreciated.

I have spent over 30 years of my career working in hospital accounting and finance.  This includes 6 years working for Catholic Healthcare West, the group to which St. Joseph’s belongs.  I had hoped that Catholic hospitals would remain faithful to the Church’s teachings, particularly about abortion.  So, I was very disappointed that St. Joseph’s did not.  The Bishop upheld his responsibilities to the Faith.  I regret that the Sister did not.

Denis,

  Wow, according to you an automatic excommunication has nothing automatic about it.  You are maintaining that it hinges entirely on the action of the bishop.  This is not my understanding of the process at all.  I am interested in any sources you may have for such a bold claim. 

“Sr. Margaret and the hospital staff may have been wrong, but even if they were wrong it seems clear that they were well intentioned and acted with careful consideration.”

Good intentions don’t make an action good.  We may all hope that it lessens culpability.  Fundamentally, it is apparent (according to the hospital’s statement) that a child was murdered. 

I think I worry more about someone who “carefully considers” murdering a child and then goes ahead and cuts him to pieces than one who acts rashly out of fear.

Also, you probably need to define your use of the term “scandal” as your usage and the Church’s usage of the term don’t seem to be in line. 

Just because the Church is worried about scandal, it does not follow that they are not concerned about the souls of the people involved.  In fact, the Church is worried about the souls of those involved and the souls that may be endangered by a false witness to the Truth.  A situation such as this may potentially lead to greater clouding of the truth that you shouldn’t murder your child.  Someone else who is morally wavering might cling to this sister’s actions as an excuse to rationalize another murder.  That is the danger of scandal.  It has nothing to do with embarrassment.

Denis,
I don’t doubt for a second that Sister Margaret and the other hospital officials thought they were doing the right thing.  But there is little doubt that they were nonetheless terribly wrong, as even Sister Margaret now apparently admits.  Leaving aside your odd vocabulary (as a lawyer the term “material fact” has a meaning to me), I encourage you (and Anne for that matter) to actually investigate the sequence of events regarding how this matter became public before so cavalierly labeling Bishop Olmstead’s actions as monstrous.  I strongly suspect you (and Anne) are jumping to some very unfair and inaccurate conclusions.

Lack of clear moral leadership from the bishops in the past are what caused this incident. That a religious would ever conceive of a situation where a direct abortion would be ethically permissible shows the result of this gap in leadership.
Firstly, there is adequate evidence from a number of neonatal experts that there is never a case where treatment of pulmonary hypertension would require an abortion be performed. Abortion is not a treatment for pulmonary hypertension. The fact that there is at least one facility in the U.S. where woman who have pulmonary hypertension and are pregnant are treated, with a 100% success rate, shows that there was never a 100% chance that mother and baby would die if this abortion was not performed. Presenting as a fact that the woman would have died if the baby was not aborted is a not factual.
Secondly, I agree with Dr. Edward Peters that latae sententiae excommunication is a bad idea. It is not a legal concept which exists in the canon law of the Eastern Rites in union with Rome. This being the case I also agree with other posters that excommunication itself is a sword too seldom used, and should be more often against abortion supporters.
Thirdly, as a legal construct based in the code of canon law it is not reasonable to expect that the imposition of latae sententiae excommunication should be in any way related to the relative seriousness of individual sins. The specific acts which result in imposition of latae sententiae excommunication are the result of prudential decisions by the canonists who drew up the law (and the pope who approved them) but are not dogmatic in nature. Which means that neither the selection of specific transgressions, nor the penalty imposed are infallibly selected.
RED HARING: Latae sententiae excommunication would indeed be imposed on any priest who solicited a minor during the sacrament of confession. However this would have nothing to do with any penal action that might be taken against a priest, since excommunication is not a penal but a medicinal action meant to:
a) Call the sinner to repent.
b) Prevent scandal.
Scandal in this case not being the modern definition of public shame but rather to lead others into the commition of sin, i.e. to allow others to think that it was permissible to support the use of direct abortion as therapeutic method.

Terry,

 
  I think that this was an incredible post.  Thank you for taking the time.

I understand the bishop position. What I really do not understand why the Spanish bishops justified King Juan Carlos when he signed, as Chief of State, the abortion law. King Juan Carlos is accomplice of a every abortion performed in Spain after he signed the law.

I understand the bishop position. What I really do not understand why the Spanish bishops justified King Juan Carlos when he signed, as Chief of State, the abortion law. King Juan Carlos is accomplice of every abortion performed in Spain after he signed the law.

I don’t think all the facts have been made public, but I admire and respect Bishop Olmsted for defending the Church laws, in that all life is sacred. It is unfortunate that the privacy of those involved could not maintained and that it is now a public affair.  I will keep the Bishop and Sister Margaret in prayer.

I agree, kudos Terri.  My thinking is always the abortion is never ok and because of my own experience.  I fully believe that the devil can not destroy God and he knows that, so the next thing to do is destroy God’s image in man.  There is no justification in abortion ever!
Most abortions are the product of coercion and this woman’s fit the scenario, seems to me that the medical industry and the nun, representing the church gave her the go ahead, so in her mind being in a crises situation already, she agreed to abort.  The mother was surely under duress and Satan had his glory by taking full advantage of her.
Many abortionists are Satan worshipers, the operating table is the alter, i know this sounds far fetched, but do your research, you will find it to be true.  You can find a black mass within 10 minutes of your home, so statistics show, and u can find an abortion clinic in the same distance as well, do your home work and you will see. God and St Michael the Arch Angel help us all.

Wow. That is one of the clearest and best written pieces I have read in a long time. Thank you for sharing your time and talent, Mr. Akin.

You have got to be really lacking in all kinds of thinking skills if you disagree with this Bishop and the post above by Jimmy.

I would hope that the news would really research both sides of the story so that they make things clear on not only one-sided. If I could quote Patrick Coffin..goes something like this; no one would begin to report on baseball if they didn’t know what an RBI was, yet they do the exact opposite when it comes to reporting about the Church!..

In the sane world, where I reside, most people see the hypocrisy and are very angry and shocked about what happened to this poor woman. But in your world…just another day, I guess. I hope all your pews are empty. I know I wouldn’t grace a Catholic church even if you paid me good money. It’s kind of like asking to have your kids molested anyway these days. I hope more people stay away from this rotting organization. I would really love it if they would lose their tax exempt status. They are no better than a cult or organized crime syndicate the way they protect and coddle child rapists.

Sam,

Your hatred is not based upon facts unless you hate public highschools, which harbor far more abusers.

Where is your hatred really coming from?

If you are really shocked by the “hypocrisy” of the Church, perhaps you’d care to give us a reasoned argument instead of an emotional assault.

In my humble opinion the problem with Sr. Mcbride and the problem with the so-called pedophile priests stems from the same source. Being a victim of an attempted molestation, I have prayed about and researched the subject for nearly 30 years and feel as though I have something to contribute to this discussion.  The Church will never regain it’s moral authority on these matters until we, the flock acknowledge the fact that there is no pedophile problem in the Church, there is a homosexual problem.  The overwhelming majority of the cases involved adolescent, young, men.  This is how homosexuals pro-create, they “turn-out” young kids.  The media, however doesn’t want anyone to realize this fact.  And our seminaries encourage this behavior, look it up.  Do some research people, we need to eliminate this problem from The Lord’s Church.
We need Nuns to become Nuns again, not feminists.  Not hospital executives who draw a salary that is greater than that of 95% of the people they care for.  Put the habit back on and stop championing the causes of the democratic party.
And the cause of all this: an illegal council known as Vatican II.
I was called a nut many years ago, when no one and mean no one believed what this man tried to do to me not 5 feet away from a tabernacle; and you know what happened, this priest was brutally murdered by his live-in, runaway maintenance guy.  Then everyone remembered what i had to say.  I pray that we, the flock wake up, stop defending the actions of the church regarding molesting priests. (sarah from above has every right to use the pedophile priest card whenever she wants) It is time to clean house, it’s time to clean The Lords House….

The Good bishop is doing his job. Thank you, bishop!. If more bishops and clergy had been doing this since VII we might not have the problems we have today. Yes, it is house cleaning time and yes, all the “Catholic” politicians should be shown the door along with religious that won’t follow the teachings of our Holy Faith.

Don’t think anyone has mentioned this, but Bishop Olmsted did excommunicate a priest accused of sexual improprieties. And it wasn’t just your stand, everyday, parish priest either. It was the founder of Life Teen, Dale Fushek.

http://www.catholicsun.org/2010/february/16/fushek.html
http://www.catholicsun.org/2008/dec18/local/excommunication-decree.html

If you’re looking to accuse a bishop of hiding pedophile priests, Bishop Olmsted is not your guy. Dude is solid, bro.

Bishop Olmsted, You Rock!!!

Would it not have been simple for Sister Margaret McBride to say to the woman, “We’re sorry; we understand you have a difficult condition but we cannot treat you here in this facility if abortion is the solution you seek”? Having heard that, the woman would have: a) sought another facility which would have given her an abortion; or, b) had second thoughts and attempted to bring the pregnancy to term.  There was no need for Sister Margaret McBride to embroil herself in this situation.  It was the woman’s decision.

Laws, laws, laws…..the Pharisees reign supreme around here.

Mary,

 
Tell me about it!  What was Christ thinking?!?  Everything would have been so simple if he had said “Go,” but nooooo, he had to say “Go and sin no more.” 

Now we actually have to avoid sin?!?  Yeesh!  It’s like he actually cares about the difference between right and wrong.  What a drag!

(the preceding was sarcasm, there is always someone who doesn’t catch it)

Again Red_Beard u rock

Thanks, Red Beard, for that reminder. Perhaps you could remind us what crazy liberal it was who said “Stop judging, that you may not be judged”?

You guys are a lot of fun.  Did you know that that is the number one verse quoted from the bible? 

http://provocativechristian.wordpress.com/2009/04/06/provocative-bible-verses-judge-not-lest-you-be-judged/

1"Do not judge, or you too will be judged.

2For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

3"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.

So the point is to make sure wood products stay in all eyes at all times?

Thanks for the clarification, Dennis.

Dennis,

 
  In all seriousness, if you ever hear me say that a particular person is going to hell, please quote that verse at me. 

  If you hear me say that an act is bad, then have the decency to acknowledge that I’m not judging anyone’s soul.

Olmsted may not be an evil monster, but he is clueless and disconnected. The intent of the act must be considered to determine what we call the act. If someone is strangling me and I kill them, I have not committed murder—I have defended myself, and neither the Church nor the government calls it murder.  This embryo was murdering the mother.  Removing the embryo was not abortion, it was a life-saving procedure to keep the embryo from killing the mother.

Ziggle’s post is sophistry.  Removal of the embryo was exactly an abortion—to say otherwise is just silly.  Ziggle focuses on the importance of “intent” but nonetheless cavalierly refers to the innocent unborn human life, whose life was taken, as a murderer.  How ridiculous.  Moreover, a human being can never be reduced to a pathology.  The intent here was clear—to kill an innocent unborn child.  The motive, to save the life of the mother, was laudable of course, but it cannot excuse an intrinsically evil act—i.e., to directly take an innocent human life.  This is not to say that we should not be sympathetic to all concerned.  I know I pray never to be faced with a comparable choice.  But Bishop Olmstead did exactly the right thing.

Very clearly written Mike.  I really like your response.

“I’m sorry baby, your existence makes you guilty of attempted murder.  I guess I’ll have to tear you to pieces in self-defense.”  What an inhuman position to take.

Ziggle, I agree with your comments.  Since this newsstory broke, I do not know of any new revelations that have changed my view that Sr. Margaret McBride acted wisely and charitably in not trying to force this mother to die with her 11 week old unborn child.  I applaud her courage in saving the young mother’s life, and allowing her to be restored to her four children and her family.——I continue to believe that the church only applies these absolute and bloodless standards (indicated by Bishop Olmsted) when dealing with women and abortion.  I do not see any attempt on the part of the church to apply such standards to American Catholic soldiers in our volunteer armed services who are in combat in Pakistan or Afghanistan.  I cannot bring such bloodless and absolute standards into any reading of Church history which includes canonized saints like St. Thomas More who burned heretics to death.  No, it seems the hierarchy, out of touch with the laity, only applies his absolute fist to problems having to do with women and abortion; and so we are treated to the national spectacle of merciless Catholics expressing their dissatisfaction that a young mother was not abandoned to die with her 11 year old unborn child.  Thank God for the young mother that an idealogue like Bishop Olmsted was not standing over her gurney in that emergency room flatly refusing to let her have medical help to save her life.

Ziggle and Ann, Of course you don’t and of course you think the abortion was to save the life of the mother, totally ridiculous.

I don’t care what religion we are talking about, it’s a matter of ethics!

Your rights end where another persons rights begin, period.  Do you think it would be ok to take a child into a room and kill them? Of course not, then why would this be ok? The baby and the mother are two separate individuals, a women only has one heart and one blood type. The baby needs the mother for nourishment, until it becomes viable, at which time a c section could have been performed and at least an attempt to save the baby would have occurred.

If the mother had a 5 yr old child that suffered from something that was very hard on the mother, a behavior problem lets say, and dealing with this problem on a daily basis was not good for the health of the mother, actually causing her condition to worsen, do you think it would be ok to euthanize the 5 yr old?  Don’t laugh, there is no difference, a baby in the womb needs a mother to survive up to a certain point, just as a 1, 2 or 5 yr old does.  If we left a 3 or 5 yr old on its own and never took care of it, guess what? It would die. 

My dear people, this is a clear case of abortion, call it what u may, justify it in anyway u like, it was an abortion and it was not done to save the life of the mother. 

When this woman goes home is she going to still have the stress of raising her other children?  Gee maybe that’s not good for her health either…... where do we draw the line?

The main issue is that some reject MORAL ABSOLUTES. They ignore, abandon and condemn such a notion, however the Church (and all of us) must obey God’s law not man’s. Christ never promised us the easy way nor a heaven on earth. Life is hard as Christ said it would be, but we must place our trust in Him by backing our good bishops and priests who are called to make the toughest of decisions.

Compassion versus Canon Law. What would the ‘Master’say?

There is no lack of compassion here.  Some people are better at typing comments than actually thinking or investigating facts.

@TMC:  on 7/3, you posted a most rich and dense set of facts and conclusions related to clergy and consecrated disintegration, based on personal experience.  You mentioned Vatican II. First i heartbroken that you endured what you did—yet elevated by your commitment to the good in our faith.  Secondly, and if you are still following this—can you expound on your V-II reference?  Thank you.

I think one point is being missed. excommunication is equivalent to a legal felony. conviction allows for return to the Church, after suitable contrition. Pedophilia by a religious, is equivalent to a killing that brings an *automatic death penalty* sentence.
Something so serious that it requires an extraordinary remission of sentence. One that I would question whether Humans can actually do it (forgive in Christ’s name). Excommunication, is intended to be a way of saying. “You have committed the most serious type of sin that the Church can forgive. This is your warning of that situation, and a chance to ask remission(forgiveness) of that sin.” On The Other hand, Pedophilia, especially by a religious, is so serious in God’s eyes that only He can do that directly. The person involved can only appeal directly to the ultimate judge, for forgiveness. This is a case so serious that a mere attempt at perfect contrition can not buy remission.
In essence, the person has condemned themselves to Hell, with only a bare chance at escaping. Until they die, and stand before God, they have no way of knowing if their contrition is real and perfect. No number of years in a monastery, can “let them off the hook.” They can never know if their sentence is commuted. Whether it was once, or repeated, the sentence is the same. Only God can judge if they are so psychologically broken that they can be forgiven.
I accept that at death, I will be judged on everything I have ever done. I *hope* that where I have mistakenly judged His will that my reasoning will earn forgiveness. A religious pedophile has no such hope.

waqlter,

  I’m not sure I understand you, but I just wanted to say that there is no sin that is too great for God’s forgiveness through the sacrament of Penance.

I think what danials is saying is that he does not believe in confession. Even a priest will tell you that he can only absolve your sins but where you go after death is up to God.

@maureen
Thanks for the kind words.  One of the things that came out of V-I was a doctrine that states if a council is convened with the sole purpose of un-doing previous Church teaching, then that council is illegal.  Church teaching can’t be changed, God doesn’t change.  That was the stipulated purpose of V-II, to change and they changed everything, everything.  I think the doctrine is called exicrebetus, forgive me I can’t remember the spelling and it’s been a long time since I was in Fr. Perry’s latin class.

Please find a Tridentine Mass and enjoy….

Ok, wait a minute.

  With confession, if you are absolved (made a good confession with imperfect or better contrition)you are in a state of grace.  You have Christ living within you.  Therefore, if you die, you go to heaven. 

  There are plenty of ways to make a bad confession, but if you make a good one, you have restored your relationship with God no matter how bad the sins you committed are.

TMC,

  Personally, I’m Catholic and not “Traditional Catholic” or some other schismatic group.  The Church is clear that the council was legitimate and I will not take it upon myself to contradict the Body of Christ upon this earth. 

  There have been abuses in the name of “the spirit of Vatican II” but none of those abuses have anything to do with the actual documents that came out of the council.  A great Iowa bishop recently wrote that, the Spirit of Vatican II is demonic which needs to be exorcised.  Go bishop!  Mercilessly rip out abuses, but don’t throw out the truth of the council because some bad eggs misrepresented that truth.

That is what I thought Red beard, but in confession my priest told me differently and Fr. Groeschel always says if he gets to purgatory he will be happy because then at least he knows he is going to Heaven.  There would be no reason for him to have said that, I assume he goes to confession.  The name of the book is something like, What Happens After this Life, it’s his new one.
I cannot debate this topic, I can only tell u what a priest told me.

Red beard, Even though the priest takes the place of Jesus in the confessional, maybe he can not judge our souls, that is up to God and Jesus. That’s my guess, I will look deeper into it later

Thanks for the reply D. 

I think it is important to stress that if you make a good confession, your sins are forgiven. 

As for being happy to get to purgatory, that sentiment doesn’t show a lack of faith in confession, there is always the possibility of sinning again and killing the life of Christ within you.  Also, it is possible to deceive yourself if you are dishonest (perhaps having no contrition), in which case you haven’t made a good confession.  This may be one of the things your priest was referring to.

I really don’t want to be argumentative about this point, but I think that people need to know that they can trust in the power of Christ through his Sacraments.  If you are sincerely trying to come back to him, you will.  You shouldn’t leave the confessional second guessing whether or not you have been cleansed.

Repent, confess, rejoice in your forgiveness, and strive to sin no more.  (Repeat as needed)

OK, I like that and I am sure u r correct, I aboslutely love going to confession I feel so new again! Thank you for your info, I really appreciate and understand it. No debate here RB

I think where the bishop erred is stating factually that she had excommunicated herself, I think rather it should have been said that she may have excommunicated herself and that she should examine her actions and cannon law and come to a conclusion.  I teach RCIA classes and am often asked who determines sin, and I explain that as Catholics we are very careful not to condemn an individual for their actions for noone knows the heart of the other.

The latest news indicates the Bishop has taken aim at the
entire hospital and the Sisters of Mercy.
Tragic.  I commend the Sisters for standing up to the Bishop.
If only the man had approached Sister McBride with some respect
and humility for her knowledge of the situation and situations like
it, this might have been a learning experience for the Bishop.
As it is, the Bishop, I think, is giving scandal by
his insistence on his reading of canon law.
As the news indicates, many Catholics completely disagree with his
take on this. 
I think the issue is very important, to say the least.
I am thankful Sister McBride saved the life of the dying mother of four
at St. Joseph’s.

Victor,

  We can never no the subjective aspect of a given act.  We can only judge the objective part.  That is why we can never say that someone else committed a mortal sin, though we can know that a given sin they committed was grave.  Excommunication, when applied in this manner, is in regards to the objective act, not the subjective relationship the person has with Christ.  Therefore, anyone, but especially the bishop who has particular responsibility, can know that the Sister’s act has incurred this consequence. 

  Anyone can judge the objective (given enough information), only Christ can judge the subjective.  The fact of the matter is that it appears pretty clear that the act was an act that results in this consequence.  One can state that without making any judgment about her relationship with God.

  I sincerely hope she was ignorant of the great evil she participated in and that she was guided by her tragically malformed conscience.  If that is the case, then for all we know she might have a closer relationship with Christ than I do.  After all, she has objectively committed a great evil, though possibly not knowing it, but I knowingly and willingly commit evil every day of my life.  May the loving God have mercy on us both.

Anne,

Your post is written as an American who seems to think that the Church is a man made institution that should be a democracy. Don’t be fooled.  The Church is guided by the Holy Spirit, not by the will of it’s sinful members.  I’ll stick with St. Joan of Arc: “About Jesus Christ and the Church, I simply know they’re just one thing, and we shouldn’t complicate the matter.”

Many Catholics disagreed publicly and privately with Bishop Olmsted’s
judgment of Sr. Margaret McBride’s actions, and with the Bishop’s
interpretation of Canon Law.  The Bishop is apparently threatening
to appeal to Rome.  Perhaps the Magisterium will rule in favor of
Sr. McBride’s position.  The issue is a very complex one. 
One thing seems certain.  If the hospital had refused to honor
the family’s wishes to save the young mother’s life, the hospital
might be facing murder charges. ——We are after all a nation
of standards, and professional codes of ethics, and of laws.
One cannot force a young woman to die with her unborn child
if a legal abortion will save her life.  Perhaps Catholics who do not
want to uphold the laws of the United States, or who will not
meet professional medical standards should get out of the hospital
business.
Certainly American women would do well not to go to Catholic hospitals.

My opinion, which is only a lay person’s opinion is that Sr. McBride’s
interpretation of Canon Law was correct, and the many Catholics who
supported her decision were correct.  The Bishop was wrong.
We will see.
As for the Holy Spirit, obviously Catholics will go on believing that
He speaks to the church.  But no one can know for certain whether
or not an individual bishop or priest or cardinal is actually listening.

I frankly hope this scandal results in the resignation of this bishop,
and the full exoneration of Sr. McBride.

One thing we can be thankful for.  The young mother is alive and
united with her four children and her husband.  She was not martyred.
Whether other women have been martyred in Catholic hospitals
under similar circumstances is something the Law might investigate.
In fact, I would say there should be a full government investigation of
all Catholic hospitals everywhere as the result of this.
American women are entitled to that much. They are people.
Their lives matter. Their lives have value.
Jesus was born into
this world as much for women as for men.  Women
matter as much as men. 
There is nothing——I repeat nothing—- in the New Testament
to justify forcing a dying mother to die with her unborn child, if
her life can be saved by an abortion.
I urge Catholics to stand up to men like Bishop Olmsted.
If you do not stand up to this theologically corrupt church,
it will continue to do evil.

There is nothing, I repeat, NOTHING, in the NT to justify forcing a sick woman to kill her child.

Anne Rice and others perhaps would have condoned the killing of Jesus or John the Baptist in the womb.

Why perform an abortion on a “dying” woman? Was it that important to kill her child and risk her life with surgery at that moment?

No.

And if it is indeed true that the good bishop is going after the hospital and the Sisters of Mercy- good for him. You have always hoped that the “Vatican” would one day approve things like contraception, women’s ordination, etc.

It ain’t gonna happen. 

He is standing up to the Spirit of the World which is demonstrated by Anne Rice’s subversiveness on this blog.

Anne, you are such a hypocrite. This “theologically corrupt church” is the same one that in recent times you were defeneding. You are a victim of the dictatorship of relativism and remaking God in your own fallible image.

God does not condone abortion. God does not condone homosexual acts. God does not condone contraception.  The Spirit of the Age does, Anne, which you follow.

When you came back to the Church, you were freer then. Now I think you are seven times more enslaved to sin and the world. You are in my prayers.

“”“If the hospital had refused [...] the hospital
might be facing murder charges.”“”

Ok, so refusing to murder an innocent could be considered an act of murder.  What an insane world we live in!  For the love of all that’s Good and Holy, it is time to stand up for the Truth!

“”“One thing we can be thankful for.  The young mother is alive and
united with her four children and her husband.  She was not martyred.”“”

She now has the distinction of having participated in the intentional murder of her 5th child.  If I did that, I wouldn’t want to go on living.

“”“American women are entitled to that much. They are people.
Their lives matter. Their lives have value. “”“

This is an absurd statement that boils down to:  “My life matters, therefore I can murder an innocent.”  Or: “My life matters, therefore my child’s life does not.”

This is not a rational position based on the value of human life, or on any authentically Christian moral principals.  It may be a rationally consistent argument based of the idea of Consequentiallism (The ends justify the means) and therefore carries all the baggage that go along with that morally bankrupt philosophy. 

“”“If you do not stand up to this theologically corrupt church,
it will continue to do evil. “”“

This one is just funny.  If you are Catholic, you know that theological corruption is the one kind of corruption that CAN NOT occur.  If it does occur, than that would disprove the claims of the Catholic Church.  It’s that simple! If you are not Catholic, then why not make a rational argument showing a contradiction or error in the Catholic Church’s position? 

Instead, you are just rejecting Christian philosophy for the worldly philosophy of Consequentailism.  The Insanity of that position has been illustrated over and over on this thread and elsewhere.  Though, if you’d like to start again I’m always up for another go on this silly topic.  (Hmm… when you think about it within the scope of history, you are lamenting that the mean old Church is too consistently Christian in its rejection of Consequentialism!  I love a good irony!)

If the Church has an error on a defined teaching on Faith or Morals (i.e. - “It is always wrong to willingly take an innocent human life.”), when the Church claims infallibility on those two topics, then the Church is logically false and therefore you should just walk away. 

Hmm… I suppose it could be acceptable to start your own jihad against something you think is false, is this what you are doing?

If you think the Church is wrong, you aren’t really a Catholic (One who is in union with the Church). If you are right, then you shouldn’t want to be. 

Frankly, if there is error in the Catholic Church, then the most charitable thing anyone could do for me is to point it out with a rational argument so that I could stop wasting all this time and energy defending a lie.  That hasn’t happened yet.  I’ve never found a contradiction yet - and I’ve searched aggressively.  If the Catholic Church is true (and my reason doesn’t fail me), I never will.  You can’t find something that doesn’t exist.

The Roman Catholic Church is mired in social and political corruption.
Its ban on contraceptives, its absolute ban on life saving abortions,
these are not rooted in Scripture.
They are efforts on the part of a corrupt church to privilege social and
political attitudes which it embraces.
It should move away from social and political attitudes and
truly seek to hear the voice of the Holy Spirit and to re-define its
theology in a pure light. It should return to Scripture.  It should return to
seeking truth.
Liberals and progressives in the church are offering an honest approach. 
They are indeed turning to Scripture itself and seeking to craft a truthful and
God filled theology.
The social and political corruption in the RCC runs so deep that possibly it cannot be
reformed in one generation. But there is hope.
Catholics everywhere are standing up to the corrupt hierarchy.
The Sisters of Mercy are brave and strong and devoted, and we
should commend them publicly for their courage.
As the people of St. Joseph’s Hospital so beautifully stated it:
they support life, and in the case of the dying mother of four
in their emergency room, they saved the only life that they could save.
Catholics, stop being part of a culture of death.
Realize that women and children are Christ’s creation, too.
Jesus was born into this world for women and children, as well as for men.
His arms are out for all those who seek Him.
Remember: the RCC will continue to force its social and political
obsessions on innocent people as long as people allow them to do it.
Don’t be complicit.

Anne,

  Fair enough, you are not a Catholic, you are a Jihadist (or Crusader if you prefer)  Feel free to disagree with anything that the Catholic Church teaches.  Don’t bother trying to reform the Church though.  Inspired by the Holy Spirit or not, it hasn’t changed a teaching in 2000 years, it isn’t about to now because you can’t find something in your Bible (which many other people can find in theirs).  In fact, it is the ONLY Christian faith that hasn’t changed teaching on any moral issues, which is why it’s so hated (and so loved!).

  Good luck with the Consequentiallism.  It will bite you in the end, or at least it has every time it’s been tried.  Me, I’ll stick with all authentic forms of Christianity that have always and will always say: “Do no evil.”

  You keep coming back to the Bible, which I find rather odd.  Ok, I’ll play your game by your rules.  Where in the Bible does it say that it’s ok to do a bad thing (i.e. - murdering an unborn child) for a good purpose (i.e. - saving the life of the mother)?  Again, you can’t find something that’s not there. 

  If you were really looking, the “Don’t Murder” part of the Ten Commandments pretty solidly covers the crazy idea that the Church has that you shouldn’t kill innocent human beings even if you really really want to.  <sarcasm>Obscure texts like the decalogue are easily overlooked.</sarcasm>

Your conscience is so distorted that you are calling the Church “part of a culture of death” for having the audacity to say “Don’t murder a child”  in the same breath that you say that those who have actively murdered this child “support life.”  Come back to reality!  We are not God.  We cannot licitly murder.  No matter how much we may want to, we cannot licitly do an evil act.  The end.

Red Beard, let me suggest you read the history of
your church.
You might start with A Church That Can and Cannot Change by
John T. Noonan Jr.
Then read the New Testament cover to cover.
I continue to maintain that the Catholic Church is mired in
social and political concerns.  It needs to do away with the
“nostalgia” for a pre-World War II Catholicism, and
return to the true pursuit of truth.
Review this case of the dying mother of four
in the Phoenix hospital, and tell me how so many
Catholics could be positively angry that this woman’s life
was saved.
We need honesty from Catholics today.
We need a real commitment to truth, not fantasy.
Let go of the lie that the church has never changed. That would be
a first step in facing the lies that are being fed to you by the
hierarchy.
God’s truth is bigger than the political and social concerns
of the Roman Catholic Church.
Ask yourself why Catholic soldiers who serve in a volunteer
army are never questioned about killing pregnant women or
children in Afghanistan or Iraq.
Ask yourself how your church could canonize Thomas More
who burned five people at the stake for “heresy.”
You’re trying to tell me that it was wrong for Sr. Margaret McBride
to save the life of a pregnant mother of four?
I think you need to spend some time in the library.

“”“tell me how so many
Catholics could be positively angry that this woman’s life
was saved. “”“

What an absurd red herring that can only come for a willful misunderstanding of the Catholic position!  EVERY authentic Catholic would rejoice in the saving of the mother’s life! The also say that you cannot commit an immoral act even to attain a good, such as saving the mother’s life.

“”“We need a real commitment to truth, not fantasy. “”“

Please stop using words that you refuse to understand.  You like to pontificate, denounce, and attack all the while appealing to “truth” and “reason” while never actually providing a rational basis for any of your positions. There are several with an emotional basis, but we cannot turn off our brains and be ruled by our passions; even by our nobler passions. You are not arguing, you are attacking.  You are not debating, you are mud-slinging. 

I would love for you to present a rational position that we could discuss rather than an emotional attack or a reading assignment, but I get the feeling that you aren’t actually interested.

One image of your philosophy that I find particularly illuminating is this consequentiallist horror:  Let’s say 100 in 10000 women are raped.  That’s obviously bad.  If we could pick 1 in 10000 women and designate her as a “rapee” that any man could rape, then you would make life a living hell for that 1 woman, but you would be saving 99 women from being raped.  So, wouldn’t the state picking a woman and designating her as a “rapee” be a good thing?  It would have to be if the ends justified the means. 

In this particular case, no one has provided a rational argument against Dave’s lifeboat analogy:

“”“if a mother and child are stranded on a boat with little hope of rescue and no provisions, would it be OK then for the mother to kill and eat the child in order that at least one of them might survive?”“”

It can’t be answered because when you see a mother cut her child into pieces to save her own life, you can’t help but actually understand what an evil is taking place.  Your heart betrays your consequentialist (un?)reasoning.  Just ask Peter Sanger who takes good care of his mother after advocating killing the elderly!  Lucky for the culture of death, it is pretty hard to see the child cut into pieces when it occurs within the womb.

Let me recommend you spend some time with the Sisters of Mercy.
Volunteer in their hospitals. Spend time in their emergency rooms.
Talk to them about Sr. Margaret McBride and what she did.
Talk to the Catholic theologians who have strongly criticized
Bishop Thomas Olmsted for his “reading” of canon law in the
case of Sr. McBride.
I repeat: Christ came to all: to men, women and children.
There isn’t a separate canon law for women.
There isn’t a separate Scripture for women or
a separate Baptism.
Christ did not say He was here less for pregnant women, or for
children than for men.
I hope you work to clean up the corruption in your hierarchy,
especially the theological corruption, and
that you stand up for truth.
And for Love.
For now, I hope Catholics stand up for the Sisters of Mercy
and for Sr. McBride.
Being a good person in this world is more than arguing
obscure theological points.
It’s living one’s faith in Christ day in and day out
amongst His people.

So, you are automatically excommunicated for doing what you thought was necessary to save a person’s life-because it involved aborting the fetus.  If this hadn’t been done, perhaps both would have died.

But, if you are a priest who rapes little boys(or girls)...that doesn’t qualify for automatic excommunication? I say ..leave the “church”.

Yes, Lydia, that is the issue right there.
Bishop Olmsted isn’t involved here with the matter of abortion or saving
unborn children.
What he’s involved with is wanting women to be forced to die
with their unborn children, unless both can be saved.
This is about women’s rights, the value of women’s lives, and
the value of the lives of their children.
This dying mother had four children.  The unborn child was
only 11 weeks along. The hospital saved the only life it could
save, that of the mother.
The bishop and Catholics like him are apparently furious that this
woman was allowed to survive.  They want that she should have been forced to die.
Those concerned should write to St. Joseph’s Hospital now and show
support.
Otherwise this bishop may force the closing of this and other Catholic hospitals
by his obdurate stance.  Americans will not put up with having medical decisions
made for them by bishops.
This bishop is giving scandal.

Anne,
Instead of emoting, take a deep breath and try to read the following, applying reason rather than pop feminism:

Assume that it is known to a moral certainty that the only available options were either (i) do nothing and both mother and baby die or (ii) directly kill the baby so that the mother can live.

Catholic teaching is clear that the direct taking of an innocent human life is always wrong. That is the point of Directive 45. Catholic teaching does, however, permit in some cases the indirect taking of a life under the principle of double effect. This is the point of Directive 47. But the key is the word “effect.” In order to be permitted the action cannot be the direct taking of the life (i.e., an abortion). But instead the action must be a treatment of the mother than has as an indirect consequence the (i.e., the second effect) of death, even the foreseeable or inevitable death, of the baby. This is why a pregnant mother can ingest medicines or receive therapies directed to curing a pathology even though such medicines or therapies are understood to be harmful, or even lethal, to the baby. Based on the facts as reported in the Hospital’s own statement it appears that the procedure approved was a direct abortion prohibited under Directive 45 and not a non-abortive procedure permitted under Directive 47. The Hospital appeared to have tried to suggest that Directive 47 permits direct abortions if necessary to save the life of the mother (at least if it is understood that the baby will eventually die anyway), but such a suggestion is not tenable. The meaning of Directive 47 is well-established and fully understood by all competent ethicists. Accordingly, it does appear that the Hospital violated its own Directives and in doing so also violated rather unambiguous Catholic moral teaching.

Some have asserted that Catholic moral teaching is simply wrong in this case, and therefore the Hospital should be congratulated for its courage to follow the consciences of its Ethics Committee rather than Church teaching. In particular, these critics of Church teaching claim that at the very least the teaching is inadequate to address this rather rare situation in which the baby was going to die regardless whether option (i) or (ii) is elected. This analysis is basically one of consequentialism, which evaluates moral choices by examining outcomes. In other words the ends justify the means. Many moral thinkers have advanced this utilitarian approach, but the approach has be explicitly rejected by the Church.

The Church’s view can perhaps better be crystallized by the following hypothetical: Gunman breaks into home. He tells mother that he will kill both husband and daughter unless mother shoots and kills daughter, in which case husband will live. Mother is confronted with two outcomes: one with both daughter and husband dead, the other with just daughter dead. Catholic moral teaching plainly would not permit Mother to kill her innocent daughter, even though daughter would die anyway.

Another hypothetical: Pregnant mother is dying and unconscious. Baby can be saved, but only by directly killing mother (in other words, there is no treatment of the baby as such — or the mother). Catholic moral teaching would not permit the direct killing of the mother, even if such killing allowed the baby to survive and even if baby and mother would both die otherwise.

Last one: Terrible war is raging. In order to secure a just victory our army will have to take up to one million casualties and enemy casualties would include ten times that number with many innocent civilians as “collateral damage.” One bomb successfully and intentionally targeted at 50,000 innocent civilians (not a military target) would force a peace. Catholic teaching would not permit such direct and intentional bombing of innocent civilians, even though it is believed with great confidence that many more lives would be saved.

Now, admittedly these are all very tough cases. And I would never judge the soul of those who would lack the moral fortitude to resist the temptation to commit an immoral act under such horrible circumstances. And I am sympathetic to the position that Sister McBride was in. I don’t know what I would have done under her circumstances; just as I don’t know what I would have done in Truman’s shoes. I’m just a sinner relying on God’s mercy. That said, I would not try to explain to God or His Church why my intentional taking of an innocent life was not a sin. Good people do and can commit sin in order to obtain good outcomes, and it is tempting indeed to conflate good outcomes with good reasons. This appears to be what the Hospital did.  While moral utilitarians are free to disagree (they view good outcomes and good reasons as more or less coterminous), as are those who do not regard an unborn baby as human life, the moral calculus under Catholic teaching and our Creator’s Natural law is quite clear. 

Recent reports state that Sister McBride now also agrees that she made a moral error, and that her excommunication has now been lifted.  That is exceedingly happy news.

Ann, others have tried to reason with you, but you just emote and make assertions.  Try to reason instead.  If you think the reasoning above is incorrect, explain why.  Use logic.

Anne, spend some time with the Missionaries of Charity (whose order, btw, is GROWING with massive vocations) and learn the value of ALL human life, not just the value of a woman, ill or well, who wants an abortion.

Neither the Old Testament nor the New Testament promote contraception or abortion. In fact, the OT is rife with references to children and childbearing being blessings.

“Go forth and multiply,” not “Contracept, sterilize, and abort,” was God’s first command to us. 

Martin Luther said of contraception: “This is a most disgraceful sin. It is far more atrocious than incest and adultery.  We call it unchastity, yes, a Sodomitic sin.” 

John Wesley, the father of Methodist groups, taught that such sins are very displeasing to God and that those who commit them will destroy their souls.”  (Art of Natural Family Planning, p. 267 John and Sheila Kippley)
Until 1930 at the Lambeth Conference, all Christian denominations held contraception as morally evil. Then the Anglicans opened the door with contraception within marriage, for certain medical reasons, and look where they are now.

The Anglican Church is the herald for abortion, homosexual acts, sterilization and easy divorce in the Christians sphere.

Anne, don’t you see how relativism leads to the Culture of Death, which you are promoting with contraception, elective abortion, homosexual acts, etc.?

Mike,

This was a very clear and well written post.  I am thankful for the point of light that you are adding to the conversation, and especially for your charitable tone (which is a particular weakness for me).  Thanks for joining in!

Mike Petrik,
Let me suggest that you investigate the case again.
You might also want to talk to a canon lawyer.
You might want to read some of the informed
responses by Catholics to Bishop Olmsted’s position.
My conclusions remain the same.
I agree with those Catholics who have criticized the
Bishop’s interpretation of canon law, and I agree
with Sr. McBride’s interpretation of it.
I support the Sisters of Mercy and I support St. Joseph’s Hospital.
Again, if the Bishop forces this issue,
and if the hospital gives in, which I do not think it will
do, it will probably be the end of Catholic hospitals in
America.
And that will be a sad outcome but a just outcome.
I argue again, this bishop should have approached the
Sisters with humility and respect for their hands on experience
with the sick and the dying.
He is wrong in expecting women to be abandoned to die with
unborn children in such situations.
I urge Catholics to stand up for the Sisters and for the Hospital.
Stand up for the value of life.  Above all, the value of life.
This young mother is with her four children and her husband
today because the hospital respected her life.
There is nothing, absolutely nothing, in the New Testament to support
Bishop Olmsted’s stance on this.

Anne,
Your response is disappointing in that you continue to refuse to engage with reason.  Instead, you falsely imply that I have not spoken with canon lawyers and mysteriously suggest that I should investigate the case again.  Why?  If I am making factual mistatements why do you conveniently fail to specify them? 
I suppose it is easier to just emote.  That is sad.  You can do better.

Dueteronomy 30:15, “I put before you two ways, oh man. The way of life, and the way of death. Choose life so that you may live.”

That’s Old Testamen, but it’s very clear, Anne.

Liseaux, thank you for this quote from Dueteronomy.
Thank God Sr. McBride chose life, not death.
Thank God that the young mother of four is alive
today with her family, thanks to Sister’s interpretation of
canon law.  Thank God Bishop Olmsted was not standing
over the mother’s gurney in the Emergency Room telling
her that she “had” to die with her unborn child.
Haven’t we all had enough of the Catholic Culture of Death?
I know I have.
(Frankly, I think Benedict has had enough of it, too.)

“”“Frankly, I think Benedict has had enough of it, too”“”

Well Anne, you are definitely entertaining.  If the pope ever starts supporting murdering children, like you are hoping, make sure you let me know ok?  I wouldn’t hold your breath though, see, the Church always stands AGAINST evil.  Go figure.

@liseux,

  It’s always a pleasure to be standing for Christ along side you!

Uh… Anne, if she choose life then why is she the mother of a dead child?

Red_Beard- don’t know who you are, but right back at ya!

The Catholic Church is the only institution that keeps a person from becoming a child of the age- G.K. Chesterton

Viva la iglesia!  Viva el papa, y viva Jesus Cristo!  (pardon my exuberance)

Red Beard, I disagree with Chesterton on this quote.
I would say that it is false. 
But to examine this is detail would be a digression here.
Let me say only this:
The Catholic Church seems mired in social and political concerns
that apparently keep it from a true Scripture based theology.
If it could free itself from the social and political concerns
of the times and stop privileging the recent past and its customs,
it could approach truth in
a timeless and objective fashion. It could examine Scripture
when confronted by new problems.  But it does not seem to be
able to do this.
It is always mythologizing and clinging to the recent
past.  It is a slave to nostalgia.
Liberals and progressives within the church are free from this kind
of preoccupation with “the times” and genuinely suggest a deep
truth based theology, and an honest reading of Scripture.
But the conservative church is too wrapped up in politics and social
concerns to be able to do this.
Again, this is a digression and I apologize for that.
I hope Catholics who read this will think about it.
We need a church to be more objective and less the slave of the times.
Of course conservatives accuse liberals of “going with the times.”
But the opposite is really the truth.
Conservatives are wed to the times, and wed to the customs and
traditions they knew when growing up.

Apology.  I attributed the Chesterton quote to Red Beard.
Apparently it’s from Liseux.  Sorry, I should have read that more
carefully.

Red Beard, no, the church does not always stand against evil.
And I would never want the church to come out for murdering anyone.
I do hope and pray the church will begin to value the lives of women.
And I do have hope that Benedict will yet surprise us all with thorough reform.
He has a way of being his own man in spite of pressure from others.

Anne, the Church is ever ancient, and ever new.

The truth is the same yesterday, today, and forever.  There isn’t really a liberal or conservative Church- there is only a FAITHFUL church. I’m sure there are some far to the left, and far to the right that are about to fall out of the barque because of their extremism.

But truth doesn’t have those degrees. It’s vertical, not left or right.

Look at your wavering relativism- first you are for the Church, then you are against it, then you are for it, now you are against it.

You are being swayed by the wind, and it’s a relativistic wind.

Do you know your own mind?

I’ll go with Chesterton’s quote, as he is moored to the truth in Christ’s Church.

I hope you find it again one day.

God bless,

I’m outta here.

“”“Again, this is a digression and I apologize for that. “”“

Actually, I find it interesting.  If you care to provide a rational argument for such an accusation, it might make for interesting conversation.

“”“We need a church to be more objective and less the slave of the times.”“”

Anne, one single instance of the Catholic Church changing a teaching on a matter of Faith or Morals is all it would take to utterly disprove the religion as a whole.  I you have such an instance, it’s rather unsporting of you to leave all of us poor misguided Catholics in the dark.

“”“He has a way of being his own man in spite of pressure from others.”“”

Which is wonderful, but the charism of his office will prevent him from making the kinds of reforms you are hoping for.  He might stand up to men, (and rightly so) but contrary to your hopes, he won’t be able to stand up against the Holy Spirit and Christ who is Truth itself.

You say that the Church “”“is a slave to nostalgia.”“”  You are mistaken.  It is a slave to the unchanging objective Truth.  It is a servant of an unchanging God.  It is a constant voice for His unchanging law. 

How about some details to back up any of your accusations?  You have my attention.

“”“Apology.  I attributed the Chesterton quote to Red Beard.”“”

You never have to apologize for that, though I don’t deserve such a compliment!

Red Beard——
Regarding the evolution of Catholic doctrine over time,
I recommend first and foremost
John T. Noonan’s A Church That Can and Cannot Change.
Noonan is a Catholic and a member of the 9th Circuit Court of
Appeals in California.
In this book he writes clearly and compellingly of changes in
Church teaching on usury, slavery, and religious tolerance.
He addresses other topics as well.
I wish I had other resources at my fingertips, but alas, I do not.
I’ve been studying Church history for 12 years, and have a library
of books, but am unable to point you directly to a better book
than Noonan’s.
Another valuable bit of material.
The Limbo document issued a few years ago with the
approval of the Magisterium.
Anyone familiar with church teaching on baptism
can see how this document is changing that doctrine.
(the question of limbo is not a matter of doctrine).
Baptism is what is being done away with.

It’s my experience that Catholics seem completely
unaware of how their church has changed over time,
or of the origin of arguments in favor of recent
dogmatic decisions.

I regret that I am not a church historian and cannot be more
specific.

James Carroll and Peter Steinfels and Gary Wills have all
written persuasively and eloquently about the crises in
the present church over doctrine.

I do not agree with you that citing one change in a matter of
faith and morals would discredit the religion as a whole.
The religion as a whole is much greater than the sum of all
the fallible men who have taught matters of faith and doctrine
over the years.

No, liseux, I am not a relativist at all.
My faith in God is absolute, and it was in
the name of God that I left the Roman Catholic Church,
for absolute reasons.
You could not be more mistaken.
A well informed, well indoctrinated, practicing
Catholic can leave your church as a matter of conscience.
It happens all the time.

Anne,

“”“A well informed, well indoctrinated, practicing
Catholic can leave your church as a matter of conscience.”“”

Objectively, if the Catholic Church is true and you are well informed then your conscience is malformed if it compels you to leave.  The corollary of course is that If the Catholic Church is false, and you are well informed, and you have a well formed conscience, it will compel you to leave.  It all comes back to whether or not the Church is true and whether or not you know that fact.

Oh well, that’s an interesting little aside, I sincerely hope you are honestly following your conscience, and then I don’t have to worry quite as much about you but I’m still praying.  I take a harsh tone from time to time when I’m frustrated but I do want you to know that when I disagree with you, I’m not disregarding your value or dignity as a person. 

So, I’m not really into homework at this point in my life, but I’m totally open to arguments.

You point to 4 examples, but you don’t provide the conflicting teachings, so here goes:

Usury: I’m not sure of any official teaching of the Church at any point in history on the morality of charging interest.  I do know that the Church has consistently compelled its followers to be considerate and compassionate for the poor, and to not take undue advantage of people.  Feel free to provide links to 2 conflicting teachings on this subject and I’ll read them.

Slavery:  this term is rather ambiguous as it means different things at different times.  American slavery, for example, was far more heinous then Roman slavery, which was far more oppressive than Hebrew slavery in the Old Testament.  It is always an underprivledged position.  It has always been maintained as less than ideal, but at the same time it was never universally condemned precisely because of the ambiguity in terms.  Even Paul speaks about how unpleasant it is but he doesn’t encourage slaves to leave their masters.  In ancient times, many of the forms of slavery where far more akin to what we would call “indentured servitude.”  And the slave owners also bore a responsibility for the well being of their slaves which didn’t exist in the American form of slavery.  Feel free to provide links to 2 conflicting teachings on this subject and I’ll read them, we just need to be sure that both documents are talking about the same thing by the use of the term slavery.

Religious Tolerance:  This one is rather new to the scene as a development of principals that the Church has always professed.  There are no teachings that it contradicts.  In all times and all places the Church has maintained that Jews should be respected, though individuals have of course fallen short of that measure.  With Islam, it is more of a mixed bag as most of the history of the interaction between Christianity and Islam is Christianity fighting and loosing defensive wars.  At no point was it acceptable.  As for heretics and what to do with them, it can be argued that more has been tolerated in the past than would be today, which is what one would expect if revelation is constantly being understood to a greater and deeper level.  The Church never taught that “All heretics must be burned” contrary to many caricatures.  Anyways, feel free to provide links to 2 conflicting teachings on this subject and I’ll read them.

As to Baptism/Limbo, the document you are referring to simply reminds the faithful that Limbo is not actually a teaching of the Church though Catholics are free to believe it.  It is not a positive teaching document.  It doesn’t add anything new to any Church teaching, it merely clarifies a common misunderstanding about the status of the idea of Limbo.  It defines nothing about baptism. 

The Church has always maintained that Christ is the only way to salvation and that the only way that the Church knows to enter into Christ’s body is through Baptism, though at the same time acknowledging that Christ is not bound by the sacraments.  He will pour His grace through them, but He is free to pour out His grace outside of them.  Therefore, it is possible that people can be in a right relationship with Christ apart from the visible Church which is His visible body.  Feel free to provide links to 2 conflicting teachings on this subject and I’ll read them.

I really love to read anything that you care to link to as long as it can be consumed in a reasonable period of time (i.e. - not a book).  The conversation is starting to get interesting.

I have been reading the back and forth with interest and dismay.  I perceive errors and truths on both sides.  When I talk of Catholicism and I teach it as a very easy religion to learn but the most difficult religion in the world to practice. It is easy because we really do not have that many rules, only two.  It is hard because the two rules are the hardest to follow.  Catholicism is in the heart and soul of every person, whether they are Catholic or not.  The Pope and Catholic heirearchy are not there to rule us Catholics but to give us loving guidance on our journey to being more Christlike. Because so many around the world, not only in USA, need to be guided Rome speaks in generalities, though some see them as absolutes.  Some may say that statement does not allow me to be Catholic, that is where you are wrong.  It does not allow me to follow your catholicism but is in keeping with mine.  Do not fall into the evil trap of condemning ones way of practicing their faith.  The beauty of Catholicism is that we understand and tolerate, no accept, the ways of practicing our faith.  Too many left the faith in the 70’s because they didn’t agree with the changes, some stayed and continued practicing the way they felt confortable, but none can say they are not good Catholics because it is their personal relationship with God. I read so many of you getting bogged down inthe legalities of the issues and saying if your not with me then your not Catholic. I think that is wrong, but it is your opinion and sometimes you need that to justify your Catholicism.  Since I assume most are familiar with the US government, I liken it to our political parties.  You may disagree with those that practice their citizenship as you do, but that does not make them less a citizen.  If you don’t agree with the laws would you decide to leave? where would you go? No. you would stay and petition for the changes you would like.  Thank God our Church does not practice pluralism and bend with the winds or what is popular, rather the Church is slow to change, as I feel it right. I feel it is designed to change so slow as to allow the generation wishing for the change to pass and see if it is still felt to be correct.  Sometimes it is frustrating, but it is my love, my family, where else can I go.  I do not understand how you can give the power to anyone to take your relationship with God, the sacraments, away from you and not petition within.  Who of us would leave our family because of an argument or an embarrassing uncle? Why then leave the Church. You or I may disagree with the acts of the dear sister, but who are we to condemn or judge.  Do you think yourselves so holy as to know the will of God for all, I know I am not.  It is hard enough for me to stay in tune with the Holy Spirit in my life.  Don’t be so quick to condemn, rather be quick to seek to understand. @ Anne Rice..I do not know your history, but if you chose to leave the church please do not ask us to do the same and join your misery.  And since you chose to leave, do not them try to petition us for change.  If you seek change have the fortitude to do so from within.  And those of my brothers and sisters spewing many condemnations, do not try to drive others from our family, because they do not practice as you, let them continue their relationship as they need.  O fcourse all of you think your relationship is correct, otherwise why live it, but understand that’s YOUR relationship and you are no more a child of God than I and have no higher standing in this family than I.  I love you all and hope you enjoy the celebrations of the season. always yours in Christ..

The two commandments..You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind…..Love your neighbor as yourself.

Red Beard, I encourage you to read Noonan’s book,
A Church that Can and Cannot Change.  it is
beautifully written, impeccably researched and
will answer your questions on the matter of usury and
other Roman Catholic church teachings that have changed over the centuries.

Victor, thank you for your thoughtful post.
Regardless of my own religious choices, I remain
deeply concerned with the Roman Catholic Church
because the Church seeks to influence the entire world.
What the Church does is of concern to everyone.
You have written: “Thank God our Church does not practice pluralism and bend with the winds or what is popular, rather the Church is slow to change, as I feel it right.”
I must disagree.
I think a number of pronouncements made in the Twentieth
Century had everything to do with the winds and what is popular,
notably the decision against artificial birth control, the
firm stance against all abortion,
and the ban on women priests.
These decisions were extremely hasty,
and had everything to do with the church being much
too involved with the times, with the customs and traditions
valued by its hierarchy, and little if anything to do with
an honest seeking for truth, based on Scripture and
sound theological principles.
These were all popular with the male hierarchy and with
others who savored the Catholicism they knew from the
early part of the Twentieth Century and which they wanted
to preserve.
The current persecution of homosexuals in secular America
is “popular” with many who know nothing about gay people,
gay orientation, or the question of civil rights.
Only when the hierarchy honestly distinguishes between
custom and tradition and a true seeking for truth,based on
Scripture, will there be a return to honest theology.
The church makes hasty pronouncements all the time,
and of course in time is forced to change them.
Whether people leave this church or remain in it,
this Church has consequences for the world.
It is my experience that the liberals and progressives in the
church are making an honest effort to craft a timeless and
true theology based on the teachings of Christ.
They have been much maligned by a hierarchy entrenched in
social and political ideas that do not lead to honest theology.
I hope this will change. 
If there was ever a time when people needed a return to
true Christian ideas and principles it is now.
i realize the difficulties involved, but
the Church must, in my opinion, put aside its social and
political obsessions, its nostalgia for Western European customs
that may have nothing to do with Christ or truth,
and seek to reform its theological endeavor.
It cannot continue to see women strictly through a Western
European social
and political lense.
Lies have consequences.
Sophistry has consequences.

“”“The beauty of Catholicism is that we understand and tolerate, no accept, the ways of practicing our faith. “”“

So the only real Catholicism is cafeteria Catholicism?

Odd.  Read the CCC, it will open your eyes.  You can’t pick and choose what to believe and what to reject while at the same time receiving the Eucharist and witnessing with your body that you accept all that the Church proclaims to be true.  You are a Catholic if you are in union with the Catholic Church and believe all that she teaches.  If you are not in union, or do not believe all that she teaches, you are not.  It’s really that simple.

To paraphrase Peter Kreeft: We tolerate error out of love for the person who is in error.  We do not accept error.  We do not tolerate people.  We do not accept people.  We love them.

So we love heretics, people of other creeds, people of no creed, people who have not yet been born, and people who have already died.  We mourn their losses, we share their pains and their joys.  We will their good.

Their greatest good is Union with Christ in the next life and abundant life in this life. Therefore, we will them to be Catholic, to participate in Christ’s visible body on earth.  We will for them to have the fullness of Christ’s teachings and the assurance of the guidance of the Holy Spirit which has consistently guided our Church for 2000 years.  We desire peace and assurance for them as they trust in the Church that Christ built rather than the 30,000+ that have been built by men and are “tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming” We will for them to have the fonts of Christ’s very life that are the Sacraments.  We will for them to have All of what Christ has revealed to us; that which was written (not the shorter Bible of Protestants) and that which, as Paul said, was passed by “word of mouth.”

“”“O fcourse all of you think your relationship is correct, otherwise why live it, but understand that’s YOUR relationship and you are no more a child of God than I and have no higher standing in this family than I.”“”

You are committing the fallacy of confusing the position with the person who holds it.  One can be utterly wrong about all sorts of things but still have a deep relationship with God.  Therefore, saying that someone is wrong is not the same as saying that they have a bad relationship with God.  We can discuss, evaluate, and judge an idea without condemning the person who holds it.

anne

I feel your pain, but again I say, do not suffer me your choice.  It always seems that when someone does not agree with a change it comes too soon and hastily, but when they feel it is needed it is never quick enough.  Do not try to pull me into your self-imposed separation from my Church and please do not try to take mt brothers and sisters with you.  You are always entitled to your opinions within or without the Church, but you forfeited your influence within when you left.  Be happy in your choice and follow Christ as you will, but it seems like you are acting as a spiteful child who didn’t get their way.  As a family we await your return with open arms, as we do our other brothers and sisters.  But since your way seems to be away from us, leave us in peace to follow ours and allow us our internal disagreements.

“”“notably the decision against artificial birth control, the
firm stance against all abortion,
and the ban on women priests.
These decisions were extremely hasty”“”

Really Anne?  NOT changing your mind on a position that you have held for 2000 years is “extremely hasty”?  NOT changing your position when the world and the times want you to has “everything to do with the church being much too involved with the times”?

You use words in ways that no one else in the world uses those words.  You are angry that the Church is constant like the God that it speaks represents.  But you are saying that the very constancy and unchanging nature of the Catholic Church’s teaching is proof of it being a product of times.  Can’t you see the logical contradiction behind such a claim? 

If you where accusing the Church of being a stick in the mud, at least that would be intelligible!

Victor, I appreciate your comments, but my concerns
here are strictly with the issues.
I have no thoughts one way or another on anyone’s personal
choice to leave any church or remain in any church.
I remain concerned with the influence of the Roman Catholic
Church in the world.
That is why I am concerned with Bishop Olmsted’s condemnation of
Sr. Margaret McBride.
Thanks again for your sincere comments.

Red Beard, I certainly understand your disinclination to
read an entire book on a subject, simply to further the discussion
here.  Alas, I am not John T. Noonan and cannot immediately post
for you references to when and where usury was condemned and
when and where the teaching was changed.

I realize the difficulties involved. A teaching on faith and morals is a specific
thing.

I will say this. In my time on this earth I’ve seen the church move towards dramatic
changes on crucial teaching.
Case in point.  In my Catholic childhood in the 40’s and 50’s, annulments were
virtually unheard of for rank and file Catholics.  We knew what an annulment
was, that it pertained to an impediment to the marriage, etc.  But no one, and I
mean no one was getting annulments.
By the time I returned to Catholicism in 1997, annulments were rampant.
As I understand it just about anyone in America can obtain an annulment
if the documents are done right and the money is paid.
This does not mean that the church has made an official declaration
changing its teaching on divorce and remarriage (and its reading of Matthew)
but it does reflect a huge shift, and I suspect that, in spite of the condemnation of
Pope John Paul Ii, American annulments will increase in number and the process
will become easier and easier and cheaper and cheaper.
When doctrinal declarations will finally come, I don’t know.
But this is an enormous shift.
When I was a kid, priests thundered from the pulpit against divorce.
Now Cardinals are saying that divorced and remarried couples should be
allowed to receive the Sacraments.
So that is one example of change which I can give you, though the issue is
not resolved.
Another issue is papal infallibility.
When I was growing up in school, this doctrine was very narrowly defined.
It was drummed into us that only when the pope spoke ex cathedra on
matters of faith and morals was he infallible, and we were taught that
he had only done this two times: regarding the Assumption of Mary and
regarding the Immaculate Conception. 
I mean this was drummed into us.
Today Catholics writing in blogs and writing to me in emails
have indicated a totally different belief in infallibility,
a definition significantly broadened apparently by Ratzinger,
and they hold all kinds of teachings from the magisterium to be
irreformable and infallible.
They regard papal encyclicals to be infallible.
I have been told this over and over again.
I can only see this as a disastrous shift in doctrinal teaching.
There is considerable evidence that major theologians, and bishops
are deeply concerned with this change in teaching regarding infallibility and
they don’t hold to it.  They are criticizing the magisterium on it, and
the pope.  What the outcome will be on this, I do not know.
These are the only two examples I have seen and can offer,
and again, neither situation is fully resolved.
Does the church change?
Indeed it does quite dramatically on many issues, over time.

Let me add one more observation.
I grew up Catholic in a Catholic city, and
in a devout family.  There was a discernible
personality to the church of my time, a discernible spirit.
My view was not all inclusive. I can only speak of the church
I knew socially and intellectually,
but,
the Catholicism of this time is markedly different.
Markedly.
I would say it is NOT the Catholicism I knew as a child
growing up.  It is something else.
And that “something else” seems intimately wedded to social
and political concerns, to social and political and cultural fears.
This doesn’t prove much of anything one way or the other,
except that in my mind one must regard statements about
the church and what it is and what it can or cannot change
with some degree of reserve.

@Anne,

  Your examples mostly come up to the idea that some members of the Church are corrupt or sinful.  To that statement, I will wholeheartedly agree.  Your annulment example fits into this category.  The teaching hasn’t changed, though there is an argument that can be made that some are currently abusing the process.  I don’t believe it’s as bad as you paint it, but I do think it’s bad.

“”“When doctrinal declarations will finally come, I don’t know.
But this is an enormous shift.”“”

If the declaration would ever come, it would disprove the entire Catholic Faith and I would join you in condemning the Church.  It hasn’t come yet so I’m not planning on condemning it yet.

“”“They regard papal encyclicals to be infallible.”“”

They are wrong. There might be infallible info in an encyclical, but just being in an encyclical is not enough to prove that something is infallible.  I think you have debated with overly-zealous people who overstated the Church’s position on infallibility.  I believe the most confusion comes from the ordinary infallibility of the Church, which is a teaching that the Church has always maintained.  (The college of bishops in union with each other and in union with the pope and in union with the historical positions of the Catholic Church taught on matters of Faith and Morals is true.)  It hasn’t really changed. 

“”“the Catholicism of this time is markedly different. “”“

I think that you know different Catholics today than then.  The “culture” of any given parish may change drastically.  The truth that the Church teaches does not.  The faith itself is the same. 

You cannot find an instance of a case of faith and morals where the Church has reversed an officially taught position because such a reversal has never occurred.

Red Beard, it has occurred with usury. I simply don’t have
the file on it.  I don’t have the record. It has happened
with other teachings as well.
it has happened on slavery as well, in so far
as Pope John Paul II declared that slavery was
intrinsically evil and that this is what the church has always taught.
He was wrong.  It has not always taught this.
It has happened with religious tolerance.
And there will continue to be changes.
There have to be.
I am sorry I cannot debate this in detail with you.
I don’t have access to the documents in question.
But the information is there for any researcher to discover.
Unfortunately, I am not equipped to write a theological
history of the church on these matters. 
I urge you, if you are sincerely interested, to check the record.
I don’t believe the church will fall apart if there has been a change
in teachings on faith or morals.
The church is bigger than all that.
God is bigger than all that.
I think God put us in history for reasons.

“”“Unfortunately, I am not equipped to write a theological
history of the church on these matters.”“”

If you are not equipped to support your accusations, then I suggest that you refrain from making them.

If anyone was wondering, here is Noonan, the source that Anne appeals to, stating that the Church’s official teaching on usury has NOT changed:

“”“As far as dogma in the technical Catholic sense is concerned, there is only one dogma at stake. Dogma is not to be loosely used as synonymous with every papal rule or theological verdict. Dogma is a defined, revealed doctrine taught by the Church at all times and places. Nothing here meets the test of dogma except this assertion: that usury, the act of taking profit on a loan without a just title, is sinful. . . . This dogmatic teaching remains unchanged. What is a just title, what is technically to be treated as a loan, are matters of debate, positive law, and changing evolution. The development of these points is great. But the pure and narrow dogma is the same today as in 1200. (Noonan, 399–400)”“”

Red Beard, my extensive research has led me to my conclusions.
I feel I can speak as an informed person about this,
but I cannot write a book on it.
I cannot necessarily prove to you, point by point,
that I am right, because I am not an historian and
do not have the primary sources at my fingertips.
But I will not withdraw my remarks.
It is also my contention that the Second World War
might not have happened had it not been for Adolp Hitler,
but I don’t have historical materials here to cite in regard to
that matter either. Or cannot write a book on it.
Let me suggest that a responsible investigation on your part of
your church should not rise or fall on my abilities to write a
theological treatise on church history for you.
There are better sources of information on all this than me.
My conclusions and observations are based on my research.
You will have to do yours.
My primary interest here is the matter of Bishop Olmsted
and Sr. Margaret McBride.
I’ve enjoyed this digression and I’ve done my best here.
Time I think to return to the subject at hand.
Let me state one more time for the record.
Your church has changed many times in matters of faith
and morals over the centuries, and
there is ample research to support this.

Isn’t Noonan making a distinction between dogma
and matters of faith and morals?
Again, you would do well to read the book itself
at length. I think you’ll find much food for thought.
Again, I am here to talk about Bishop Olmsted
and Sr. Margaret McBride.
Your relationship with your church
is really not my concern.
Yes, your church changes in its teachings over time,
and always has.

“”“Isn’t Noonan making a distinction between dogma
and matters of faith and morals?”“”

No.  According to Noonan’s definition: “Dogma is a defined, revealed doctrine taught by the Church at all times and places.”  The only topics upon which the Church claim’s authority to make such a doctrine or dogma is matters of faith and morals.  All dogmas and doctrines are in matters of faith and morals.

“”“Yes, your church changes in its teachings over time,
and always has. “”“

Noonan, your primary source apparently disagrees.

Red Beard.
Very well. I will reread the book.
Thank you for your opinion.

When I stated: “Noonan, your primary source apparently disagrees.”

I should have stated “Noonan, your primary source apparently disagrees in the case of usury.”

Sorry for overstating.

I believe that Mr. Olmsted is doing his flock a great disservice by legislating it’s morality and mortality. I don’t believe that Mr. Olmsted has had any professional medical training, therefore, probably would be better served not pushing arcane and unyielding religeous doctrine. I am sure that statistics would show that medicine; not faith, saves lives in most cases. You can not always get by on one alone. The hospital in question would be much better off dissolving this relationship just to save lives.

@David,

You are coming at this from an irrational basis.  This is a Catholic Bishop standing up for Catholic teachings at a Catholic Hospital.  As such, the Catholic part of the conversation is rather important.

“”“I believe that Mr. Olmsted is doing his flock a great disservice by legislating it’s morality and mortality.”“”

Not legislating, more of an executive branch.  He is enforcing the teachings of the Church as a whole.  I give you points for the silly “morality and mortality” bit.  Cute.  It’s patently absurd to be upset that the Church authority has something to say about morality though.

“”“I don’t believe that Mr. Olmsted has had any professional medical training, therefore, probably would be better served not pushing arcane and unyielding religeous doctrine.”“”

Again, this is absurd.  He is making a moral statement in relation to an already decided moral question.  His training has nothing to do with it.  He’s not making the rules, he is just enforcing them.  The rules themselves are in relation to ethics, not medicine directly.  It doesn’t take a doctorate to understand the Catholic Church’s position on this matter: “Don’t murder babies even if you really really want to.”

“”“I am sure that statistics would show that medicine; not faith, saves lives in most cases.”“”

In medical cases, I’m sure that’s true.  It has nothing to do with the conversation though.  If you have a soul, then it is far more important than your life.  The Catholic Church is concerned with the whole person.

“”“The hospital in question would be much better off dissolving this relationship just to save lives.”“” 

This is a valid conclusion given a consequentialist mindset.  If you think it is better to actively murder a child to save another than to watch two people die, then at least you are consistent. You aren’t adding anything new though.  None of the consequentialists on these threads have even tried to address the horrors that follow from consistent application of that particular morally bankrupt philosophy.  (gunman example, life boat example, rapee example, etc.) It takes a lot of intestinal fortitude to actually publicly stand up condoning the kind of evil in these examples that consequentalism would naturally embrace.  It’s much nicer to ignore them and make an emotional appeal on this particular case.

As for me, I’ll just stop with the Church’s simple and contant position “Don’t murder innocent people, even if you really really want to.”

There’s nothing morally bankrupt about what Sr. Margaret McBride did.
She saved a life.
She is a Catholic nun. The Sisters of Mercy are Catholic nuns.
They did what they believed was morally right in this case,
as Catholics.
The bishop is one voice in opposition to theirs.
Many Catholics believe he is wrong.
We do not know that he is right.
We do not know that they are wrong.
We do know that the hospital supports life and that they
saved the only life they could save in this situation.
Forcing a woman to die because her unborn child cannot
be saved with her is not morally right.
It is treating the ensouled woman as though she is strictly a means to
an end.
The Church must come to terms with the fact that women
are ensouled people.  Christ died for women as surely as he
died for men.
It is not anyone’s moral prerogative to stand over a dying
mother in an emergency room and tell her she cannot live
because her child cannot live.
Searching for the timeless truth of Jesus Christ is a life long spiritual
process. 
The Sisters of Mercy and Sr. Margaret McBride are speaking up for
the truth here, and they are speaking truth to power.
They should be commended.
The dying mother in the Phoenix hospital was not an abstraction.
She is not something that can be reduced to abstract theological
arguments. Or charged emotional rhetoric about “never doing evil to do good.”
Repeat: she has a soul. She has a value in the eyes of God.
She is a person.  Her life has value.
To treat her as though she were nothing but an incubator for
her baby is morally wrong.
To stand up and condone a bishop who would have
condemned this young mother to death takes more than intestinal
fortitude.  It takes a warped sense of values in which women are
denigrated and abused and held in contempt.
Emotional appeals such as “we can never do evil” don’t wash
when you are actively advocating evil by lamenting the fact that the
woman was “allowed” to live.
Sr. Margaret McBride refused to murder this young mother. She refused to do evil.
She restored this young mother to her husband and
her four children, and to life itself.
She should be commended.

If Catholic hospitals do not stand up to Bishop Olmsted,
if they do not stand up for the value of the life of every
human being in their care, if they will not value the lives of
women who face reproductive medical crises, then
they should get out of the hospital business.
It is not the prerogative of a church to subordinate the
lives of human beings to abstract theological principles.
This isn’t about abortion. It has never been about abortion.
It’s about the value of the lives of women.
If the church cannot provide medical care to women
as well as men and babies, then it has no business running
hospitals.
Catholics are not free to kill women simply because they
think women matter less than men and babies.
No one in our society has that luxury.
Remember: this case is not about a choice between a mother
and a child.
Both were dying.  Only one could be saved, and that was the mother.
There is something horrifying about the Catholics here who are
so displeased that this young mother is alive today.
And please don’t tell me that you aren’t.
You most certainly are.
You’re deeply concerned that she wasn’t forced to die
for your beliefs.
At this point, I don’t know what to make of your barbaric
beliefs, except this: you are losing this battle.
If this bishop does succeed in forcing this hospital
to its knees, America will not stand for it.
There will be investigations and this kind of
health care will go down.
And that is as it should be.
Perhaps this crisis is for the good.
We do not know how many women have been
abandoned to die in so called Catholic hospitals.
Maybe we are about to find out.
And that is a good thing for all of us.

“”“There’s nothing morally bankrupt about what Sr. Margaret McBride did.
She saved a life. “”“

What she did was murder a child.  This time, that act of murdering a child had the foreseen side effect of saving the mother’s life.  Let’s try to be precise.

I never said that she or her sisters where morally bankrupt.  I said that the philosophy that says you can do evil to attain good is morally bankrupt.

“”“The Church must come to terms with the fact that women
are ensouled people.”“”

This is rather obnoxious at this point.  If it makes you feel any better, the Church would be opposed to murdering a baby to save a man’s life too.  I don’t know why you have this particular axe to grind but it has no bearing in this case.

If anyone cares to know what the Church thinks about woman, this should be an enlightening read:

“APOSTOLIC LETTER
MULIERIS DIGNITATEM
OF THE SUPREME PONTIFF
JOHN PAUL II
ON THE
DIGNITY AND VOCATION
OF WOMEN
ON THE OCCASION
OF THE MARIAN YEAR”

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_15081988_mulieris-dignitatem_en.html

Also please note that the Church has always maintained that the most perfect human being who is not divine is Mary, who is a woman last I checked.

“”“if they will not value the lives of
women who face reproductive medical crises, then
they should get out of the hospital business. “”“

<sarcasm>If you are not willing to murder an innocent in an attempt to save another, then how dare you call yourself a doctor!  Everyone knows that murdering people is part of the medical profession!</sarcasm>

Does anyone remember the good old days where Doctors actually swore to firstly, “Do no harm”?  I miss that.

“”“Catholics are not free to kill women simply because they
think women matter less than men and babies”“”

This is downright stupid.  I’ve tried to be patient, but this is just an abuse of the English language.

The act of “murdering a child in the womb” is an act of killing.  The act of “not murdering a child in the womb” is not an act of killing even if the end result is the death of the child and the mother.

In the former case, one decides to play God and chooses to actively kill an innocent human being.  He chooses to do something that God has called “evil” and yet this man takes it upon himself to call it “good.”  Hmm.. sounds a lot like the temptation at Eden to me…

In the later case, one recognizes that God is in charge and he is not.  Therefore, man cannot overthrow God’s sovereignty by choosing to do an evil act even for a good end.

Choosing to abstain from committing an evil is not the same as murdering the mother and if you had a shred of honesty in you you’d be able to at least recognize that distinction even if you disagreed with the Church’s position.

You aren’t disagreeing with the Church’s position, you are misrepresenting and slandering the position, and it’s getting tiresome.

My biggest problem with Anne’s whole theory is that she is maintaining that “The act of not murdering an innocent is an act of murdering an innocent.” (the Church’s position)  And that “The act of murdering and innocent [baby] is not an act of murdering and innocent [baby]” (the position Sr. McBride has repented of)

The absurdity of the statements, the way it twists the truth upon itself to a complete contradiction of reality is so infuriating.  She is maintaining that “Not A” eguals “A.”  It is reason itself that she is attacking as she is violating it’s most fundamental principal: the law of non-contradiction.

You don’t need to know medicine, theology, or anything else to see this kind of a flaw.  All you need to do is to be able to think.  “A” is not the same thing as “Not A.”

Red Beard, you are just plain wrong.
Your theology is sinister and ugly.
You come from a church that does not hold
men to the standards you are applying to this
mother of four.
Catholic soldiers join the volunteer armed services
in this country and fight in foreign wars in which
women, children and pregnant women are killed all
the time in the name of doing evil to do good, in defense of
their country.  No one, but no one holds these men
accountable for these things under canon law.
But you want to apply your special version of canon
law to a dying mother of four in a hospital emergency room.
You want her to sacrifice her life and die with her unborn child
because that child cannot be saved.  That is appalling.
Has anybody in your church suggested revoking the canonization of
Thomas More because he burned heretics alive?
If that isn’t a case of doing evil “in the name of good,” what is,
may I ask? Yet the man’s a saint in spite of having done that,
yet a woman in a Catholic hospital in Phoenix is supposed to die
with her unborn baby, like a sacrificial beast, because the child cannot be saved.
And you talk to me about “murder?”

You’ve proved nothing to me here except that you are
as merciless as you are dishonest and frankly I find it exhausting.
.

Sr. McBride didn’t murder a child. She terminated a pregnancy that
was killing a woman, a pregnancy that would have killed mother and child
had it continued.  She chose to save the life she could save.
And many Catholics agree with her decision and with its outcome.

The rank hypocrisy of the Roman Catholic Church on this is a public scandal.

I hope you lose this battle, you and your bishop.
I hope for the sake of everyone that you lose it.
And I pray that people like you never have the power of life and death
over others. 
I urge all people of faith to stand up to you and your bishop.
Stand up for human life.
Stand up for truth.

Frankly, I think people in this country have had a bellyful
of you and Catholics like you.  They’re sick of your sophistry
and your dishonesty, of your warped values and your unique
culture of death.
I know I’ve had my bellyful of it.
But I will not be silent as long as you seek to impose your
sinister morality on others.

Pardon me for bringing up a total irrelevance in this maze of canon law.

If I’m not mistaken, this mother already had four children in addition to the fetus aborted. Exactly what kind of Christly compassion is represented in these canon laws mandating that five children should be left motherless so that one of these siblings, still a fetus, could (potentially) survive, probably with the help of enormous medical heroics exhausting the finances and energy of a widowed man already overwhelmed by his fathering responsibilities?

And if I’m not mistaken, the people determining these canon laws were MEN - *unmarried* men, by another fiat of the Church, who could by law have no idea whatsoever of the work and energy involved in the care of even one child, let alone five.

Could someone look past the legalisms, semantics and logic-chopping to the simple compassionate real-life practicalities involved in this situation - which, I believe, would be the course chosen by the person this Church purports to presence in the world?

Semantics. Doesn’t change the fact that an organization excommunicated a person for doing a legal, moral and ethical act. It is not simple he that is evil, but the entire Catholic Church (remember the kid diddlin’?)

As if many of you haven’t realized it Anne is using her bully pulpit to attack Christians and especially the Roman Catholic Church.  One can go to her fan page and see her recruiting her “fans” to post here.

Her hatred of the church us evident in her rant above,  simply put she is moral relativist and is very angry at the Church because they won’t embrace *her* twisted view of morality.

Excellent post, practicalwoman;
We’re told Our Lord Jesus Christ was born
amongst us as a helpless babe, same as any
human being, and that he walked this earth for
perhaps thirty-three years, dying as we die,
and then rising from the dead. We are also
taught that he returned to heaven with his
human body, bearing the marks of his five wounds.
According to our beliefs he is in heaven now, part of
the Triune God, with his human body and his human DNA.
Did he come to this earth to found a church of theologians and
canon lawyers?—of isolated and privileged individuals who
would built abstraction upon abstraction, and sophistry upon sophistry?
Did he die more for men than for women?
Highly doubtful, to say the least.
To seek for the timeless truths of Jesus Christ is a life long task to
which every believer, on some level, is committed.
And where in the Gospels can one find anything to support even
remotely the idea that a mother should die like a sacrificial animal
with an unborn child who cannot be saved?
You see here on this blog the dark side of Catholicism.
There has always been a war within the church, between the dark side and the light side,
and there will never be a complete victory of one over the other.
Let us pray that Bishop Olmsted and his like will be overruled and defeated in all
this,
that Sr.McBride and the Sisters of Mercy will be upheld.
This will be a victory for all who value human life, not
merely abstract notions of canon law or theology.

Grace56,
I will always stand up publicly against the evils of
the Roman Catholic Church.
The Church seeks to influence people everywhere.
It deserves to be taken seriously,
and when it preaches or recommends rank immorality
or evil,
people should stand up to it.
People should speak out.
I will always speak out, to the best of my ability,
against the evils done by this church. 
You are absolutely right that it is a matter of passionate concern
to me, and I commend the people on my Facebook page for taking
an interest in this, as well they should.
Any woman in America might find herself, in the midst of
a reproductive crisis, at the mercy of a Catholic hospital.
She has a right to sound medical practice, to be treated as a full
human being in that hospital.
This bishop would have it otherwise.
Well,  here I stand, against him.

Picture a family this Christmas. Mother, father, four kids. Imagine now, that the mother is gone. Murdered. Home intruder, drunk driver? No. But the not so newly equatable ‘Catholic law’ and in this case its perpetrator (the good Sheriff) Bishop Olmstead.
How many of you are willing, no matter the situation, to have this man trailing his robes down the hospital corridor and walk into your ER room and have the doctors so diligently working to save your imperiled life and have him tell them no? Is that okay with you? That your life would be fodder to having this man prove his authority spouting doctrine irrelevant to morality and Hippocratic oath?
Recently on tv news, I witnessed a woman, who had escaped a life-threatening situation re-enter that situation only to strike at an individual threatening the lives of her co-workers with her purse in an attempt to knock the weapon from his hands. In my mind this is Sr. Margaret McBride, heroically risking herself to knock this doctrine from Olmstead’s corrupt hands. This is the self-same bravery, to act on the behalf of another human being. This is what doctrine should be.
If surely two lives are lost and there is a way to save one, you do it. In a car wreck, you use the jaws of life to free whom you can. Would we listen to a man,  no matter whom he is, walk up and say let the whole car burn? Give up your efforts? No.
One should be able to enter a hospital without having to stop at the doors and read a list of curable offenses. We have insurance companies for that and the comparable aspects to religion right there should be red flag enough.
Olmstead is a bickering, whining mad man. The sooner the hospital is free of his labels, the better. Haven’t we simply as a species, had quite enough?

grace56,
I feel I am absolutely right in posting links to this
blog and another on my Facebook page.
People need to see what Catholics have posted here.
They need to know the kinds of things Catholic Americans
are saying——about life and death, about the rights of women.
It is chilling to read much of what is posted on this blog.
But people should know.
They should be concerned.
If you object to this blog and the ugliness here being exposed,
I must ask why.  Do you want to hide the things that have been said here?
Are you ashamed of them?

Read your history folks.  The Church has survived 2000 years because of treachery, greed, power mongering, intrique, and other nefarious activities too numberous to mention.    It has little to do with what Christ taught.  And as it moves further towards fundamentalism, it becomes more and more unChrist like.  The history of the Church is not one unbroken line of truth and divine inspiration.  The rules of the Church, what it considers worthy of excommunication, is just an example of how far the Church has strayed from the original Christian followers. 

So lets get back to the life and teachings of Christ, of which we can’t know exactly what they were,  since all reports were written by quite different people with different agendas.  But we can get the general gist - love, compassion, and hatred of hypocrasy.

Georgie, thank you for your post here.
What Catholic hospitals do matters to all Americans.
All Americans have a right to be concerned when
a bishop condemns a hospital for saving the life of a
dying mother as was done in this situation.
Catholics need exposure to other points of view.
They need to be reminded that certain things they
teach strike others as profoundly immoral.
They are free to believe what they wish and
to worship as they wish.
But they cannot impose their beliefs on others
who don’t share them.
This bishop in seeking to interfere with the
care of women in hospitals is doing exactly that.

Anne has a hatred and a vendetta against the Catholic Church. (understatement)

Her house was once clean, but now it is seven times as dirty as she leaves anew to join the forces of darkness.

Red_beard’s “theology” is not sinister and ugly, Anne. He is light countering the darkness.

You are indeed fighting for the Culture of Death.

That child could have lived. No “dying” woman is in need of an abortion.

Dying women need oxygen, blood, iv’s, and care. She’s dying- let’s give her an abortion…...! 

This was a pre-emptive abortion designed to take out the baby and not give her or him a chance.

We have a mother of four living children and a dead baby. 

And this you champion….. how sad.

liseux, if you believe that the hospital has lied about
this case, and that the bishop has not told you or the
public the “whole truth” about this case, you should
take this up with the bishop.
You apparently feel a strong compulsion to “rewrite”
the facts of this case.
Is that because the case as we know it makes you
profoundly uncomfortable?
Why not contact the Sisters of Mercy for more information?
Why not contact the hospital?
If you go to the hospital website, you will find out how to contact them.
Your personal opinions that you’ve been lied to are
irrelevant here.
I will continue to discuss the case as we know it.

Because Anne hates the church so vehemently she is more than willing to accept part of the truth as the whole truth

Not all the facts of the case have not been public and since anyone who is a medical professional knows that women with this condition do in fact carry fetus until they are viable.

Anne in her hated of the church ignores that fact and twists and retells of the story making it sound like the mother’s death was imminent.

Anne DESPARTLY needs out prayers as she is doing the devils work for him.  She champions a lifestyle of death and immorality.

Actually, Anne, I’m taking it up with you.

We don’t know that the woman would die.

We do know that the baby would die if dismembered.

@Grace56

I am reading this with interest but do not wish to be drawn into the argument.

I purely wish to point out that Anne posted this blog on her fanpage as a poster on a different discussion was refusing to believe who she was and refused to interact intelligently with any of her comments unless he had ‘proof’ of her identity.  I hope this clarifies the situation

Considering the HIPAA Privacy Rules there is no way we *can* know the details of the case. 

Anne wants to believe the worst. I see absolutly noting suggesting that the mother was on her death bed

I should have spoken up earlier, as I believed it was Anne Rice. When she was still in the Catholic Church, she graciously answered an e-mail I sent to her and was very kind.

The hospital in its public statements indicated that the patient was in imminent danger of death.  That fact that the patient was in imminent of danger of death was also published in the AZ Republic newspaper—the largest paper in AZ.
e
Because the patient was in imminent anger of death, St. Joseph’s was prohibited by federal law from transferring her to another, non-Catholic hospital.

There is absolutely no evidence that the hospital has ever lied about its action in this matter.

Not all the evidence has been disclosed, Lisa.

If she is in imminent danger of death, do you think an abortion would help her out?

I’d just like to point out that when I complain about getting emotional responses rather than a rational defense of her position, I get 12 new people posting incredibly ugly emotional responses without a single rational argument in the bunch.  Hey, if you can’t beat them, shout them down and drown them out in the din.  Anne, you sure showed me.

@Grace56 & @liseux, thanks for adequately answering everyone here.  You guys are great! 

When push comes to shove, it doesn’t take a genius or a cannon lawyer to know that you shouldn’t murder an innocent person even if you really really want to.

“”“Sr. McBride didn’t murder a child. She terminated a pregnancy”“”

Once again, beautiful (or incredibly clear yet hideously ugly?) proof that @Anne is cut off from reality.  A small child was either eaten away chemicals, cut into tiny pieces, or ripped into tiny pieces depending on the technique of abortion used.  In the universe I live in, taking an innocent human being and doing any of those three things to them for the express purpose of ending their life is pretty safely “murder.”

Once again, I’d like to call upon all who follow Christ, heck, how about all who believe that there is any kind of a moral law, to stand up for the truth that: “You can not murder an innocent human being even if you really really want to.”

Right her death was so imminent that St Joseph’s had time to consult with the patient, her family, her physicians, and in consultation with the Ethics Committee.

Do you have any clue how much time a Ethics Committee to deliberate?

@Liseux

“”“If she is in imminent danger of death, do you think an abortion would help her out? “”“

I don’t think I’d even go there as it might cloud the real issue.  It doesn’t matter how serious or how imminent the danger might have been.  Medically, you are most likely correct and in all likely hood it didn’t save her life, but even if there is absolute certainty that both will die if she doesn’t murder her child, and that the mother will live if she murders her child, that still does not give one the right to murder an innocent human being.  It might make you want to more, but again: “You can not murder an innocent human being even if you really really want to.”

I can’t remember if it was Plato or Aristotle (Don’t you hate it when you confuse your greeks?) who used reason alone to come up with this idea: “It is better to suffer evil than to commit it.” 

That’s all we’re talking about.  Don’t do evil things.  Period.  Full Stop.  Do not pass GO.  Do not collect $200. ;o)

“Sr. McBride didn’t murder a child. She terminated a pregnancy”
Anne is simply an apologist for Moloch!

This afternoon, I interviewed a devout Catholic mother
about this.
She has many children, now grown, and numerous grandchildren.
I asked her what she might have done,  if
she had been presented with this problem,
either in her first pregnancy or a later pregnancy
(after she had children.)
Her answer was clear. She would ask that her life be saved.
I found wisdom in her answer.
This is one little story.
But to me it was instructive and illuminating.

Thanks for the wisdom, Red_beard.  I get it.

God bless.

Good point about how much time it takes to meet with the ethics committee.

Red Beard, you seem to fail to realize the
very essence of the issue here.
There was no way to avoid death here.
There was no clear away to avoid what you are calling evil.
It was an imperfect situation,
it was in fact a human situation,
and the hospital has reminded us explicitly
that they face situations regarding life and death every day.

Try telling a dying woman that because you cannot do “evil,”
you cannot save her life by providing her with a life saving abortion.
Try telling that to her husband.
To her other children.
Try telling that to God.

Do you think they will agree with you or admire you for this position?

I would say your position is evil.
It is evil because you have not put human life first and foremost.
You have shown yourself willing to let another human being die,
when you could save that woman.

I trust that Sr. McBride and the people of St. Joseph’s are far too
wise and dedicated to ever do that kind of “evil.”
They will go on privileging life and saving life where they can save it.

These comments about the ethics committee are irresponsible.
You don’t know how long it takes ethics committees to determine
anything in a hospital emergency.
They clearly made their decision,
and you’re trying to re-write the story.
You’re not fooling anyone here with all this.
You’re uncomfortable with the story as we have it.
And your remarks are irrelevant.

Anne repeats herself ad nauseum arrogantly assuming that she is in possession *all* the facts.

There is simply NO evidence that this woman’s life was in imminent danger of death.

If there was time to consult the ethics committee then she was *not* in imminent danger of death. Ethics committee are notoriously known for being time consuming.

It is my hunch that this was all about money.  The abortion was cheaper and/or it is all the insurance would pay for.

I suspect hospital is trying to justify the “bottom line”  and Catholic haters like Anne Rice is more than willing to do the heavy lifting in a smear campaign.

Unlike almost who has commented, I worked with the Sister - an hour a week, for four years. I am not sure I have ever known a more compassionate human being. In fact, if all Catholics used her as a role model the religion would be far better off than it is now.

The author here has managed to reduce things to a Boolean Algebra series of equations. If #1 then #2, if A then B. Except this has nothing to do with numbers, not letters.

As I understand things, the hospital, (and the Sister, were faced with two choices - allow two people to die, or just one. How does opting for the former equate to any type of “right to life” code of ethics.

The fact is that it doesn’t, and that the code is a myth, perpetuated by hypocrites. About two million Africans could have had “life” if the Church had shipped condoms, instead of platitudes, to that continent. And another two million children, who have died before their first birthday, due to starvation, would not have been born, only to died horrible deaths, if the Church had sent condoms, instead of lectures.

The Vatican has untold wealth while there are Cathlics who live on the street. The Church believes in pomp and circumstance while their priests molest children and the Bishop (and Mr. Akin) suggest that two deaths were better than one. If one has to be without sin to throw the first stone the Church would be banned from the quarry.

If the Sr is anything like you Philip I’m not surprised she chose the murder of an unborn baby.

I wish to officially excommunicate myself from such an archaic social construct as the Catholic Church - Anybody who buys into their supposed rules coming from God are ignorant postulating fools - They are self serving personages making their wealth from the fear they promote to the masses in order to fleece them of their tithe - They keep selling the camel through the keyhole and most Catholics keep buying the Brooklyn Bridge - It is time for humanity to mature and put childish beliefs such as church dogma to rest once and for all. Anne you waste your time and talents bantering with insufferable fools who are interested only in their personal aggrandizement - The hypocritical officials starting with their leader the Pope will never see the light of truth even if it smacked them directly in the face - Even if the burning bush came and spoke to them personally they would deny the truth it portended - Again please excommunicate me from the church - I’ll deal with God on a one to one basis personally - I have a few bones to pick with him anyway -

Oh, Anne, anything that you cannot counter, you have called, “ridiculous,” “nonsense,” “idiocy,” “sinister” and now irresponsible.

I’ve posted with you for so long on here, I can recognize when someone has countered you and you can’t answer. You label them; thus, the labels with Red_beard, Diane, and now Grace56.

Keep going Grace, you got her goat.  She doesn’t deal in facts, just emotions.

What an erudite response from Grace56. And what superb logic. Let the child die and let the mother die and then say you were following God’s will.

If the procedure had not been performed both mother and child would have been dead, possibly within hours. Instead, the mother is alive today. And Grace believes that the former option was preferable? Is it any wonder that people are leaving the Church, in droves?

The only thing that the white smoke, coming from the chimney, represents is the type of wood that was used.

WWJD? Probably tell the Bishop to find another line of work since he believes that two deaths are better than one.

Grace56, your “hunches” are an insult to
the bishop, to the sister, to the mother of the
four children, and to the people who are sincerely
posting on this blog. 
Let me suggest that your “hunches” have no place here.

liseux, this is not a school yard debate.
I don’t post here to humiliate anyone
and frankly try to resist responding to people
who see all this as some sort of cheap verbal
game. 
Unless you offer something substantive, I won’t be responding to
you again.
Ask a little of yourself. Sister McBride deserves more, and
so does the Bishop, not to mention the mother.

This whole story is devoid of facts.  That is the problem. To be frank I would like to see the mother’s chart not official “statements” 

Unlike Anne Rice who apparently knows*everything* about this case, I’m just a lowly nurse who has worked in hospitals and actually know how administrators try justify themselves after the fact.

Anne and her evil Christian haters on see thing one way, their way.

Anne, you smear the Church, her teachings, and faithful Catholics and then say you’re not here to humiliate anyone?

That’s ironic.

liseux, why are you on this blog?
What do you seek to accomplish?
You know that I do not “smear” the church.
I am here to discuss the issues.
I express strong and deeply held beliefs.
And I react with predictable concern to posts which
I think are characterized by bad arguments, fallacious arguments,
or sophistry.  I express my opinions on these things.
That isn’t smearing the church. That is taking the church quite seriously,
as a matter of fact, and believing that its methods, its teachings, and
its positions are worth serious discussion.
Again, I ask you to make substantive posts here.

I think people need to step back and not use this forum to bash Anne Rice. She is a compassionate, open human being who cares about people, young and old.
I am also Catholic, and as a mother, I need to be there for my children as much as I can.
How could this mother be there for hers if she was allowed to die, and then have the baby die inside her anyway?
Medicine and religious teachings should not be one unless the mother requests it as such.

“”“What an erudite response from Grace56. And what superb logic. Let the child die and let the mother die and then say you were following God’s will.”“”

Listen, the anger in this thread is probably tied to the repetition.  Some believe the Consequentialist idea that the ends justify the means.  That is, whatever you do is a good thing if the end results balance more towards the good.  The problem is that this philosophy can lead to a justification of literally any action.  For instance, if an islamic terrorist planted a bomb, I could rape and murder his wife in front of him as long as it lead to the discovery of the bomb and saved more than the one life I took.  Obviously, this is an odious example that illustrates the folly of this non-Christian position.

Christianity is incompatible with consequentiallism.  It has always proposed that some things are evil and can never be done under any circumstances.  Rape is a fine example, murdering an innocent is another.  It is understandable that one might really really want to commit an evil act for a good end.  It is understandable that people will make the wrong choice from time to time. 

That doesn’t even make them bad people, though in this case they are objectively murderers (one who intentionally takes an innocent human life meets the qualifications for that term).  For all I know, Sr. might be the nicest murderer out there. It’s conceivable that she’s even a better Christian (all told) than I am.  There is even more hope for this as she has apparently been reconciled with the Church and that implys her sins (which we cannot judge the culpability of) have been forgiven.  I sincerely will only the good for her.

The point is that if you want to present a non-Christian philosophy as true, you need to be able to respond to the challenges that that philosophy presents.  This rape case, the “rapee” case, the gunman case, and the lifeboat case are all examples that illustrate the moral bankruptcy of the consequentiallist position.  In the scores of posts by consequentiallists we’ve had scores of attacks and condemnations, and several logical fallacies, usually centering around ad hominem attacks, but not one of you have rationally examined these logical conclusions of your false beliefs. 

If it can be sometimes ok to murder a baby, then there really is no action that is unjustifiable.  Given the right circumstances, any act at all can be justified by the moral fallacy that “The ends justify the means.”

I find it very telling that there has not been ONE single rational defense of consequentialism during the course of this thread.  Seriously? Not even one?!? 

I’ve known a few atheists with rational arguments for your position.  They just aren’t very palatable for Christians precisely because the belief is compatible with atheism but incompatible with Christianity.

All Christians know, whether or not they’ll admit it, that death is not as bad as sin.

Now I will predict the future: No one on this thread will say that “consequentialism is good/true because…”  but several people will call me and my Church evil/heartless/murderers (maybe some creative slanders too) for maintaining the timeless truth that: “One cannot murder an innocent person even if you really really want to.”

Feel free to prove me wrong, or at least come up with some more creative attacks to make the time spent reading them worthwhile.

“”“since he believes that two deaths are better than one.”“”

If every man, woman, and child on earth would die today and go to heaven (6 billion+ deaths), that would be better than 1 man dying today and going to hell (1 death). 

Sin is worse than death.

Oh what a fool you are Julie.  Anne is extremely hateful especially when someone disagrees with her. 

She spends an inordinate amount of her time posting hate towards Christianity and the Catholic Church in particular.

Anyone who has the courage of their convictions and believes in Christ and his Bride gets bombarded with her emotionalism and name calling.

Remember the devil was the Angel of light.  Anne is evil dressed up to look beautiful.

“”“How could this mother be there for hers if she was allowed to die, and then have the baby die inside her anyway?”“”

As Christians, we just know that Christ told us not to commit evil.  Other than that, it’s all in His hands, and He loves you and your family more than you do.

It is important to note that this isn’t a women vs. men debate like @Anne wants to paint it.  My wife, the mother of my 3 children, would choose death rather than choosing to murder our child.  I love my wife very much, and as such, I would rather see her die and be with Christ than to become a murderer and cut herself off from Him*.  After all, death is far better than sin.

(Thank God for confession, there is hope even after becoming a murderer.)

To be pro-life is to respect ALL life.  That includes the life of the mother.  That includes the life of the diverse species that are lost due to unchecked human expansion on the environment.  That includes the life of the unborn ***in context*** to the quality of life you can offer it.  It makes no sense to me how anti-choice people value quantity over quality, when quality has a direct affect on the LIFE of all humans not just the unborn.  Healthy, productive citizens do not fall from the sky.  They are made not just by birth, but by love, compassion, and investment in their health and well being.  Birthing humans for the sake of it, for some odd concept of supposedly valuing life makes no sense when those children would grow up to criminally victimize law abiding and productive citizens. 

You cannot tell me that a child has a good chance to grow up in a loving home when you treat their mothers (and indeed, all women) like crap.

If you want to live in a place where women have no rights, please feel free to buy a one way ticket to a third world country and never come back.  You obviously don’t care about freedom unless it affects your agenda.

Well said, Red Beard, particularly the part about sin being worse than (physcial) death.  That is so true, because sin kills the life of grace in the soul, which leads to an eternity of separation from God.

Thanks.

The Red Beard states: “Sin is worse than death.”

Really? That which can lead a person to change, transformation and redemption is worse than the complete end of a life? The malleable is worse than the fixed? What can be forgiven and repented is worse than extinction?

You write so many words and display picayune knowledge but you have shown no wisdom, no compassion and no spirit of Christ. You can do better if you leave your books and simply go out into the world and remember what it is like to be a living person trying to live a moral life in a difficult world.

Then again, you prefer death to sin, so you must prefer that which leads you to what you prefer, the causes and conditions of death instead of sin. No wonder your world is dark.

Red Beard, I do not believe that this
issue can be reduced to Christianity vs. consequentialism.
I understand your view on this, and obviously you are
sincere and philosophically knowledgeable.
Some of us see it as a matter of interpretation of canon
law and believe that Sr. McBride was right in her interpretation of
the directives she had which were based on canon law.
I am not a consequentialist and do not believe that ends justify
means.  I am not a relativist.

But I do believe in saving the life that can be saved.
I argue again the mother’s life has value, value equal to anyone else’s life.
Again, this is not something that can be reduced to
philosophical abstract terms “for the sake of argument.”
It is infinitely more complex than that.

“No “dying” woman is in need of an abortion.” So, you’re giving us your professional medical opinion on this? Are you now omniscient, as if you were equal to god? What an utterly horrifying statement. BTW that’s my personal opinion. “This was a pre-emptive abortion designed to take out the baby and not give her or him a chance.” Is that really what you believe? That the main advising intent of the medical staff in performing the procedure was to kill an innocent unborn soul? You really believe these people working at a Catholic hospital are just waiting to jump at the chance to “do the devil’s work” by performing what you in your infinite wisdom have labelled as a medically UNnecessary abortion? I have to say I’d have expected this kind of venomous misogyny from a Fundamental Baptist organization, but not from members of the Catholic Church. This kind of rabidly irrational fundamentalism was not a part of my experience growing up Catholic. Not from priests, nuns, or members of my church. Next you’ll accuse the Sister of leading black masses in the hospital chapel. @Sandra Currie - great post! “Read your history folks.  The Church has survived 2000 years because of treachery, greed, power mongering…” I read my history, and when I found out the church is still ok with all the atrocities committed in her name, by her priests, on the orders of her Bishops & Popes, I decided I could no longer be a part of it.

Anne, I’m here because of truth, and it’s difficult to sit back and watch people follow lies and deception.

You say you are here to discuss the issues. Yet you also bring much emotion into the topic which skews the focus.

None of us are above reproach in our posting habits, including me.

I’m sure this topic will go on for a while; I have commitments to keep, so I’ll be out for a while. You are in my sincere prayers, as are all involved here.

Sin may be worse than death,
but there is no consensus amongst human beings on
what constitutes sin, and how sin is committed, or forgiven.
There is a consensus on what death is. Human being stop breathing and
begin to decay.
To compare the two, I think, can be extremely confusing.
Also “sin,” is not a concept that can be divorced from life and death,
and should never be.
I’m sure St. Thomas More thought sin was worse than death
when he burned alive five heretics.
We have to wary of those who do not privilege life because they
think their own concept of sin is more important than life.
Trying to honor life in all circumstances is difficult but it’s worth the effort.

So, for anyone following along but getting lost in the yelling, I’ll summarize the positions as @Connie the Consequentialist vs. @Chris the Christian

What do you want?

@Connie wants the mother to live, the baby too if possible.

@Chris wants both to live

Ok, both sides want the same thing. This truth is getting lost in the shouting and name-calling.

What are you willing to do to get all or part of what you want?

@Connie - willing to murder a child to get what I want because the thing that I want is good.

@Chris - not willing to murder a child to get part of what I want even though what I want is a good thing and I really really want that good thing.

Neither side wants the mother to die.  Neither side wants the baby to die.  @Connie’s side is willing to murder the baby even though they would prefer to not have to.

“”“Some of us see it as a matter of interpretation of canon
law and believe that Sr. McBride was right in her interpretation of
the directives she had which were based on canon law.”“”

You aren’t Catholic, so why do you give a fig about cannon law?  I’d much rather talk about “right” vs. “wrong.”

This is precisely the sort of intellectual hypocrisy that has destroyed the moral credibility of the today’s Church hierarchy. Bishop Olmsted should be relieved of his duties until an investigation of both his and Sr. Margaret’s actions is completed.

“Sin is worse than Death”?? Hrm. I respect your right to choose to believe that. But trying to force that belief on others just because they happen to have checked into the hospital closest to them… nope. No one’s gonna stand for that kind of dark ages mentality. Not in the real world. The Catholic Church will reform or it will perish. I’d much rather see it reform.  BG said it better than I can.

Amazing how people who say they believe in God but actually just want to play God to women and other people.

“”“To compare the two [death & sin], I think, can be extremely confusing.”“”

Sorry, God created a complicated world and then Adam went and made it worse.

“”“St. Thomas More thought sin was worse than death
when he burned alive five heretics.”“”

Yet another red herring, but it sure feels good to get a jab in, doesn’t it?

“”“Trying to honor life in all circumstances is difficult but it’s worth the effort.”“”

Honoring life by actively ending life; Your abuse of words is infuriating.

@Leon,

Hey, I predicted the future!

@Melissa

“”“I respect your right to choose to believe that”“”

You respect that right unless I happen to be the doctor at the closest hospital, in which case you would compel me to violate my conscience at your request.  Gee, there goes freedom of religion.

Red Beard,
I do not believe that references to ST. Thomas More and the burning of
heretics is a red herring.
It is to the point.
The man took life because he believed it was right.
He burned people alive because he thought it was right.
He is a classic example of a Catholic doing evil for a good end—
or as you might put it, murdering some one for a good end.
So are the Catholic soldiers in the volunteer armed services of our
country who involve themselves in the killing of innocent civilians.
These are not red herrings.
They are indictments of your absolutest thinking and your
absolutest statements that one can never do evil to do good
(hence the mother should have been forced to die, etc.)
I am trying to point out clearly and rationally that
your own church and your own canon law are not consistent.
That they allow men in varying circumstances to kill people all
the time,
that an absolutest application of “do no evil” apparently applies only to
pregnant women.
This is a valid criticism of your church and its theology.
It is a valid criticism of interpretations of canon law
referenced on this blog.
Your response to my comments on sin and death
(“Sorry, God created a complicated world, etc.”)
does not address my basic point:
sin is a subjective matter.
Death is objectively a fact.
Sin can only be judged by Jesus Christ, and can only really
be forgiven by God.  What sin is, and who God is are matters of
subjective opinion.  There is no consensus.
But there is a consensus on death.
I am honestly trying to show you that your arguments
seem inconsistent to me and a bit dangerous.
Sr. Margaret McBride did not murder the unborn child
in this case.  And I think you know this.
She saved the life of the mother.
Now obviously we can go back and forth on this forever.
But my main point remains:
Sister did right by Catholic directives and canon law.
She did right in saving the mother’s life.
What she did is in no way inconsistent with Catholic teaching.

Everyone opposed to Bishop Olmsted are really just have a problem with the Catholic Church.

It is the Bishop’s job to lead and guide his Catholic flock.  Sister McBride is one of his charges that allowed an abortion (an act that is known to be wrong in all circumstances)at a Catholic institution.  All of this is Catholics living and acting in our own sphere.  He has not stepped out of bounds.  He has upheld what everyone under his care should know, understand, and live.  The mother asked for something that we cannot, and should not have given her.

If a student asks his teacher to fudge his grades so that he can get into college, the teacher shouldn’t do it.  No matter what his good reasons are.  He is asking for her to do something wrong.  If she does it and the principal finds out, it is his job to correct the teacher.  The Bishop is just doing his job.  If don’t like the Church, tough.  These are our rules and we’re going to honor them.

Where does the freedom of religion for the patient enter the picture?

“”“Where does the freedom of religion for the patient enter the picture?”“”

It comes in when they can choose a different hospital/doctor. 

See, the problem is that if you have a right that compels someone to violate their conscience to fulfill that right, then your right has just made that person a slave.  This is, of course a logical contradiction, one cannot have the right to enslave another if you believe that all have rights.  The conclusion is that one cannot have a right that compels another to act.  A proposed right that falls in this category cannot actually be a right.

To illustrate:  I may have the right to eat pizza.  It cannot follow that I have the right to force someone to make me a pizza so that I can exorcise my right to eat pizza.

The Bishop didn’t “correct” the Sister. He threw her out of the Church that had been her life for years.

I wonder if the Bishop would have the nerve to be at the bedside, in a situation such as this, and say to the mother, “I’m sorry my child but both of you are going to have die. As for the fact that your life could be saved, and continue to be a mother to your other children, tough.”

Please don’t anyone tell me that this is about the “right to life” - parents have rights as well.

Philip Barnett, you are so right.  This is not about “the right to life” at all.
It’s about the church demanding of a dying pregnant woman
what they would never demand, in comparable situations, from
men.

Life-and-death medical decisions and ordering a pizza?

False analogies are often the tool of the desperate. In this case they are the work of the defeated who nevertheless must still try to do his job. Not a pleasant place to be.

“”“He threw her out of the Church that had been her life for years.”“”

This is factually incorrect.  He informed her of the objective state of her relationship with the Church.  She cut herself off from the Church as this is an “automatic” excommunication as explained in the original article. 

“”“wonder if the Bishop would have the nerve…”“”

Come on Philip, you are so stinking close to providing a rational rather than just another emotional argument.  I can feel it!

I’ll start for you: The ends justify the means because… [insert rational basis here]

Men do “evil” to do good all the time
and this is entirely sanctioned by the Roman Catholic Church.
A Catholic American can enter a volunteer army and go to
the Middle East and kill women, pregnant women and children
during combat.  And such a person is never censored or excommunicated.
But a dying pregnant woman cannot terminate the pregnancy that is killing
her.
This is a double standard. ‘
St. Thomas More burned five heretics at the stake, murdering these men
in a hideous and cruel way “to do good”
and he’s a canonized saint,
but Sr. McBride for terminating a pregnancy that
was killing a young mother, is excommunicated
because “you can never do evil to do good.”
This is a double standard.
This is a hypocritical standard.

@BG

“”“False analogies are often the tool of the desperate.”“”

Feel free to illustrate how this analogy is false, though I know attacking me is more fun than attacking my arguments.

I think Philip Barnett’s question is entirely valid.
How would the Bishop have handled this had he been in
the Emergency room?
I’ve asked similar questions on another blog here.
How would you handle the situation?
I think those of you who are condemning Sr. McBride
might share that with us.  What would you have said
to this woman?

Red Beard, you wrote:

“The conclusion is that one cannot have a right that compels another to act.  A proposed right that falls in this category cannot actually be a right.”

Patients have the right to medical care when they enter a
hospital.  Doctors, nurses and the like are held to professional standards.
If Catholics cannot provide medical care in keeping with national standards,
they should not work in hospitals.

Red Beard wrote: “...though I know attacking me is more fun than attacking my arguments.”

Accusing a person of enjoying necrophilia is beyond the pale.

But seriously. Ordering pizza as contrasted to vital medical decisions? That the best analogy available to you?

Sarah, I cannot agree with you.
Yes, the Bishop has authority to lead the diocese,
but bishops make mistakes, and bishops have been
known to resign because of the mistakes they have made.
Bishops are neither impeccable nor infallible.
Sr. Margaret McBride was, in the opinion of many Catholics,
right in what she did in this situation.
And thank God, for the sake of this young mother and her
family, Sister was there for her.

“”“A Catholic American can enter a volunteer army and go to
the Middle East and kill women, pregnant women and children
during combat.  And such a person is never censored or excommunicated.”“”

If a soldier sins, they are still culpable for their sins.  If a soldier kills an enemy combatant in a just war, that isn’t necessarily a sin (may or may not be based on the circumstances).  If a soldier intentionally kills an innocent person, then that’s murder.

You are correct that most murderers are not excommunicated.  Excommunication is a medicinal penalty that is used to show the receiver that their position is serious.  Most murderers know they are in a bad spot.  Many have fooled themselves into thinking that murder isn’t serious if it’s a child in the womb that’s the victim.  This penalty is a wake up call.  It is not a statement that this murder is worse than another.

“”“St. Thomas More burned five heretics at the stake, murdering these men in a hideous and cruel way “to do good” “”“

This really is a favorite pet red herring huh?  Well, if you will provide me with a source that’s not a book, I’ll read it and reply to it sense you are so hung up on this issue. 

Off the cuff, capital punishment is not inherently immoral.  (parallel to war not always being immoral).  Certain instances may be.  I’d need to know more details before I’d be able to guess intelligently whether or not a particular instance of execution (or a particular war) was just. 

Murder is intentionally killing the innocent and even the state does not have that right.  So, if St. Thomas Moore murdered someone, it would be bad.  If he had a hand in executing them, it may or may not have been and, as I said, I’m willing to read more to placate your anger on this one.

I’m really not interested in talking with anyone but @Anne on this side issue.  Her tenacity deserves a reply but I don’t want to go too far down a rabbit hole with everyone with an axe to grind.

“”“Sr. Margaret McBride was, in the opinion of many Catholics,
right in what she did in this situation. “”“

The Church isn’t a democracy.  All you are stating is that many Catholics are ignorant of what the Church teaches.  I will completely agree.  This is like saying that many people have the oppinion that speeding is ok so a cop is wrong for giving you a ticket. 

You can disagree with the Church if you like, but @Sarah’s point stands.  The bishop was holding true to the teachings of the Catholic Church.

“”“And thank God, for the sake of this young mother and her
family, Sister was there for her.”“”

Apparently Sister has repented for being “there for her.”

“...I don’t want to go too far down a rabbit hole with everyone with an axe to grind.”

And now you mix metaphors and have the audacity to think Lewis Carroll would consider admitting you into his world.

A shame you have to admit you’re scotched in so inelegant a manner.

Red Beard, my
point exactly, that Catholics don’t hold
capital punishment or war to be inherently
immoral but both involve killing, and what
many might call murder.
Canon Law goes to great lengths to
free soldiers to do their duty in just wars.
Then a unique absolute standard is applied to
a pregnant woman.
It’s unjust and hypocritical.
The case of Thomas More is not a red herring.
The very same principle is involved.  More did “evil” to
do good, he burnt people alive because he thought he was doing good.
He’s a saint,
but a pregnant woman cannot defend herself against a pregnancy that’s killing
her.
Canon law and Catholic teaching on this needs to be revised.
It is not just, and it is not consistent.
There is not a separate natural law or moral law for women.

What is it you want to know about St. Thomas More? You can check him out
online in five minutes.  You don’t believe he executed five heretics? You can
discover this in five minutes.

I ask that you get down to basics here.
Why is war not war inherently immoral, if women and children are killed in
war?
Why is capital punishment not inherently immoral if people are put to death?
And how can it be absolutely immoral for a dying mother to defend herself
against a pregnancy?

Red Beard,
bishops can make mistakes.
If you think a bishop is wrong, you have an obligation to stand
up to him.
Sister Angelica stood up to Archbishop when she believed he
was wrong.
Saints have stood up to the hierarchy when they thought the
hierarchy was wrong.

“”“What would you have said to this woman? “”“

I would tell her that God loves her and loves her child.  I would get a second and third opinion about her condition from specialists. I would tell her that I cannot kill her child.  I would offer to pray with her.  I would get my parish to pray for her.  I would look for people who need miracles for beatification and start novenas to them. 

I would say the same thing to my wife in that position.  Well, actually I wouldn’t have to.  She’s not into killing her children even in such dire circumstances. 

Life is hard, but you cannot murder an innocent even if you really really want to.

“”“Sister Angelica stood up to Archbishop when she believed he
was wrong. “”“

She did?  I thought she repented and got reassigned and is now in good standing.  I’d like to see your sources.

No saint has ever stood up to the hierarchy of the Church on a doctrine or dogma (defined teaching in a matter of faith and morals).  The reason is that the Church is right on those particular issues! :o)

“”“Sister Angelica “”“

Whoops missed this.  I thought we were still talking about McBride.

I have no idea what the context of your claim is so just read the part I wrote about the saints in my previous reply. :o)

Red Beard, thank you for answering as to what you
would have said to the woman.
Now suppose she had pleaded for her life,
what would you have said then?
Suppose her husband had pleaded for her life,
what would you have done then?
If either of them had asked why nothing could
be done to save the mother, what would you have told them?
Would you have admitted that a legal abortion could be done?
Or would you have covered this up?
Would you have made it clear that you were following
your conscience in these matters, regardless of what
they wanted or what their conscience might have allowed them to do?
How would you have explained putting your conscience before theirs?
And how would you have explained that you were denying them a
legal life saving procedure?
Would you have helped this woman get to another hospital?
Or would you have obstructed such a thing to try to insure
that her baby died with her and she did not manage to survive it?

Red Beard, you wrote:

“No saint has ever stood up to the hierarchy of the Church on a doctrine or dogma (defined teaching in a matter of faith and morals).  The reason is that the Church is right on those particular issues! :o)”

Are you saying that Bishop Olmsted’s teaching on this is a matter of
doctrine and dogma involving faith and morals? ARe you saying he is infallible?

Since when is Olmsted’s interpretation of canon law here
a doctrine or dogma?
I haven’t heard anyone suggest this before.
I know of no one who thinks this man is infallible.
There are those who agree with him,
and praise him as one a successor of the Apostles, etc.,
but are you seriously suggesting that he cannot be wrong on this?

How incredibly noble - the Bishop would seek 2nd and 3rd opinions. And if these concurred with the original diagnosis? Would the Bishop then say to the mother, “I will pray while both of you die?”

I am Jewish, as was Jesus. From everything I understand, and I’m sure I will be deluged with corrections and outrage if I am, I believe the answer to the question WWJD is that there would certainly be an excommunication - of the Bishop. I can’t imagine an action that would be more “anti-Jesus” then letting both people die, instead of saving one.

If the scarlett A stood for adultery, the H in Catholic should represent hypocrisy.

“”“Why is war not war inherently immoral, if women and children are killed in
war?
Why is capital punishment not inherently immoral if people are put to death?
And how can it be absolutely immoral for a dying mother to defend herself
against a pregnancy? “”“”

Yeesh, this needs a doctorate thesis reply, you need to do some research on your own, but I’ll give you the soundbites:

War: can be the just response to an aggressor.  Women and children may die as an unintended consequence (sad but not sinful under the “principle of double effect” - google it; wikipedia isn’t too bad on this one)  If noncombatants are intentionally killed, that is immoral and not a justified act but it doesn’t mean that the whole war is unjust.

Capital Punishment:

CCC 2266 The State’s effort to contain the spread of behaviors injurious to human rights and the fundamental rules of civil coexistence corresponds to the requirement of watching over the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime. The primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense. When his punishment is voluntarily accepted by the offender, it takes on the value of expiation. Moreover, punishment, in addition to preserving public order and the safety of persons, has a medicinal scope: as far as possible it should contribute to the correction of the offender.[67]

Be sure to read 2267 too as it limits the above paragraph.

“”“defend herself against a pregnancy? “”“

The child is not an aggressor.  The pregnancy is not an attack.  The woman is not defending herself from her disease in this scenario, she is attacking the child directly.  There are some principle of double effect cases where you can attack a disease even if those actions result in the secondary and un-willed effect of the death of the child.  This means that sometimes you can do good things that have bad side effects, though you cannot do bad things even if they have good side effects.

If a man attacks you, you cannot shoot his innocent child to stop him. You can shoot him. The child is innocent, therefore you can’t murder it.

“”“Are you saying that Bishop Olmsted’s teaching on this is a matter of
doctrine and dogma involving faith and morals? ARe you saying he is infallible? “”“

No, I’m stating that the moral judgment of the act is a judgment that has been made by the universal majesterium, and the bishop is just applying the Church’s doctrine that abortion is always wrong.

“”“the Bishop would seek 2nd and 3rd opinions. “”“

Nope, I would.  Try to keep up.

“”“Would you have admitted that a legal abortion could be done?
Or would you have covered this up? “”“

What strange spurious questions.  If they choose to sin, choose to leave my location and find someone else to help them murder there child in a country so divorced from God that it thinks murdering children is ok, well I’d let them leave.  I would not help them or advise them on how to find a doctor to kill their baby any more than I would help them hire a hitman to kill any of their other children.

That you, Red Beard, but I find all this utterly unconvincing.
Why doesn’t the principle of double effect pertain to the
decision to terminate the woman’s lethal pregnancy.
Of course the pregnancy is aggressive if it is killing her.
If a retarded man comes at you with a hatchet, are you
supposed to let him chop you to pieces because he’s retarded
and doesn’t know what he’s doing?
Whether the baby intends it or not, the baby may be killing
its mother. She has a right to defend herself.
All I see here is inconsistency and hyprocrisy.
It’s fine for soldiers and authority figures to kill people “to do good”
but a pregnant woman can’t save her own life.
Men can allow themselves elaborate and nuanced excuses for
taking life,
but women never!
Different standards.
What’s okay for you isn’t okay for her, because she is a woman.
Sorry—— you and your church are both going to have to do better than this.
I thank you again for your sincerity and patience,
but I think your bishop is about to bring down Catholic hospitals
in America.
Americans won’t stand for this kind of warped thinking.
Pregnant women have rights in America.  They aren’t seen as strictly a
means to an end. 
A woman who gets pregnant doesn’t cease to be a person.

Note how absurd the Anne Rice groupies have become

http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#!/annericefanpage/posts/126425577421506

“”“How would you have explained putting your conscience before theirs? “”“

Easy.  My actions are regulated by my conscience.  Therefore, any act I take will be in accordance with my conscience (at least if I where the man I desire to be).  They are free to act in accordance with theirs.

“”“Of course the pregnancy is aggressive if it is killing her”“”

The hypertension is killing her, not the baby.

Please stop referring to it as “terminating a pregnancy.”  We both know what the act is.

“”“All I see here is inconsistency and hyprocrisy. “”“

I feel for you.  Let me point out the principals that are applied:

1. “You can not murder an innocent even if you really really want to.”

2. “You can use force to defend yourself from an attacker (not an innocent) (CCC 2264)”

These do not contradict.

Capital punishment, just war, etc. all come from 2. but they don’t contradict 1 and they don’t make it ok to violate 1.

“Pregnant women have rights in America.  They aren’t seen as strictly a
means to an end.
A woman who gets pregnant doesn’t cease to be a person.”

But Anne would deny the fact that the unborn child is also human and therefore has right endowed to her by her creator.

“”“What’s okay for you isn’t okay for her, because she is a woman. “”“

@Anne, really?  You boiled all the statement’s I’ve made down to this?  Give me a break.  Put down that axe, it is sufficiently ground and has nothing to do with this conversation.  My wife is a woman and you’re annoying her with this feminist crap too.  Gender doesn’t play into the underlying moral principals at all.

No one, male or female, can murder an innocent person even if they really really want to.

PROGRESS REPORT.
I entered this discussion because I was deeply
concerned with the moral question of Bishop Olmsted’s condemnation
of Sr. Margaret McBride, and
also because I was deeply morally troubled by his
obvious belief that the young mother in this case
should not have been saved, that she should have been
abandoned to die with her baby.

What I have seen here has convinced
me that Catholics in the main are muddled in their
moral thinking, gravely inconsistent in what they
hold to be moral for men,
and what they hold to be moral for pregnant women.
I do not believe that Catholics believe woman are people.
They seem to see women as the means to an end, and
devoid of the basic right to defend their lives which all men
enjoy.
I think in years to come
a lot of this muddled thinking will be changed.
We will probably see a deep revision of canon law
in light of situations that have arisen
in the 20th and 21 centuries due to advances in medicine,
and since the “emancipation” of women.
I suspect that canon law will be rewritten to deal
more logically and consistently with women as
persons of integral moral value.
In other words, corrections will be made.

In the meantime, I think Bishop Olmsted will
be ultimately responsible for the end of Catholic Hospitals in
America.
As the result of his rash and illogical position on
this case, the ACLU has been alerted and will press for investigations
of Catholic hospitals.
Americans will not tolerate the interference of a bishop with
standards of medical care.
Catholics will eventually have to get out of the hospital business.

None of this had to happen.
When the church takes extremist and absolutist positions on
morals that cannot be supported by thinking men and women,
when its own arguments are illogical, abstract and insensitive to
fundamental issues of life and death,
it loses credibility as a moral voice in our culture.

This is not to suggest that any religion or any religious person
is ever compelled by a society to go against conscience.
We are obliged as moral beings to hold with what we believe is
right regardless of what society says.
But we are also obliged to hold to what we believe is right
no matter what the Roman Catholic church says.

I do fully support the integrity of the female person,
and the right of the woman to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
I do not believe that a mother, dying as the result of an easily terminated
pregnancy can be accused of murder for terminating that pregnancy.
Nor do I believe that a woman is a sacrificial animal, a baby maker, who
must give up her life if a pregnancy is killing her.
She is a person.

I am personally appreciative of many of the sincere and patient posters here.
I will continue to engage, because I am deeply concerned with this unfolding
crisis.

As some of you may know, I left the Roman Catholic Church in July with a
well known public statement.
In a number of public interviews I explained that this case…
the case of Bishop Olmsted and Sr. McBride…. was a major
factor in me renouncing Catholicism and withdrawing my support
from the church.

I would like to say that my decision was the result of deep theological
reasons as well as social reasons.
But this blog in particular played no small part in my decision.
Do with that what you will.
And God bless you.

“”“but I think your bishop is about to bring down Catholic hospitals
in America.”“”

If this country cannot respect our freedom of religion, and is bent on compelling us to violate our consciences, then it may be time to shut them down.  I don’t desire the slavery you wish to force upon the people of my faith.

“”“If a retarded man comes at you with a hatchet, are you
supposed to let him chop you to pieces because he’s retarded
and doesn’t know what he’s doing? “”“

Oh, I like this analogy.  It is honest, you haven’t given up thinking.  The retarded man is an attacker if he is coming at you with a hatchet.  He may not be culpable, but he is not “innocent” in the sense of moral principle #1 above.

A baby exists.  That is what it does.  You are saying that that very existence is an attack, which is not a tenable position.  It isn’t attacking the mother, some disease or defect in the mother’s body is attacking the mother.

It is an important distinction.

“”“I do not believe that Catholics believe woman are people.”“”

Here’s what the Church teaches about women:

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_15081988_mulieris-dignitatem_en.html

Ok here we go. Pregnancy for some women is an attack on thier bodies. The strain on their hearts and arteries of caring another person inside them causes all sort of possibly deadly effects. High blood pressure. It can kill you. Gestational Diabeties It can kill you. these are only 2. I was lucky my pregnancy problems were kept semi-under control with meds. For some women, the only relief from thesse life threaening conditions brought on by the pregnancy can be alleviated by the removal of the fetus/child. Through an abortion, or birth. I will not get into the details of how far these conditions can go, you can look them up on the internet yourselves. the information is there for you to see. Whether what the Bishop did is right or wrong, it is obvious he is following the policy of the church. So it is the church that should be questioned and brought to judgement here.

“”“me renouncing Catholicism and withdrawing my support
from the church.”“”

You don’t know what the Church is.  You are running away from a mean misogynistic institution you have created in your mind.  If the Church really looked like you think it looks, then leaving it would be the right decision. 

Good luck with your pursuit of Christ.  Your twisted view of the Church would prevent you from finding Him there, but hopefully you’ll find some of His truth elsewhere.  May God bless you and lead you to Himself.

Red_Beard, thank you for logically explaining that killing an innocent as a means to an end in sinful, and for that reason, the Catholic Church cannot condone the killing of children in the womb.

That’s why I love our Church; it is reasonable, it is truthful, and it is beautiful in its protection of the weakest among us.

Hope I get to see you posting often.

God’s blessings to all of you.

Chirst and santa have alot in common. 1 thing they do not have in common is the amount of murder done in their name. I love that so many people are talking abt murdering a baby. Anyone remember the crusades? The inquisitions? ...... how many people were murdered for refusing to convert? had their land stolen, their bank accounts raided…. lets talk catholic church and murder people…...lets talk!

@heather

“”“Pregnancy for some women is an attack on thier bodies…. For some women, the only relief from thesse life threaening conditions brought on by the pregnancy can be alleviated by the removal of the fetus/child.”“”

The second sentence is key.  The child is not an aggressor, the woman’s body cannot handle the stress of the pregnancy.  The child us just “being” it isn’t “attacking” so it is innocent.  As an innocent, you cannot murder it as a medical “treatment.”  Similarly, if you where locked in a room that was running out of air, you couldn’t shoot the person who was in there with you so that you had more air to breath.  That person being there is not the same as that person attacking you.  You don’t have a right to kill them.  The lifeboat analogy above also fits very nicely.

“”” So it is the church that should be questioned and brought to judgement here.”“”

I totally agree.  The bishop is just doing his job.  The Church’s positions are what should be examined and I hope I have provided some light on those positions here.

u can not seperate a fetus ffrom a pregnancy….. it is the fetus’s demands for survival that cause the conditions. remove the one making the demand to remove the risk.

“”“how many people were murdered for refusing to convert? had their land stolen, their bank accounts raided…. lets talk catholic church and murder people…...lets talk! “”“

The principles that the Church has taught have never changed.  Even during times when people disregarded those principles.

I don’t get why the “Catholic” part has anything to do with the audacious claim that: “You can not murder an innocent even if you really really want to.”

Is your position just that some bad Catholics have murdered innocents, therefore I can murder an innocent?  Not exactly rational moral argumentation.

my position is that any entity that has commited such atrocities and that entites followers don;t have a leg to stand on when others commit so called atrocities.

“”“remove the one making the demand to remove the risk. “”“

Shoot the other person breathing in the room with limited oxygen and throw the other people out of the lifeboat (or kill and eat them) and you remove the risk.

Do you have the consistency to accept these 2 examples?

It isn’t “Don’t murder innocents unless they pose some risk”  It’s “Don’t murder innocents even if you really really want to.”

The hate in some of these comments is beyond anything I’ve ever seen posted short of YouTube sociopaths and morons. And you people call yourself Christians?

where do you get the right to make judgements? you dont. only the innocent should judge. and the catholic church has too much blood on its hands to be judging anyone, or didtating morality or ethics.

“”“my position is that any entity that has commited such atrocities and that entites followers don;t have a leg to stand on when others commit so called atrocities. “”“

Well then, it’s a good thing that I don’t base any of my arguments on “Because the Church says so.”

Would you care to address the principals apart from the institution or are you just interested in the ad hominem attacks tonight?

you cant seperate the principals from the church. i see u have no comment abt santa.

“”“only the innocent should judge”“”

Isn’t it impossible to only have innocents judge who is innocent?  After all, judging wrong makes you not innocent as in this case you are the aggressor attacking the child.

Again, the principals stand apart from the Church that professes them, though I think you have a distorted view of the history of the Church.

“”“i see u have no comment abt santa”“”

Ummm… I hope he brings me a little plastic rocket?

i have an honest veiw…. that the church it not abt sprituality, but power. and i have no part of it. interesting fact…at 5 yrs old i questioned the existence of god. despite study, talking with clergy, i have never gone back. interesting what a child knows instinctively.

“”“you cant seperate the principals from the church”“”

You mean you personally can’t separate an idea from the one who presents it.  That’s a logical fallacy: (look at the part that says “a true fallacy, which would be…”)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

it was taken down..haha.. free speech and all that…. i was referring to gods non existence….

I guess my references to priests molesting children got me censored and deleted. Why isn’t that a surprise?

From the letter written by the ACLU to request an investigation of the treatment
of women in Catholic Hospitals:

“The refusal to provide timely reproductive health care to pregnant women seriously threatens their health and lives. For example:
•  A doctor in the Northeast decided to leave a Catholic-owned hospital after he was forced by the ethics committee to risk a pregnant patient’s life. The woman was in the process of miscarrying at 19 weeks of pregnancy. She was dying: her temperature was 106 degrees, she had disseminated intravascular coagulopathy, which is a life-threatening condition that prevents a person’s blood from clotting normally and causes excessive bleeding. This patient was bleeding so badly that the sclera, the whites of her eyes, were red, filled with blood. Id. at 1777. Despite the fact that there was no chance the fetus could survive, the ethics committee told the doctor that he could not perform the abortion the woman needed to save her life until the fetus’s heartbeat stopped. The patient was in the Intensive Care Unit for ten days, and developed pulmonary disease, resulting in lifetime oxygen dependency.
•  One doctor in a Western urban area described how a Catholic-owned hospital asked her hospital to accept the transfer of a pregnant patient who was in the midst of miscarrying and needed emergency care because she was septic and hemorrhaging. The patient needed the pregnancy to be terminated to prevent further risk to her health, which the Catholic hospital refused to allow the doctor to do, even though transporting her while she was unstable created additional risks to her health. Id. at 1776.
•  In another situation, a doctor working at a Catholic-owned hospital in the Midwest was forced to send her patient, who was 14 weeks pregnant, 90 miles by ambulance to another hospital to treat a miscarriage already in progress – the patient’s membranes had already ruptured and her health was at risk.”

From AZCentral.com.

“The American Civil Liberties Union on Wednesday renewed its appeal to the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services for an investigation of religious hospitals over concerns that they could deny potentially life-saving care.

“Alexa Kolbi-Molinas, staff attorney with the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project, said a hospital’s first responsibility must be to its patients, not to a religious leader.

““Religiously affiliated hospitals are not exempt from federal laws that protect a patient’s right to receive emergency care and cannot invoke their religious status to jeopardize the health and lives of pregnant women,” she said. “Women should never have to be afraid that they will be denied life-saving medical care when they enter a hospital.”

Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2010/12/16/20101216st-josephs-hospital-abortion-catholic-warning-debated.html#ixzz18Wn8dRDQ

My thoughts on this for now are that Bishop Olmsted is required to investigate this event. It is Sister McBride’s constitutional right to appeal latae sententiae excommunication by the Bishop. Those interested in this event would be more informed to read the article written by Professor Kevin O’Rourke in “America:The National Catholic Weekly.

Anne has spent her entire Saturday on an rampage against God and his Bride.  At this point there is no point in responding to her hysterical rants.  It is all pure emotionalism. The fact that we don’t have the whole story doesn’t even matter to her. 

She truly needs our prayers; the hate that she is carrying towards God, Christianity and the Church must be a tremendous burden.

It’s just so sad that she is a beacon of evil and is actively leading people into sin and death.

Remember those who promote evil are offended by everything good

I’m confused.  Those who are speaking passionately about the sanctity of the unborn were strangely silent during the illegal invasion of Iraq, where thousands of innocents and non innocents were slaughtered.  That invasion did not meet the Church’s criteria for a just war.  Please explain.

And how come people who speak in defense of the nun are called hateful, and emotional, and those who support the bishop are not.

Saying that an position is emotional is the time honored way of discounting what women have to say on any given subject.

“”“.  Those who are speaking passionately about the sanctity of the unborn were strangely silent during the illegal invasion of Iraq, where thousands of innocents and non innocents were slaughtered.  “”“

Painting with an awfully wide brush.  I know many Catholics who disagree with the Iraq war, and all Catholics should condemn every instance of slaughtering an innocent.  That being said, a given war can be just or it can be unjust which leads to differing opinions.  The murdering of an innocent is never just.

Even if we where all hypocrites, your argument just becomes, “You were for slaughtering some innocents, therefore, I’m allowed to murder this innocent.”  Is this really the basis you want to take for your position?

As for me, I’m going to stick with the simple and timeless teaching that: “You can not murder an innocent even if you really really want to.”

I think we need much more attention, immediately, to the legal
aspects of this whole controversy.
Are Catholics advocating legal murder, or criminal neglect of women
in reproductive crises in Catholic Hospitals?
This goes beyond questions of medical standards.
If St. Joseph’s had forced this young mother to die,
if they had denied her the legal abortion that saved her life,
would they have been legally guilty of murder?
Are women in Catholics hospitals being killed when
they could be saved, due to Catholic beliefs?
This matter concerns everybody in America,
men, women, and children.
You have no way of knowing when you, or your mother or your wife,
or your daughter or your sister might wind up in a Catholic hospital and
be denied a life saving and legal procedure because of belief.
Even if you have no female relatives and know not a single woman,
you should be concerned about this as a member of the human race.
I say investigate. 
Hold Catholic institutions responsible for what they are doing, or not
doing, to women.
You cannot let a black person die in an American hospital
because you don’t believe in treating black people.
Why should you be able to let a woman die because you
don’t believe in interfering with the unborn—when it is
completely legal to interfere with the unborn?
The law has addressed these matters.
We need to address them too.

@Anne, you are now a proponent of the absurd idea that just because something is legal, that that thing is moral.  A cursory look at the history of law should dispel that.  Was slavery moral in the US while it was legal?  This is not a rational argument.

“”“You cannot let a black person die in an American hospital
because you don’t believe in treating black people.”“”

No, but you can murder them if they happen to be in the womb.  More than half of black babies are murdered before they are born.  Think about that fact for a while.  More than half of all black children conceived in this country will be murdered before they have a chance to be born.  Margret Sanger is getting her wish after all.

“”“Why should you be able to let a woman die because you
don’t believe in interfering with the unborn—when it is
completely legal to interfere with the unborn?”“”

I’m not against “interfering” with the unborn.  I’m against murdering the unborn (or anyone else, for that matter).  Even if it’s legal, I’m against murder.  Even if the closest relatives of the potential victim want the victim killed, I’m against murder.  Even if the victim will die anyways, I’m against murder.  Even if some known good will happen as a result of the murder, I’m against murder. 

Your position is: “Because you are against this particular murder that I want to commit, you are a murderer.”  You are missing the fundamental truth of what the act you are advocating is.  In your twisted logic, “not killing someone” is murder and “killing someone” is not murder.  Come back down to earth.

You cannot murder an innocent person, even if you really really want to.

Hello Red_beard,

I’d like to read up on your excellent moral position. Can you please point out some documents, books, authors that will guide my reading.

I know part of your precision is use of logic as well. Great combination of faith and reason.

Thanks, and may all have a blessed Sunday.

I’m assuming Red Beard is a male.  I assume this because of his dismissive attitutude towards everything that women have said on this blog, except for the ones who agree with him.  All the pious writings about women, the Church’s attitude towards women is exemplified by Red Beard.  If you can’t win by reason, then pull out the dogma written by men for men. 

Check out the Church’s position on birth control and abortion.  What was the position for the first 11 centuries after Christ’s death?  Unless you can answer those questions, don’t talk to me about the eternal truths of the Catholic Church.

Red Beard, keep up your arrogant and dismissive attitude towards women.  You definitely represent the Roman Catholic Church.

If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament.

@Red_beard who said, “A cursory look at the history of law should dispel that.  Was slavery moral in the US while it was legal?  This is not a rational argument.”

I am not going to address the theological issues raised here because I am not qualified to do so.  I grasp them, of course, but they are better left to those more proficient in the arguments.

However, Anne Rice is trying to discuss the Constitutional implications of denying necessary care to the mothers of unborn fetuses in Catholic hospitals.  This, I can address and am qualified to do so.  I am a lawyer, albeit retired, and well versed in the Constitution, as well as Constitutional decision making.

Ms. Rice was right to try to illustrate her argument by removing it from the current explosive context and comparing it to the denial of care to African Americans.

As John Donne said, “No man is an island, entire of itself every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main.”  So, too, with the Catholic church.  While our government gives great latitude to religious organizations to protect their Constitutional freedoms, it is not to the exclusion of all other protected freedoms.  The Catholic church, its laws and its beliefs are not the supreme law of the land.  It must abide by the Constitution and the laws derived therefrom.

The ACLU is rightly looking into the instances of pregnant women denied care at Catholic hospitals.  They would not be doing so if they did not believe that cases and controversies exist that may be worthy of Supreme Court review.  Ms. Rice has done a very good job of illustrating some of the more prominent cases at various Catholic hospitals and alerting all of you here that the potential Constitutional litigation can bring down a house of cards.

I doubt that the case of Sister McBride will be that case which reaches the Supreme Court.  The mother did receive the care she needed, and it is my understanding that Sister McBride does not wish to take this any further.  Thus, there is no case or controversy and no one with what is termed “standing” to take this particular case to the Supreme Court for review.

However, the other instances of denial of care may provide victims with standing and cases and controversies to be taken to the Supreme Court.  Ms. Rice is certainly right to sound the alarm that this debate has taken quite another direction with these developments.

Back to Ms. Rice’s comparison of the denial of care to an African Americans which you find offensive.  In the 1960’s, as our country engaged in the civil rights struggle that polarized the nation, there were several seminal Supreme Court cases which broke down the barriers for African Americans.  Private businesses (restaurants, hotels, etc.), which normally would not be Constitutionally accountable for violations of the Constitution, were found in violation of the Constitutional rights of African Americans.  Remember, the Constitution protects citizens from intrusions on their rights by the GOVERNMENT and its agents.

Understanding how the Constitutional protections reached into these private businesses involves more than a cursory understanding of the Constitution and gets deep into the interplay between the clauses of the Constitution, as well as complex Constitutional decision-making which is beyond the scope of this forum and knowledge of most of the participants.  I realize most of you here don’t have that level of training and analysis.  What was done, simply, was recognizing that these private businesses were within the national stream of commerce and thus the Commerce Clause came into play, as well as the Equal Protection Clause.

Ms. Rice was correct to use the comparison with an African American being denied care.  What the courts will do with the cases of women being denied life-saving care will be to look at whether there are protections afforded to women in these instances, utilizing Roe v. Wade and its progeny, whethe the Catholic hospitals are an island unto themselves (thus protected as religious institutions) or whether they are not.  Could a non-Catholic pregnant woman, travelling on an interstate be involved in an accident and rushed to a Catholic hospital nearby?  Could there be a disaster where victims are rushed to all available hospitals and a pregnant woman is denied the care she is needed to save her life?  There are countless scenarios which may provide the perfect facts to take a case or cases to the Supreme Court.

More importantly, the theological arguments you are raising will have no import.  They have all been reviewed and we have the law of the land that when a pregnant woman’s life is at risk, yes, she can have an abortion.  Canon law will be irrelevant.

So, you can bully Ms. Rice with your theological arguments.  She is trying to tell you that the tide has turned and the Church is now at risk with these potential cases destined for the Supreme Court.  You can continue to shout her down.  She can and will continue to defend what she rightly perceives is developing.  You can return with insults or you can finally understand that what she is saying deserves reasoned debate.  In order to do so, you must be able to recognize that all of your arguments are about to be rendered irrelevant.  What do you do in the face of that?  It would behoove all of you to calm down and discuss this rationally with Ms. Rice.  She is on the winning side of this argument.

Abscissio,  Thank you for the time and effort that went into this eloquent
post.  I hope that this does explain the issues here in a way that many
Catholics can understand. 
Catholic hospitals can indeed be the only hospitals in certain communities,
and their emergency rooms can indeed be the first resort for victims of
emergencies of all kinds.
And many non-Catholic patients wind up in Catholic hospitals.
That being said, there are many Catholics patients who probably don’t want to
be denied life saving services at Catholic hospitals either.
Again my thanks for clarifying the legal issues here which I have been struggling to explain.
I have alerted Nicolas Kristof at the New York Times to the existence of this blog.

“”“Catholic hospitals can indeed be the only hospitals in certain communities”“”

Because this evil church decided to build them to help people.  Go figure.  We sure must hate people a lot.

If the country decides to enslave health care workers by forcing them to murder babies, it would be much better to shut down the hospitals than to give in to such a tyranny.  Hopefully, the simple idea of liberty will prevent such a slavery from being imposed. 

In the meantime, remember, that you can not murder an innocent even if you really really want to.

You are welcome, Ms. Rice.  I am only sorry that I cannot get into a more detailed analysis of how these cases will be decided.  It is beyond the scope of this forum.  I do, recommend, however, that you purchase a book on Constitutional decision making or one of the better Horn books on Constitutional law.  I recommend this one:

http://www.amazon.com/Constitutional-Law-Hornbook-Student/dp/0314144528

It is well within the scope of your intellect, will provide great insight into the history of our country, and is simply breathtaking to witness how we shaped this idea that is America.

Oh, for the recruited attackers, I’ll ammend my claim further:

You can not murder an innocent even if you really really want to and even if your government tells you that they don’t mind you murdering an innocent.

In light of what is being discussed here about the illegality of
withholding legal and medically approved procedures from
dying women in Catholic hospitals,
let’s remind ourselves and everyone else
that the Sisters of Mercy are standing up for women here,
and so did Sr. Margaret McBride.
Many Catholics support Sr. McBride’s decision.
We have only one bishop here advocating
illegality, not the whole Catholic Church.

I wasn’t recruited by Ms. Rice, Red_beard.  I was advised by a personal friend that a skirmish broke out here and that I might be able to clarify the issues.  I am an old war horse with regard to women’s rights.

Feel free to prove things legally.  I’m much more interested in discussing “right” vs. “wrong” than “legal” vs. “illegal.”  The former is concrete and universal, the latter is arbitrary and depends upon an accident of circumstance.

I do not acknowledge unjust laws.

I still find it particularly telling that not one of the consequentialists on this thread have made a rational argument for their beliefs.  (The ends justify the means because…[insert argument here])  I am thankful for the line of argumentation that considered the baby as an attacker.  (ie. This is not an immoral act because the woman is defending herself from, rather than attacking the child)  At least that line of reasoning can be called “reasoning” and can be examined. 

Mostly, the consequentialists have been content to call names and commit ad hominem attacks, which has added a great deal to my amusement, but really hasn’t added any substance to the conversation.

You cannot murder an innocent person even if you really really want to.

“”“I was advised by a personal friend that a skirmish broke out here and that I might be able to clarify the issues.  “”“

I believe you have added clarity to the legal issues.  Now that I understand them better, I can more effectively civilly disobey.  I am a big fan of women’s rights.  I’m just unique in also being a fan of baby’s rights as well.

Red_beard, do you happen to know how the situation of twins is handled when a Catholic hospital must choose between saving one, but not both?  Are both allowed to die when only one can be saved at the expense of the other?  I have never read anything about this, so I am truly only asking if you have knowledge of this.

Red_beard, civil disobedience has a long, noble history.  However, many opposed to equal rights for African Americans believed they were engaging in “civil disobedience” by continuing with their discriminatory behavior.  I haven’t followed your arguments here close enough to determine if you have an ingrained prejudice against women, but I will give you the benefit of doubt that you believe what you do because of your deep commitment to your faith. I am ferociously committed to the rights of both women and children and have long been an advocate for both.  However, there are times when we must look at the exigencies of the situation and make reasoned, very difficult decisions.  That is why they are called moral dilemmas.  Allowing or requiring both to die is a moral failure.  We are rarely presented with King Solomon’s decision revealing to the masses a clear, just moral and legal conclusion was reached.

“”“Allowing or requiring both to die is a moral failure.”“”

Why?

I appreciate the benefit of the doubt.  My only real claim is that “You cannot murder an innocent person even if you really really want to.”

Red_Beard, murder is a legal term.  The law is on the side of the mother here.  Your definition of innocent and mine are different.  I mean no hostility toward you by saying this.

It is a moral failure because sometimes God does ask us to make very hard choices.  This is the person of faith talking here, not the lawyer, not the scholar.  Assuming arguendo that both will die before there is a viable fetus, I do not believe that God would ask a mother to leave her children motherless so that she can die with her fetus.  I think the Bible is clear on the value of family.

The situation here is nothing as clear cut even for Catholics
as Red Beard indicates.

This paragraph from an article on Beliefnet explains.

“The double effect principle allows for all kinds of treatments (chemo/radiation, etc) of the mother that can potentially result in the death of the embryo/fetus.  The difference is that this isn’t direct violence inflicted through dismemberment, saline solution injection (or other chemical means), scissors in the back of the brain, or other abortion “techniques”.

So Catholics are really splitting hairs here.  If a woman has cancer,
her fetus can be killed—- in spite of Red Beard’s insistence.
It just can’t be what they call “directly” killed.
And of course many supporting Sr. McBride and the dying mother
have pointed out that the principle of “double effect” is true here
as well. The fetus is removed; the fetus dies.  It is not “directly” killed.
There was no “direct” intent to kill a fetus or an unborn child.
There was a “direct” attempt to stop the pregnancy that was killing the
young mother.

So I hope no one posting here will think that Red Beard’s repeated statement
about not killing some one even if you really really want to is valid.
It is not.

As I indicated last night here, I think we will see a complete
re-write of all this in canon law in the years to come.
The church does seek to reform itself, and it revises canon law
periodically.
It is possible that we will see further development
of the idea of “double effect” to specifically cover this type
of situation.

Regardless what the Bishop is advocating and demanding of
St. Joseph’s is illegal as well as immoral.
You may disagree on the “immoral” part, and that is your prerogative,
but the illegal part is clear.

Here is a quote from an article by Jacob M. Appel, May 16,2010
entitled, “After St. Joseph’s, Are Women Still Safe in Catholic Hospitals?” r.

“Olmsted has a reputation as a particularly stone-hearted and intransigent figure, even by the orthodox standards of Vatican hierarchy. He previously gained notoriety for refusing communion to a ten-year-old autistic child who could not swallow and later spearheaded an effort to incorporate local church parishes individually in order to shield the Phoenix archdiocese from suits by sex-abuse victims. He has also been a fierce and vocal critic of President Obama. But Mr. Omsted’s pronouncement—rather than the deranged cries of a renegade cleric—reflect a broader, deeply disturbing trend that is reshaping Catholic healthcare. Earlier this year, I drew attention to the revision of Directive 58, which now prohibits Catholic hospitals from honoring the wishes of patients—both Catholic and non-Catholic—who wish to be removed from unwanted life support equipment such as ventilators. The new policy, like the new abortion rule, is both patently illegal and widely regarded as unethical by mainstream secular and religious thinkers. Inevitably, both policies will be challenged in the courts. However, in the interim, pregnant women must ask themselves whether they can trust their care to any Catholic hospitals in the United States. Without overt assurance from the Vatican, I fear that the answer is a resounding NO.”

The article is easily found online. I encourage all who are concerned to
read it.
As Catholic Health Care in America comes to an end,
we must be clear on why that is happening.

@Anne Rice re. intent.  Intent is an important concept in both canon law and American jurisprudence.  I understand and agree with your argument above.  It is reasoned and forward thinking.  I would only add to your knowledge of intent.  Are you familiar with the concept of mens rea?  Please read here to enhance your understanding of the legal arguments:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea

@Abscissio, your tone is very refreshing.

“”“I think the Bible is clear on the value of family.”“”

This is true, but it cannot be taken apart from the Bible’s clarity in it’s condemnation of murder, and it’s clarity that death is far better than sin.  “Do not fear those who can kill the body ... Fear rather those who can kill the soul.”

“”“murder is a legal term.”“”

No, murder is a term that the legal system uses.  There is a distinction.  If the law suddenly changed and you could legally kill 12 year olds, then by the legal definition, the act of killing an random 12 year old would not be murder.  That is not a definition that I accept.

I am using the term thusly: “Murder - to directly kill an innocent person.”

Of course, there is redundancy in my claim from the previous post with this definition, but it is there for clarity. 

“”“Your definition of innocent and mine are different.  I mean no hostility toward you by saying this.”“”

That’s fine, let’s define and see if there is any common ground.  Innocent to me is one who is not actively attacking or threatening another.  There is a little more nuance to this, but I think this will suffice for the conversation at hand. 

“”“It is a moral failure because sometimes God does ask us to make very hard choices.”“”

I disagree.  God says, “Though Shalt Not Murder.”  I say, “yes God.”

You may have missed the lifeboat analogy:  Imagine a mother and child are in a lifeboat that is 10 days from rescue.  There is enough food and water for one of them to last 10 days but no possibility of both lasting 10 days.  The child will not survive in the boat for 10 days without the mother.  The mother can survive for 10 days without the chid. 

For the consequentialist, the “moral” decision is for the mother to kill her child so that the “ends” - one person living - are better than the ends of both people dying.  The means - murdering the child who is putting the “demands on the system” as one person here put it - are justified by those ends.  The problem with this philosophy is that it can excuse literally any act, no matter how heinous, given dire enough circumstances.  This is not something that a Christian can accept with integrity when Christ told us to take up our crosses and follow Him.

For the Christian, we know that we cannot murder the child even if the failure to murder the child costs us our own life.  The Christian must evaluate the means used to achieve the ends - actively killing the child.  If those means are immoral in themselves, the act is also immoral. 

It is the “hard decision” to decide to trust God instead of playing God; to obey Him even when it is difficult; to choose to not murder a child even though you really really want to.

Re: intent.

An act that is a bad act - cutting an innocent child into pieces - does not become a good act if you have a really good intention as you cut the child to pieces.

Here is a quote from another article by Jacob Appel published on February 10, 2010. Easily found online.

“The first of these disturbing Church salvos against mainstream medical ethics is to be found in the newly promulgated Directive 58 of the United States bishops’ body governing Catholic health care services. This edict states that, barring certain specific circumstances, such as imminent death, Church doctrine prevents competent patients from refusing artificial nutrition and hydration. William Grogan, a religious advisor to Cardinal Francis George of Chicago, explained to the media that death would have to be expected within two weeks for a patient to turn down a feeding tube. In other words, according to current Catholic teaching, a cancer patient in a coma with a life expectancy of four weeks must now be force-fed—no matter what his prior instructions stated and without regard to his family’s wishes. All comatose and vegetative patients will be required to accept nutrition and hydration indefinitely, even if they leave behind air-tight living wills objecting to such “heroic” and invasive measures. This extreme policy apparently applies to all patients receiving care in Catholic-run hospitals, whether or not they are Catholic. Since United States courts have consistently accepted that mentally-competent patients have a right to refuse care if their wishes are clear and documented, these rules may well be illegal. However, even if Directive 58 is not a violation of the law, it is a gross breach of accepted standards of medical ethics. No doctor or nurse in the United States may provide such unwanted nutrition and hydration without defying a well-established code of professional conduct. It is likely that any provider who acted in this paternalistic and unequivocally immoral manner would lose his or her license. In the very least, the provider would become a pariah among his colleagues.”

I think all concerned Catholics should write to their bishops on this,
and also to the ACLU.

Here’s another quote from Jacob. M. Appel (February 10thOfficial

“Church policy on matters such as contraception and end-of-life care, like much Catholic doctrine more generally, is largely honored only in the breach. I have known many excellent physicians over the years, both religious and secular, who work at Church-run hospitals. All of them advise women taking medications that cause birth defects to use contraception and tell HIV-infected patients to use condoms. Many offer direct counseling on abortion, certainly when fetal prognosis is grim. I cannot imagine any of these gifted doctors would force-feed an unwilling cancer patient in violation of an advance directive or a health care proxy’s wishes. Much like the absurd loyalty oath that New York’s college professors—myself included—take to uphold the state’s constitution, any pledge to support Catholic doctrine on medical matters is broadly viewed as a formality to be agreed to and then summarily ignored. Historically, the Church has looked the other way. Now, by challenging this longstanding system of benign neglect, bishops and grass roots zealots may believe they will achieve ideological purity. What they are actually doing is jeopardizing both the welfare of Catholic hospitals and the public health.”

@Anne,

Please stop making such huge quotations.  You can attack the Church just fine on your own.  You don’t need to copy and paste a blow hard here.  No one doubts that you can find people who agree with you.

Jacob M. Appel is not a blow hard.
The point here is not to attack the church.
The point here is that Catholic hospitals in
America are being forced by Bishops to do things
that are illegal, and for that reason, Catholic hospitals
in America might go down.
It does not help Catholics to insulate themselves
from criticism.
Catholics should be informed as to the larger implications of
this discussion.
Remember, that Sr. McBride is Catholic, and so are the
Sisters of Mercy.

Here is another highly relevant quote from
Jacob M. Appel’s February article on these matters,
easily found online.

“Some concrete thinkers may argue that since Catholic hospitals are “private” institutions, the Vatican can impose any rules that it wants. The claim belies the inherently public nature of the American hospital system. Catholic hospitals—like virtually all other hospitals in the Unites States—are only able to function as a result of a swath of government handouts and subsidies. Medicare and Medicaid pay the bills of almost half their patients. Federal funding supports the salaries of their medical residents. NIH Grants sponsor their research and clinical care. Many of the hospital buildings themselves were erected will federal construction dollars providing by the Hill-Burton Act of 1946. Private businesses may have a claim to considerable leeway in formulating their own rules and policies—although even “mom & pop” stores are reasonably prevented from excluding African-American customers and are often required to accommodate disabled shoppers. In theological matters, the Pope is certainly free to issue any decree he likes and those who wish to follow his dictates are entitled to do so. In contrast, Catholic hospitals function as public entities that serve people of all faiths and traditions. A patient in a medical emergency is taken by ambulance to the nearest hospital, not the nearest hospital that shares his social values. A system that operated otherwise would lead to logistical chaos and increased mortality. Once one accepts the premise that Catholic hospitals are public institutions, they have a moral obligation to comply with generally accepted standards of patient care and professional ethics. Today’s hospitals are far more Caesar’s than they are God’s.”

@Red_Beard, I’ve been away and am just starting to catch up.  Give me a little time.  In the meantime, since you appreciate the tone I have brought to the discussion, can you please respond in kind.  Everyone here deserves respect, including Ms. Rice.  I’m fine if she wants us to read something she has found that has made an impression on her.  I think the debate deserves that we all tone it down and approach this with intelligence and good manners.  Just give me some time to read and think.

Red_Beard, just one quick point as I read through all of this.  You said, ““”“Your definition of innocent and mine are different.  I mean no hostility toward you by saying this.”“”

That’s fine, let’s define and see if there is any common ground.  Innocent to me is one who is not actively attacking or threatening another.  There is a little more nuance to this, but I think this will suffice for the conversation at hand.”

A fetus, like it or not, is a parasite within a woman’s body.  We do not like to think of it that way, but it is feeding off of her and requires her for continuing its life until birth.  A parasite can threaten the life of the host (meant in biological terms, not theological).  By your definition, the mother is the innocent and the fetus is not.  Ponder that one.  I do not say that casually.

@Anne,

Please consider linking to the original article and limiting the quotations.

@Abscissio

  With over 300 posts on this thread, and scores attacking me and my Church without rational support, I have not always maintained my patience and courtesy.  I will try again to control my tone. 

  The posts come with furious frequency, take your time catching up and replying. As long as you’re honestly interested in discussing these topics, I’ll be here to talk them over with you.  We’ll probably need to shout over the din from time to time.

There’s no need to shout over the din, Red_Beard.  I’m hearing each one of you and all offer valuable perspectives on the issues.

You are challenging me to reach back in time to my college level Ethics class.  Give me a little time to think through your argument re. consequentialism.  I’m old and have lived a lifetime since studying philosophy.  I must dust away a few cobwebs and refresh my understanding.  I shall return.

“”“A fetus, like it or not, is a parasite within a woman’s body.”“”

Fetus is Latin for baby.  Let’s not use terms designed to hide the personhood of the one we are evaluating killing.

“”“We do not like to think of it that way, but it is feeding off of her and requires her for continuing its life until birth”“”

The baby is utterly dependent on the mother in the womb.  It us utterly dependent on other people after birth.  That does not make it an attacker.  A baby that needs me to change it’s diaper is not attacking me.  An elderly parent that needs financial support isn’t attacking either. 

By the definition I provided, both mother and child are innocent until one attacks another.  In this case, the only attack considered is the attack upon the unborn child.  Dependency is not the same as an attack, just as the child in the lifeboat is not attacking the mother in the life boat.

Red_Beard, I’m well versed in biology and microbiology.  I originally wanted to go to medical school, but decided not to based upon some ethical issues.  A fetus is a parasite.  I can divert this whole discussion with an in depth analysis, using some very complex terms such as eukaryotes, mitosis, etc., but I want to stay focused on the topic at hand.  I did not say that lightly or without a vast knowledge of science.

Red_Beard, I need your help and guidance here.  I do understand consequentialism, but I’m a little confused here.  Ms. Rice mentioned the double effect principle which is a deontological argument (looks to intent to determine whether an action is moral).  Consequentialism looks at the consequences, not the intent to determine the morality.  I am not Catholic, although I was raised in the shadow of Catholicism - my grandmother was lapsed, but never lost her Catholic upbringing.  So, despite that, I am not well-versed in the totality of Catholic ethical analysis of this issue.  Is it a mixture of deontological and consequentialist principles?  I’m having difficulty looking at the Church’s reasoning since you are defining the argument based upon consequentialism.

So, could you elaborate how consequentialism figures into Church canon law?  I can’t see it.

@Abscissio

So far I’ve been arguing about the unreasonableness of other philosophies.  Most of them reduce the problem down too far and say “you just have to worry about this one part of the act,” but I’ll go ahead and explain my own.  I’m not sure what the label for it is, but it is pretty easy to explain. 

An act has three parts: the act itself, the intention, and the circumstances. 

1. the act itself (that which you do) which can be good (spouses making love, feeding the poor) neutral (drinking alcohol, eating food) or bad (attacking an innocent, stealing the just property of another)

2. the intention - can be good (desiring children and unity between spouses, respecting the dignity of the poor) they can be neutral, or they can be bad (desiring to use your spouse as an object of pleasure, not caring about the poor but wishing people to think you are charitable)

3. the circumstances - can be good (ready to have children and provide for them) neutral (I guess) or bad (wife has a medical condition that would make conceiving dangerous)

If any of these three parts are bad, the act itself is bad.  I’ll list a couple types of immoral acts for clarity:

A good act done for bad reasons in good circumstances is immoral.

A good act done for good reasons in bad circumstances is immoral.

A bad act done for good reasons in good circumstances is immoral.

You cannot say that any act done for good reasons is a good act. (deontology?)  Or that any act that has more good than bad come from it is a good act. (consequentialism)  You need to look at all three parts.

The above is basic Catholic moral teaching.  I didn’t make any of it up on my own.  Did I sufficiently answer your question?

Thank you, Red_Beard, but I think we need to look at this even closer.  The Church appears to be looking at this issue from a deontological perspective based upon centuries of looking at ethical arguments.  However, you are using consequentialist arguments and I’m wondering if I’m missing something in Catholic ethics or canon law.  Since this is the Church we’re talking about and they’ve put a lot of brain power behind these position - whether or not I agree with them - I need to stick with their reasoning in order to understand their positions fully and respond to them and to your arguments.  If, as it appears, intent is the guiding factor for the Church, then we must resist talking about consequences.  Canon law seems to indicate that its basis is deontological.

I’m just asking for some guidance here with the philosophical basis for canon law with regard to this issue.  The logic involved in the analysis is very formalized.  I need to know which hat to wear.  We can’t be loosey goosey about it.  I’m finding it muddled right now and I don’t know whether it is my lack of a full understanding or that different logical arguments have been imposed by a general discussion.

I don’t know where you got the idea that you could reduce the Church’s position to deontological or mine to consequentialsism (I’ve spent most of my posts arguing against consequentialism).  You can find the example I described in any authentically Catholic text book. It is straight out of Christian Moral Principals 101.  In fact, that’s where I got it at Franciscan University of Steubenville.  :o)

If you are reading a source that seems to contradict what I’ve laid out as the Catholic position, let me take a look at it.

If you want to argue that you can’t only consider the intent, you will get no argument from me.

The argument appears to be mixed to me.  Aren’t you saying that even if the intent is pure, the consequence of the action is immoral?  That’s consequentialism.  The deontological argument looks at intent to determine morality, not the unintended consequences.  That is why Catholic hospitals can and do perform abortions because the intent is not to kill the child.  That is a consequence of a pure, moral intent.  Thus, the Catholic position is a deontological one, not consequentialist.

I’m not looking at any source.  I’m relying on my basic memory of my philosophical training - rusty with age, but I know the basics.  My philosophy books are unfortunately packed away.  My longtime boyfriend was a medical ethicist, by the way.  We argued these points constantly.  While I am not an expert, I’ve been around the block a few times.  :-)

Red_Beard, I do not mean to abuse you here.  I am merely trying to fully understand the playing field.  All law, whether canon law or the laws of our nation, are based on philosophical principles.  Many claim and understanding of our Constitution without understanding the philosophical basis for the many provisions.  In order for me to understand the canon laws at play here, I am trying to ferret out the philosophical principles that they rely upon.  Forgive me if I seem contentious or a bit too intense.  It is my legal training that requires me to get to the origins of the thinking so I can have reasoned responses to your points and questions.  I am merely seeking to understand this in depth and respond to you intelligently.

I think that, not being a Catholic, you have a misunderstanding of the role that Cannon Law plays.  My understanding is a little vague, but I’ll do my best.

The Church claims to be inspired by the Holy Spirit in it’s teaching only.  It claims that when it teaches something definitively on a matter of faith or morals, that thing is true.  Those are where the principals that it is ruled by live.

As an institution, it needs to have some level of governing rules, if only as a matter of practicality.  What does a priest wear, what are the current cultural conditions for marriage, what penalties apply to a given offense, these are matters of “prudential judgment,” topics that people of good will who embrace the same moral principals can disagree on.  “Cannon Law” is the pope’s law.  It is not protected from error by the Holy Spirit.  It is not a “teaching” but rather a rule book.  If the pope wanted to say that all priests had to wear top hats to say Mass, that is something arbitrary and silly, but still it is something that Catholics are bound to because he’s the pope. 

If you want to say that the Church is wrong on a matter of Cannon Law, I can’t really argue too much.  It’s like saying the speed limit here should be 20 rather than 25.  The conversation doesn’t get very far because, as a matter of prudential judgement, there is room for disagreement.  To some extent, it is arbitrary and there is nothing compelling the faithful to believe that the current Cannon Law is the best possible law.  That being said, if the speed limit is arbitrarily set to 20 and I take it upon myself to drive 25, I still might get a ticket because arbitrary though it may be, 20 is the speed limit.  Does this part make sense?

The part where we can really dig in is the underlying philosophy and teachings that hopefully under-gird the particular Cannon Law.  These are the things that the Catholic Church (and I) profess to be true in all times and for all peoples.  That’s the part, the “right” vs. “wrong,” where disagreements can be meaningful.

“”“Aren’t you saying that even if the intent is pure, the consequence of the action is immoral?  That’s consequentialism”“”

No, it isn’t consequentialism. 

Consequentialism says “An act can be judged solely by the consequences” or “Examining consequences is sufficient to evaluate the morality of an act.”

Deontology says “An act can be judged solely by the intent”  or “Examining the intent of the actor is sufficient to evaluate the morality of an act.”

The Catholic position says that “The act itself (the means) the ends (consequences) or the circumstances (loosely encompasses intent but also more than that) must all be evaluated to know if an act is moral.  If any of these three pieces is immoral in it’s own right, the act is immoral.”

Aside: Unknown consequences don’t really factor in as you can only make a decision based upon what you know, though there is room for negligence if you rightly should have known something.  Fleshing this out completely is far more than a doctorate thesis, so I’ll just stick to answering your question to “scratch where you itch.”

The Catholic position is a stand against the reductionism in the other positions.  They each say “You only need to look at this part.” and thus restrict themselves to too fine a scope to see the whole truth.  Neither consequentialism nor Deontology even leaves room for an act to be wrong in and of itself (Rape, Murder, etc.) which is enough for me to know that they are false. 

In this case, the act itself(means), murdering a child, is intrinsically immoral.  Therefore, nothing can ever make that action moral, no matter how noble the intent nor how positive the consequences.

That is why I can maintain that: “You can not murder an innocent person even if you really really want to.”

Red_Beard, I do understand the distinctions between consequentialism and deontology.  Canon law - not Cannon law . . . little Freudian slip there, my friend? - provides that, when faced with a moral dilemma, a deontological approach can be used.  In other words, the intent must be pure, say to save the mother’s life, but not directly intend to kill a fetus.  Looking to Canon law for guidance, the ethics committee would have known that they weren’t INTENDING to kill a fetus, they were INTENDING to save a life.  The consequence, death of a fetus, was not the driving factor.  No one ever INTENDED to kill a fetus.

However, in the case of excommunication on the grounds that Sr. McBride was excommunicated, the approach is consequentialist.  It doesn’t matter how pure the intent was, it’s the consequence that controls the morality.  It’s a Catch-22 situation.

However, Red_Beard (Barbarossa, as I think of you!), these philosophical debates we are having are moot.  The courts will only pay lip service to them and provide the legal reasoning firmly established in American jurisprudence to analyze the Constitutional issues presented by the denial of service, legal abortions, to pregnant women.

Sr. McBride and the mother in distress provided sympathetic faces for the issue.  The nation has rallied behind her, although she insists on staying out of the limelight.  It only makes her a stronger symbol for a much larger movement.  What is now happening is that others are coming forward with their stories.  What will happen is others were not privy to the ethical debate, but were somehow damaged will want to know if this is what was really going on.  That could be women or their families.  It’s a legal nightmare for hospitals, and I’m sure there will be lawyers specializing in this particular type of harm.  Bishop Olmstead isn’t a good strategist.  He would’ve considered this as a possible outcome if he was.

I need to move on here, Red_Beard.  I have a Christmas celebration to put on.  Please move the debate forward to where it is rightly going.  It just doesn’t matter any more whether or not it was moral.  It has moved into the realm of Constitutional protections and the rights of women.

Abscissio, thanks for another eloquent post.
I would however like to add this.  For me
it does truly matter that Sr. McBride did the
moral thing. 
I hold American laws protecting women to be moral.
I hold women to be integral beings entitled to equal
rights and I hold this to be moral.
That Red Beard and those like him are
advocating rank immorality in ignoring the
rights of women in these situations is crucial
for me.
As I stated before, I think canon law on this
will be rewritten.  There will be more development
of canon law to deal with situations like this.
The tragedy right now as I see it is that
many Catholics simply don’t understand that their
church has a choice on these teachings.  It does not
have to hold a woman utterly incapable of defending her
own life against a fatal and failing pregnancy.
When Catholics invoke the Holy Spirit, and
the Apostolic Succession in discussing the
disastrous policies of one American bishop,
they essentially close their eyes to 2,000 years of
mistakes and missteps on the part of the church.
And they also close their eyes to the fact that their
church constantly corrects its mistakes and tries to
reform itself.
So for me the moral issue and the legal issue
are both of key importance here.
And once again, Red Beard, let me suggest that
no one’s life can be reduced to philosophical arguments and
abstractions.
The root mystery of the Incarnation was that the
Lord Himself became flesh and blood and
is flesh and blood today.
His teachings and His life on earth reflect
a deep involvement with the reality of human
beings, what they live and what they suffer.
I remind you again that Catholics have murdered
many in the name of abstract philosophy and theology.
Sr. McBride did the right thing as a child of Christ
in a real situation.
We should all admire her for this and defend her for it.

Anne, 

Your most receent psoting is eloquent and just beautiful.  You expressed very well what so many here in Phx are thinking and feeling on this issue.

“”“Canon law - not Cannon law . . . little Freudian slip there, my friend?”“”

Maybe, but I just can’t spell, :o) though I must say I enjoy being called your friend.

“”“- provides that, when faced with a moral dilemma, a deontological approach can be used.  In other words, the intent must be pure, say to save the mother’s life, but not directly intend to kill a fetus.”“”

No, see you miss what I’ve tried to explain again.  For the act to be moral, it is true that the intent must be pure, but it is not sufficient for the intent to be pure.  That is, (1)“a pure intent does not automatically mean a moral act” but (2)“an immoral intent automatically means an immoral act.”  Deontology would agree with the second statement but not the first.  Are you familiar with the concept “Neccessary but not Sufficient”?  That’s really all we are talking about here.

I believe that this limited agreement is where the confusion lies.  The Church will make this statement that taken on it’s own, could be agreed to by a deontologist.  (Statement 2) That doesn’t mean that the Church is deontologist as shown by Statement 1 which contradicts deontology but does not contradict Statement 2.  You need more than a cursory look at what the Church is saying.

The Church also has both agreement and disagreement with consequentialists.  That is the Church says: (3)“A good end does not automatically mean a moral act” and (4) “A known evil end automatically makes an act immoral.”  (There is nuance here under the principal of double effect, and we can dig deeper if you like)

A Consequentialist would disagree with statement 3 but would agree with statement 4.

What I’m saying is that maintaining #2 to be true does not make one a deontologist and maintaining #4 to be true does not make one a consequentialist.

A Catholic would also have to consider the intrinsic morality of the means itself, that is: (5)“Moral means (the act itself) do not automatically make the act moral” and (6)“Immoral means automatically make the act immoral.”

The Church claims 1-6 to all be true.  There is no contradiction in these claims.  Several of these claims contradict both deontology and consiquentialism.  Therefore, the Church is neither deontologist nor consequentialist, though it will join both of these philosophies in the limited capacity of condemning certain acts as immoral.

“”“However, in the case of excommunication on the grounds that Sr. McBride was excommunicated, the approach is consequentialist.  It doesn’t matter how pure the intent was, it’s the consequence that controls the morality.  It’s a Catch-22 situation.”“”

There is a difference between an act having consequences and the act being judged in a consequentialist matter.  To explore this side further, we really need to understand the difference between “grave offense” and “mortal sin” which will really cloud the matter if the Church’s position on judging an act is not clear.  We can dig as deep as you like, but let’s make sure we are on the same page about moral judgements (or at least on what the Catholic Church teaches on moral judgements) before we move on to another topic that demands precision.

“”“However, Red_Beard (Barbarossa, as I think of you!)”“”

I love it!  I’ll use it! :o)

“”“these philosophical debates we are having are moot.  The courts will only pay lip service to them and provide the legal reasoning firmly established in American jurisprudence to analyze the Constitutional issues presented by the denial of service, legal abortions, to pregnant women.”“”

Ahh, but only if you acknowledge the authority of the state to keep you bound by an unjust law, which I don’t.  Therefore, the question of the justice of the situation is a paramount concern for me.  Justice first, then legal is worth talking about.  Real absolute Truth first, only after is it worth discussing the arbitrary rules of men.

“”“It’s a legal nightmare for hospitals, and I’m sure there will be lawyers specializing in this particular type of harm.  Bishop Olmstead isn’t a good strategist.  He would’ve considered this as a possible outcome if he was.”“”

Sometimes you have to do what’s right even if it’s hard.

“”“I need to move on here, Red_Beard.  I have a Christmas celebration to put on.”“”

May Christ bless you and those you love as you celebrate His Incarnation.

“”“Please move the debate forward to where it is rightly going.”“”

I’ll try but I’ve not spoken to any as reasonable as you so I fear it may not be possible.  Discussing with you has been a great pleasure. 

“”“It just doesn’t matter any more whether or not it was moral.  It has moved into the realm of Constitutional protections and the rights of women.”“”

This presupposes that the rights of women are divorced from the Moral Law.  This is self contradictory as without the Moral Law, women have no rights. 

Once again, Truth must come before legality, and the Truth of this matter is that you can not murder an innocent person even if you really really want to.

Barbarossa, can you find me a link to the Canon law?  I’m caught up in Christmas preparations, but will be back on my computer later this evening.  I remember going through the law when the Sr. McBride story broke and was struck by the guidance being one philosophical basis (deontological), but the excommunication being based on an opposing philosophical basis (consequentialism).  Just the lawyer in me raising an eyebrow and wondering why this was allowed to co-exist when it’s clearly a Catch-22.

Remember, you are a citizen of the United States and bound to the Constitution.  It is based upon strong moral principles and well reasoned philosophical arguments.  If you find the Constitution repugnant, then you should consider citizenship elsewhere.  Not fighting here.

No more time.  I will be back tonight.  If you can find the Canon law (not a quotation, the body of law), I’ll review it and make my arguments.

Let me applaud Abscissio’s last post,
and also remind you and all Catholics here.
You are living in the United States of America.
Catholics paid a very high price to be accepted as
Americans.
And now I think this Bishop is risking all that has gone
before.
You are not allowed to claim exemption from the laws of
the United States because you are Catholic.
You cannot apply Catholic law to women in hospitals
anymore than Muslims can apply Sharia law.
There are American laws protecting women from you, Red Beard.
For me there is no conflict here between what is moral and what is legal.
I see women as human beings, fully entitled to protection under the law.
But if you don’t see it that way, best go to some other country
where you can control life and death issues involving women.
Here you simply cannot do it.

“”“Barbarossa, can you find me a link to the Canon law?”“”

I have no idea.  Again, I acknowledge that canon law is not directly inspired by the Holy Spirit so people can feel free to disagree with it, though if you acknowledge the authority of the Church (i.e. - You are Catholic) and it is not unjust but merely arbitrary, then you are bound to follow it, just as I am bound to follow arbitrary speed limits as an American.

Here is a link to the totality of Canon Law: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_INDEX.HTM Some of Jimmy’s other blog posts should provide quotes of which parts apply to this instance.

“”“Remember, you are a citizen of the United States and bound to the Constitution.  It is based upon strong moral principles and well reasoned philosophical arguments.  If you find the Constitution repugnant, then you should consider citizenship elsewhere.  Not fighting here.”“”

I don’t find the constitution repugnant, I find it’s common abuse and the systematic rejection of the moral and philosophical principals it is based on repugnant.  Anyways, that isn’t the issue at hand.

If one of man’s laws contradicts reality, truth, or God’s Law (three terms for the same thing in this usage), I will not acknowledge that unjust law.  This is basic civil disobedience, not anything new.  You aren’t “un-American” to refuse to obey an unjust law. 

If there is any question, I give allegiance to my God, my family, and my country in that order.  I love all three very much.

@Anne

“”“Here you simply cannot do it.”“”

Are you having fun? 

In any place, in any time, it remains true that you can not murder an innocent person even if you really really want to. 

Feel free to provide rational arguments to this claim if you disagree, if the attacks are more fun, go ahead and stick with them.  I hope you enjoy yourself.

Barbarossa, I’m sure it’s just frustration.  Ms. Rice is coming from a reasoned, principled, moral position, whether or not you agree with it.  You are both passionate moralists.  Neither one of you are amoral or immoral.

Just take a breath.  Step back.  Look for common ground.  Work from there.

And do let me get some work done.  :-)  My cell phone keeps notifying me that NCR is on fire.

Red Beard it has never been fun posting on this blog.
This blog reveals the dark and bloody side of Catholicism,
and it saddens me to see some of the posts here.
Of course I don’t believe you when you say,
“I hope you enjoy yourself.”  That is simply the kind of cheap
sarcasm and dishonesty that is inveterate in arch conservative Catholic posts.
It does not serve anyone, except perhaps the smug dishonest person who makes the
remark.
I think you understand what is at stake here.
But for others let me reiterate.
There is no consensus among Catholics or believers as
to the Bishop and Sr. McBride.
Many of us believe Sr. McBride was morally right in what she did.
We believe the bishop is wrong.
We also believe it is a deep matter of concern that he is
trying to force a Catholic Hospital to commit to breaking the
law in not providing safe, legal and approved medical services
to dying women in reproductive crises.
I believe this should be of deep concern to all
Catholics and all Americans.
I urge you to protest what the bishop is advocating.
If you truly believe that Sr. McBride was wrong,
and that the Bishop is right, then by all means
support the end of Catholic hospitals in America.
You cannot apply your Catholic law to American women
in contradiction to the laws of this country.
Remember, this is an issue about life and death.
It is not about philosophy or abstractions.
A dying woman was saved from death by Sr. McBride.
Her unborn child could not be saved.
But the hospital did not force the mother to die with it.
I urge those who are concerned here to write
to your local newspapers and your national newspapers.
Alert Catholic journalists like Peggy Noonan and Andrew Sullivan
and David Gibson about this crisis.
Alert the New York Times.

Ms. Rice is absolutely correct here, Red_Beard.  I’ve engaged in this ethical debate with you to try to show you the Catch-22 in the situation and how damaging that can be to all parties, including the Church.  Ms. Rice is correct to keep the focus of the debate on the larger issues of the Church as a member of society and what it means to be a good citizen of this country.  The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, not the Catholic canon law.  The Catholic church must coexist with our nation and that requires honoring our Constitution and the laws derived therefrom.  You are walking a fine line between civil disobedience and sedition.  Proceed with caution.

When women, irregardless of religious beliefs, seek care at a Catholic hospital and are denied life-saving, legal procedures, Ms. Rice and the many others, including myself, have the right to speak out and alert others that our laws are being broken and that this poses an enormous, life-threatening risk to all women, not just Catholic women.  You would be equally alarmed if Sharia laws were imposed on our citizens.

@Abscissio

“”“The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, not the Catholic canon law.”“”

I acknowledge no law but God’s law to be supreme.

“”“You are walking a fine line between civil disobedience and sedition.”“”

If the government of our county went so far against the moral law that there where no other option, then sedition would be the only moral course.  I hope we never get there.
“”“I’ve engaged in this ethical debate with you to try to show you the Catch-22 in the situation”“”

I’m afraid I don’t see it yet as the catch-22 you’ve described comes from a misunderstanding of the Church’s position as I’ve tried to explain.  Neither consequentialism, nor deontology, is sufficient.

“”“When women, irregardless of religious beliefs, seek care at a Catholic hospital and are denied life-saving, legal procedures, Ms. Rice and the many others, including myself, have the right to speak out “”“

But in this context, Anne is dishonestly representing the positions I’ve maintained throughout the course of our conversation and the position of the Catholic Church.  There are pieces of her posts which are fine (honest disagreement), and one can feel free to agree with them. 

The crux to me is that she has formed an unjust representation of my statements (and the Church’s) and maintains her unjust representation is the true representation.  I can even understand this in the case of the Church because even though the positions it holds are very easy to find, it is an abstraction. 

I, however, am a man and as such I can and have clarified my positions when she repeatedly misrepresents them.  She is disregarding all of these clarifications and explanations.  She has maligned and attacked me in ways that have nothing to do with the reality of any statements I have made.  She has recruited many people to do the same.  This isn’t an honest mistake, it is a blatantly dishonest smear.  This doesn’t stop her from lying about my position, and it is rather tiring.

My position should be very clear to anyone who can read.  One can not murder an innocent person even if you really really want to.

“”“and alert others that our laws are being broken and that this poses an enormous, life-threatening risk to all women, not just Catholic women.  You would be equally alarmed if Sharia laws were imposed on our citizens. “”“

No, we are discussing truth first and then law.  Only apart from absolute truth can you describe the situation as “life-threatening risk to all women.”  You reduce things too far by ignoring the fact that you are advocating the willful murder of the child.  We need to understand reality before we decide how to speak out about and respond to it.

I would be as opposed to sharia law because it is not in accord with reality.  The moral reasoning I have proposed (and was taught by the Church) is not bound to any faith, it is attainable by reason alone.  So far, the attacks on my position have not been rational attacks in the main (I have enjoyed you’re words as the notable exception).  @Anne and her friends find it sufficient to say I hate women and I murder people.

Red Beard, obviously, if you want to recognize “God’s law” (or your understanding of it) as supreme, that is your right.  However, out here in the world,that is not workable because:

1. The USA hs no official/government sponsored religion.  We are a nation of diverse peoples, faiths, beliefs.  You cannot impose nor can Bishop Olmsted impose religious belief as superceding civil law. This came up in the priest pedophile scandals. Somehow the bishops decided that they did have to go to civil authorities when they knew crimes had been committed.  They just believed that they did not have to abide by civil law.  This was incorrect.  No Catholic, bishop or otherwise is above the law of the land.  St. Joseph’s is a licensed hopsital.  There are federal and state statutes and regulations it must abide by.  One of these fedeal statutes involves providing treatment in the ER when a patients presents with a life-threatening condition.  Legally and ethically, hopsital staff at St. Joseph’s had to work to save the life of the mother.  Not to do woould have an act of medical malpractice and probably an act of criminal homicide under AZ law ( I am an attorney).  The bishop has not stood up to say that he will serve a prison sentence if hospital staff act in accordance with his wishes and commit a crime.  If he really beleives what he says, then he should be willing to go to prison in place of nay hopsital staff member who abides by his fiat.  Given his predecessor’s unwillingness to believe he should go to prison for killing a pedestrian, I can’t see that Bishop Olmsted will embrace that option either.  Bishops like their privileges.

2.  The bishop seeks to impose his position upon all women, regardless of religious belief, who are patients at St. Joseph’s.  In emergency situtations, patients often do not have a choice as to which hospital they are brought to—EMT bring patients to the closest hospital.  Federal law prohibits transfering gravely ill patients/those in imminent danger of death, to other facilities.  The bishop seeks to require that all women, regardless of faith, risk being marytrs to the Catholic faith as he interprets it.  If a woman willingly embraces such marytrdom, that is one thing.  But to impose it, require it of potentially all pregnant women who come to St. Joseph’s is very very wrong.  In Genesis, we are told that women are made in the image of God—our lives are as sacred as men’s lives.

And lastly, I know Sr. Margaret & others on the St. Joseph’s ethics committee—I can assure you that no one wanted to murder an innocent life.  The committee beleived they acted in accordance with Catholic healthcare directives.

Lisa Kaiser, these are excellent points.
I think you are right to relate the bishop’s disregard
of American law here to the disregard of American
law shown by bishops confronted with complaints of
clergy sexual abuse.
The church is again and again tempted to see itself
as a separate entity, superior to, and immune to the
laws of this country.
Clergy abuse was hushed up as bishops sheltered the criminals.
This bishop seeks to persuade the hospital that it might impose
his thinking on all women, regardless of their rights as Americans.
We need to remind Catholics
that this is simply not their option here.
I thank you for clarifying these things.
I hope and pray that the press will play a vital role
here——as it did and continues to do in the clergy abuse
scandal—- in holding the church to account for its attempts to
ignore the law and break the law.
Again, I want to assure people reading this blog
that Red Beard does not represent any consensus amongst
Catholics that this bishop is right.
He has been widely and roundly criticized for his position.
Many Catholics have stood up for Sr. McBride and
for the hospital.
Moral issues and legal issues here should concern everyone.

“”“However, out here in the world,that is not workable because:”“”

This would be true if any of the claims I’ve made could not be known by reason alone.  I am not appealing to Divine Revelation to support my claims.  Reason can quite clearly tell us, as Plato said, “it is better to suffer evil than to commit it.”

None of my arguments have ever been “Because God said so.”

All have been based on understanding reality.  Feel free to provide an argument on that basis.

Reason alone can tell us that you can not murder an innocent person

Red Beard writes,  ——-“Reason alone can tell us that you can not murder an innocent person”
apparently offering this as the reason to condemn Sr. Margaret McBride
for providing a life saving abortion to a dying mother.
But this really is a false statement.

Reason alone cannot tell us any such thing, because innocent persons
in varying circumstances throughout history have been murdered by other
innocent persons, and some threatened to the point of death by those
other innocent persons, so that they have defended themselves.
What reason tells us is that life and death are crucial issues,
and that we must never never take the life of any person
without some very profound justification of it.
Self defense is one such justification.
If your church had not found justification for Thomas More burning alive
heretics at the stake,
if Christians soldiers did not in all ages participate in “just” wars
that involve the murder of innocent women, pregnant women and children,
one could take this rhetoric seriously.
But in fact the Roman Catholic Church sanctions the murder of innocent
people all the time, for a variety of reasons.
And to withdraw all “reason” from the case of this dying mother,
to withdraw all right from her to defend herself against a pregnancy that is
killing her is not reasonable.
And it is not moral.
And it is not consistent with your church’s teachings.
In the real world in which we live we must face
the true situation of human beings,
those threatened in war,
those in a state of “moral helplessness” in war,
and those who in defense of country, or life and limb, have
had to kill innocent persons.
In light of this, I argue
that a unique and unfair standard is applied here by
Red Beard and Catholics like him to this
young mother.
I argue that this standard is inconsistent with the standards
applied to soldiers in war, and to the
entire history of the murder of the innocent throughout the ages.
This young mother acted in self defense.
The innocent life of the unborn is not superior to her innocent life as
a young woman.
She is not the chattel or the slave of her unborn child.
She is a person.

Certainly it would have been better that no one die in this circumstance
or in any circumstance.
But to deny this woman the dignity of preserving her own life
is neither reasonable nor moral.

“”“If your church had not found justification for Thomas More burning alive
heretics at the stake,
if Christians soldiers did not in all ages participate in “just” wars
that involve the murder of innocent women, pregnant women and children,
one could take this rhetoric seriously. “”“

Ad Hominem.  I told you that I would explore the issue of St. Thomas Moore with you if you’d care to provide sources.

“”“The innocent life of the unborn is not superior to her innocent life as a young woman. “”“

Agreed.  It does not logically follow that the mother is superior to the child, which would have to be concluded to justify murdering the child.

“”“Many Catholics have stood up for Sr. McBride and
for the hospital.”“”

No orthodox Catholics have.  You aren’t really a Catholic if you reject the infallible teaching of the Church that one can not murder an innocent person.

Red Beard you said, “I acknowledge no law but God’s law to be supreme.”  Semms to me that is a big “Because God said so” and an ” appeal to Divine Revelation”.

Again, you are of course free to recognize as supreme whatever law you like.  But you cannot expect that your understanding of what is supreme law to be the law that all American citizens abide by.  Because:

1.  In America there is separation of Church & state. 
2.  Government’s role is not to impose your (or Bishop Olmsted’s) understanding of what God’s law is on every other citizen
3. Your understanding of God and of God’s law is just that—your personal understanding.  You may think you are correct in your understanding—but it is purely a personal thing to you and you alone.
4. Civil law is what controls how hospitals operate, even Catholic hospitals.  Catholic hsopitals understand this or they could not function legally.  And they all do function legally.

You also said in a post today (12/2), “In any place, in any time, it remains true that you can not murder an innocent person even if you really really want to.”  You also said today, “Reason alone can tell us that you can not murder an innocent person.”  These statements make no sense.  Innocent people are murdered all the time, all around the world, on a daily basis.  So I am not certain what you mean (or think you mean) by these statements.

As for Plato, he was not at St. Joseph’s the day hospital staff had to mke a choice between letting two lives end or saving one.  Saving the one that could be saved was no evil, but a true pro-life position.  What Bishop Olmsted advocates is a pro-death, pro-crime position.

Red Beard, I must
say that your arguments are sophistry.
If you are not familiar with canon law on the
subject, I suggest you read it.
In the meantime, I urge all Catholics to
stand up to the Bishop.
Stand up for Sr. McBride.
And let us thank God that the
young mother is alive this Christmas
with her husband and her children.

Red Beard,

Only God’s teachings are infallible.  The Church is a human institution, run by human beings.  Its teaching are not infallible.  Nor have they been unchanging over the centuries.

It serves the hierarchy and its love of privilege and the status quo to assert that their teachings are the teachings of God and are infallible.  In some instances the teaching of the Church may reflect God’s message, but certainly not always, and not without error.

I am looking into all of this more deeply, as I only intended to weigh in on the Constitutional issues.  I have read Bishop Olmstead’s letter to the president of CHW.  He states in his rebuttal “While the issues discussed in the moral analysis you provided are certainly technical and deeply philosophical, they are also foundationally “theological.” And the theology of the Catholic Faith, as concretized in the Code of Canon Law, dispels any doubt whose opinion on matters of faith and morals is decisive for institutions in the Diocese of Phoenix.”

Red_Beard, you have argued deceptively.  The Church considers Canon Law to be the embodiment of the Catholic Faith.  Yet, ytu say, “I have no idea.  Again, I acknowledge that canon law is not directly inspired by the Holy Spirit so people can feel free to disagree with it, though if you acknowledge the authority of the Church (i.e. - You are Catholic) and it is not unjust but merely arbitrary, then you are bound to follow it, just as I am bound to follow arbitrary speed limits as an American.”

You’re winging it here.  You didn’t even grasp deontology when we first started that debate.  How can I have a reasoned debate with you when you don’t even grasp the fundamentals of your faith?

“”“The Church considers Canon Law to be the embodiment of the Catholic Faith.”“”

This bishop used words that could be construed in that manner in a private letter to one he was trying to shepherd. This is not the same as saying that the Church considers canon law to be the embodiment of the Faith.  I am open to correction on this matter from knowledgeable Catholic sources, but I have represented the faith as I understand it.  At no point has the Church claimed Canon Law to be infallible.  If anyone can illustrate otherwise, I will apologize, and thank them for increasing my own understanding.  I certainly meant no deception and I still believe my representation to be correct.

“”“You’re winging it here.”“”

Granted.  I’m just a man, but I’m doing my best and I believe that my fundamental claims have never been answered.

“”“You didn’t even grasp deontology when we first started that debate.”“”

Very true.  I have heard this and other terms used in a conflicting manner several times.  I did not know, and still am unsure of, the particular way that you are using various terms.  I’ve tried to provide definitions and ask questions to clarify as we went along.  No one has said, “Yeah, that’s how I’m using the term.”  or “No, I mean this meaning:..” 

Deontology, as defined on this thread and by Immanual Kant, (“Nothing in the world—indeed nothing even beyond the world—can possibly be conceived which could be called good without qualification except a good will.”) is not Catholic teaching.  I never said it was. I gave explicit examples of the incompatibility of such a philosophy with Catholic Teaching.

You seem to be applying labels to my Church that do not fit and then you are chastising me for not embracing those labels or disagreeing with their use.

You are an outsider to the Catholic Faith.  You are reading a sound bite here or there and making up your own mind what that isolated piece of data means apart from the greater context of Catholic Teaching.  I have already shown in the post about the “6 statements” that the Church makes statements that deontologists can agree with and statements that they can not.  The same relationship exists with the consequentalists.  There is limited overlap (1 in 6 statements) with both of these philosophies, but you are taking that as sufficient to label the Church as deontological and me as consequentialist.  This is exceedingly frustrating.

I’m rather disappointed by this turn of tone. 

For clarification for any who missed the 6 statements that clarify how Catholic Moral Teaching can be categorized:

(1)“a pure intent does not automatically mean a moral act”

(2)“an immoral intent automatically means an immoral act.”

(3)“A good end does not automatically mean a moral act”

(4) “A known evil end automatically makes an act immoral.”  (There is nuance here under the principal of double effect, and we can dig deeper if you like)

(5)“Moral means (the act itself) do not automatically make the act moral”

(6)“Immoral means automatically make the act immoral.”

A deontologist would agree with #2 but disagree with #1, #4, & #6 So the Catholic Church is not deontological.

A consequentialist would agree with #4 but disagree with #2, #3, and #6 so the Catholic Church is not consequentialist.

All of these propositions (1-6) can be known by reason alone, though no one seems willing to explore this with me.  None are a case of “Because God said so.”

Using my reason, along with Plato, I will continue to maintain that “it is better to suffer evil than to commit it.”

And I will persist in pointing out the universally applicable truth that “You can not murder and innocent person, even if you really really want to.”

Anne,

You have repeatedly claimed that men in the Church (St. Thomas More, soldiers, etc.) have killed the innocent.  If I understand you rightly, this is a bad thing.  Yet rather than advocate that we should stop the practices you claim; you are advocating that women should take their place in these ranks of those doing great harm to the innocent.  That is not a reasonable argument to take.  If killing the innocent is something you are opposed to men doing, you should be equally opposed to women doing it.

Sara, a church that can make a complex and nuanced
argument to justify American Catholic soldiers going to
war and participating in battles that involve the death of
innocent civilians, can indeed work out a complex
and nuanced argument to support a woman in
defending her life against a fatal and failing pregnancy.
That is my point.
To put it another way,
the church is applying a unique and hypocritical
standard to a woman in a reproductive crisis.
The standards for men allow them to defend their
lives and defend their country.

Regarding Thomas More and his heretic burning,
the Catholic church has famously condoned the use of torture and
cruel execution against people.
So it lacks all credibility when it argues that
absolutely pure and arbitrary standards must apply
to a dying mother who can be saved by an abortion.

I do not advocate that anyone imitate the Roman Catholic
Church’s record of slaughtering the innocent.
Or that anyone imitate Thomas More in burning people alive.

What I am saying is your church has no credibility.
And its “arguments” to denounce Sr. McBride
are ludicrous in light of what has always been
justified by Catholics.

My wish is that no body is ever tortured or executed, or
bombed, or exterminated, or killed.

But I wish is also that a woman be allowed to defend her
life in a reproductive crisis.

The same theologians and canon lawyers who have
worked out the complex arguments to enable Catholic soldiers
to fight for their country can
spend some time focusing on, and responding to what
happens when a young mother of four is dying from a fatal and failing pregnancy.

I encourage Catholics to question their bishops, their theologians
and canon lawyers.

Lisa,

Believe it or not, we do understand that the laws of the United States are separate from the natural moral law, Divine Law, and canon law.  By and large we have no problems with this.  We are able follow U.S. law without conflict.  We give due respect to legitimate and proper authority.  However, we have the right to freedom of religion; now just to believe what we will, but to follow that belief.

In the case of abortion we have a conflict with our country’s law.  One must yield; the lower (man made) law to the higher (natural moral/universal law).  You would give us our right with one hand and take it away with the other. 

Are we free to practice our belief that an unborn child is a person of equal dignity to ourselves and therefore, because the have done nothing and are innocent, that we cannot kill them?

Sarah, in an American hospital you are NOT free
to deny a safe, legal, medically recommended procedure
to a dying mother—- because of your Catholic beliefs.
You cannot abandon her to die because you do not believe in
aborting her unborn child.  That is NOT your prerogative under
the laws of the United States.
Of course you are free to believe what you wish in your own
home, or in your church.
But you cannot deny American women safe, legal and medically recommended
life saving care when they need it.
We are a nation of laws and standards.
If you insist on doing this in a Catholic hospital, you must be
prepared to go to jail for your beliefs.
And the hospital must prepare to be investigated and prosecuted,
and closed.

As just about everyone knows, all kinds of people use
Catholic hospitals.  Catholic hospitals take federal funds.
They serve communities.  They run community Emergency rooms.

That means that they serve Americans, Catholic and non-Catholic.
They cannot deny Americans standard health care simply because those Americans
are women.

This crisis was probably inevitable.
And frankly I think, for the sake of all women in America,
it has to be faced.

Dearest Anne,

Don’t you have a vampire book deadline to meet?  Or are you perhaps testing out a new series here:  The Blog Haunting?

You can pontificate and play righteous all you like here, but you’re revealing far more about yourself than you are the Catholic Church and Bishop Olmstead. 

But don’t let that stop you, lady from La Mancha!  Tilt on!

Margaret S. 
Some public discussions are worth
considerable time and effort.
The case of Sr. McBride is one of them.
And the issues raised by Bishop Olmsted
have serious implications for all Catholics.

There is always the chance here that one person
will be reached.  One person will become curious enough
to investigate the Bishop and his position a little further.
One person may be prompted to question the Bishop’s position.

To reach even one person makes my efforts here worth it.

I thought this was a wonderful post to which you gave short-shrift, Anne (by Mike Petric).  By doing so, you rather exposed yourself here -  propagandist rather than genuine seeker.  After reading your entries here, I wonder if perhaps the Wikipedia page on your vampire characters perhaps sheds some light you:  “The main characteristic of Rice’s vampires is that they are all excessively emotional, sensitive, and sensual, being easy prey to intense suffering and aesthetic passions.”  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Vampire_Chronicles

Originally Posted by Mike Petrik above:

Anne,
Instead of emoting, take a deep breath and try to read the following, applying reason rather than pop feminism:

Assume that it is known to a moral certainty that the only available options were either (i) do nothing and both mother and baby die or (ii) directly kill the baby so that the mother can live.

Catholic teaching is clear that the direct taking of an innocent human life is always wrong. That is the point of Directive 45. Catholic teaching does, however, permit in some cases the indirect taking of a life under the principle of double effect. This is the point of Directive 47. But the key is the word “effect.” In order to be permitted the action cannot be the direct taking of the life (i.e., an abortion). But instead the action must be a treatment of the mother than has as an indirect consequence the (i.e., the second effect) of death, even the foreseeable or inevitable death, of the baby. This is why a pregnant mother can ingest medicines or receive therapies directed to curing a pathology even though such medicines or therapies are understood to be harmful, or even lethal, to the baby. Based on the facts as reported in the Hospital’s own statement it appears that the procedure approved was a direct abortion prohibited under Directive 45 and not a non-abortive procedure permitted under Directive 47.

The Hospital appeared to have tried to suggest that Directive 47 permits direct abortions if necessary to save the life of the mother (at least if it is understood that the baby will eventually die anyway), but such a suggestion is not tenable. The meaning of Directive 47 is well-established and fully understood by all competent ethicists. Accordingly, it does appear that the Hospital violated its own Directives and in doing so also violated rather unambiguous Catholic moral teaching.

Some have asserted that Catholic moral teaching is simply wrong in this case, and therefore the Hospital should be congratulated for its courage to follow the consciences of its Ethics Committee rather than Church teaching. In particular, these critics of Church teaching claim that at the very least the teaching is inadequate to address this rather rare situation in which the baby was going to die regardless whether option (i) or (ii) is elected. This analysis is basically one of consequentialism, which evaluates moral choices by examining outcomes. In other words the ends justify the means. Many moral thinkers have advanced this utilitarian approach, but the approach has be explicitly rejected by the Church.

The Church’s view can perhaps better be crystallized by the following hypothetical: Gunman breaks into home. He tells mother that he will kill both husband and daughter unless mother shoots and kills daughter, in which case husband will live. Mother is confronted with two outcomes: one with both daughter and husband dead, the other with just daughter dead. Catholic moral teaching plainly would not permit Mother to kill her innocent daughter, even though daughter would die anyway.

Another hypothetical: Pregnant mother is dying and unconscious. Baby can be saved, but only by directly killing mother (in other words, there is no treatment of the baby as such — or the mother). Catholic moral teaching would not permit the direct killing of the mother, even if such killing allowed the baby to survive and even if baby and mother would both die otherwise.

Last one: Terrible war is raging. In order to secure a just victory our army will have to take up to one million casualties and enemy casualties would include ten times that number with many innocent civilians as “collateral damage.” One bomb successfully and intentionally targeted at 50,000 innocent civilians (not a military target) would force a peace. Catholic teaching would not permit such direct and intentional bombing of innocent civilians, even though it is believed with great confidence that many more lives would be saved.

Now, admittedly these are all very tough cases. And I would never judge the soul of those who would lack the moral fortitude to resist the temptation to commit an immoral act under such horrible circumstances. And I am sympathetic to the position that Sister McBride was in. I don’t know what I would have done under her circumstances; just as I don’t know what I would have done in Truman’s shoes. I’m just a sinner relying on God’s mercy. That said, I would not try to explain to God or His Church why my intentional taking of an innocent life was not a sin. Good people do and can commit sin in order to obtain good outcomes, and it is tempting indeed to conflate good outcomes with good reasons. This appears to be what the Hospital did.  While moral utilitarians are free to disagree (they view good outcomes and good reasons as more or less coterminous), as are those who do not regard an unborn baby as human life, the moral calculus under Catholic teaching and our Creator’s Natural law is quite clear.

Recent reports state that Sister McBride now also agrees that she made a moral error, and that her excommunication has now been lifted.  That is exceedingly happy news.

Ann, others have tried to reason with you, but you just emote and make assertions.  Try to reason instead.  If you think the reasoning above is incorrect, explain why.  Use logic.

Above, I wrote, “After reading your entries here, I wonder if perhaps the Wikipedia page on your vampire characters perhaps sheds some light you.” 

I meant to write, “After reading your entries here, I wonder if perhaps the Wikipedia page on your vampire characters sheds some light on you.”

Margaret S.,
I’ve made my position clear here. You can refer back to my
earlier posts.  I think the points you are making have been
well covered.

I support Sister McBride and the hospital.
I hope the hospital will stand up to the bishop.

This quote from your post is worth repeating: 

“Some have asserted that Catholic moral teaching is simply wrong in this case, and therefore the Hospital should be congratulated for its courage to follow the consciences of its Ethics Committee rather than Church teaching. In particular, these critics of Church teaching claim that at the very least the teaching is inadequate to address this rather rare situation in which the baby was going to die regardless whether option (i) or (ii) is elected.”

However I should like to clarify that
many hold that Sr. McBride was in accord with Church teaching,
and with the directives governing this type of situation.

I think it is a good idea to remind readers here….
assuming there are any….
that many many Catholics agreed with Sr. McBride, and
still do.

Anne,

If imprisonment or murder are my only options, I’d take imprisonment.  Because I’d rather suffer evil than commit it.

As it is, and I’m not an expert, I was under the impression that American hospital staff could follow their consciences, though some are actively trying to take that freedom away.

If Catholic hospitals are the only hospitals in some areas (as you have claimed), and you are for the removal of Catholics from the medical system, you are for the removal of medical care from those areas.  I wonder if those communities, women, pregnant woman, and children will thank you for your crusade against Catholic hospitals if you get your wish and shut them all down?

Margaret, I don’t get it - you say that Anne is pontificating - what do you call what Red Beard is doing?  I find your remarks about Anne, who is trying to have a civil discussion about something that she passionately believes and cares about, extremely insulting.  And, I might add, very unChristian.

Please, spare the insults, and say something intelligent about this very important issue.

@Anne,

I think Sarah is on to something.  You are ticked that men have gotten away with murdering innocents so often and you think that the only way to correct the injustice is to allow women to have their turn murdering innocents.  It seems very consistent with your posts.

“”“However I should like to clarify that
many hold that Sr. McBride was in accord with Church teaching”“”

This merely means that many Catholics are bad Catholics who don’t understand basic Church teaching. 

Whether you agree with it or not, (and we all know that you don’t) it is dishonest to misrepresent the Church’s clear teaching that you can not murder an innocent human person even if you really really want to.

@Margaret S.

What an awesome post!  Thanks for taking the time.

Everyone on both sides of this issue needs to read Margaret S.‘s long post from 11:29.  It is incredibly clear, eloquent, and rational. 

Whether you agree or not, if you are a thinking person, you owe it to yourself to make sure you at least understand her position (The Church’s position) before continuing to post on this thread.

Sarah, there are limits to following your conscience.
Your right to follow your conscience has to be balanced
against a patient’s right to safe, legal and medically recommended
treatment.
If Catholics are not comfortable with such limitations, there is an
easy solution: don’t work in a hospital.
But if you do work in one, you are bound by the standards and ethics
that govern hospitals in this country.
A patient brought into a hospital Emergency room has a right to a
certain level of care.
Such a patient is never at the whim of the individual conscience of
various members of the staff.

You have misunderstood my intentions here with regard to Catholic medical
care.  It is not I who want to see the “removal of Catholics from the medical
system.”
Nor would I ever want to prevent any community from getting health care services.
I am a firm believer in quality health care for every person in this country.
That’s one of the main reasons I’m posting here.
I believe in quality health care for everyone, including women.

The point I have tried to make over and over again is this:
if Catholic hospitals will not be bound by the laws and standards of our
country,
if they will not extend quality care to ALL patients, including pregnant women,
they will probably be forced to go out of business.
And that is as it should be.

I ask that you not trivialize my position or distort it. 
I am not on a crusade against Catholic hospitals.
I fully support St. Joseph’s Hospital and Sr. McBride,
and the Sisters of Mercy. 
I have made that clear over and over again.

If the bishop forces this hospital to promise to
refuse safe, legal and appropriate medical care to
women, it is the Bishop who will probably bring about the
end of Catholic Health care in America.
I understand that the man thinks he is right.
But I support the hospital which also think that it is right.

I urge all Catholics to take an interest in this discussion,
because it has immense consequences for all Americans.

Well, I read it wrong.  It is still an awesome post that everyone should read, but it was originally posted by Mike Petrik and reposted by Margaret S.

Still, if you are a thinking person, you owe it to yourself to at least take the time to understand the argument.

Margaret S., thanks again for reposting it.

Sandra, I thank you for your post. You’ve made an excellent point.

I learned a long time ago that the constructive
way to approach a discussion like this is to
stay on topic, and do the best you can to be honest
and sincere.
I think that the controversy involving Bishop Olmsted
and Sr. Margaret McBride is well worth our best efforts,
even here at a blog that few people may be reading.

I do my best to ignore the attempts to trivialize my
intentions and my positions.

Let me say again:
I support Sr. McBride and the hospital.
I think the Bishop is misguided.
I think he is attempting to get the hospital to agree
to do things that are illegal.
And that this may prove disastrous for Catholic health care in America.

What is most important to me here is this: the value of human life.
The mother’s life could easily have been lost in this situation, had she
been neglected and abandoned to die in the early stages of a fatal and
failing pregnancy.
Sr. McBride saved the woman’s life.
I stand behind Sr. McBride.
I stand behind the hospital.
I urge all Catholics to stand up to the bishop,
and to support Sr. McBride and the hospital.

And again, Anne, you failed to seriously interact with the substance of Mike Petrik’s very well laid-out explanation.  As he said when you did the same thing the first time, that’s sad.  Instead you basically just restated your beliefs.  Well, you’ve done that….and done that…..and done that.  Everyone who isn’t blind knows what “your position” is.  You’ve gone back and forth here between chastising people for not making what you consider to be serious arguments to giving the kind of non-answer answer you gave again above to Petrik. 

Personally, I don’t care what you think others have or have not argued in support of Sr. McBride and against Bishop Olmstead, the Pope or the Dalai Lama for that matter.  YOU are the one effectively commandeering this combox as if you know enough to publicly condemn Bishop Olmstead and the Catholic Church.  Therefore YOU are the one that needs to defend that condemnation.  Posts like the one made by Mike Petrik expose that you’re not really making serious, rational arguments here, Anne.  Your arguments just occasionally *appear* to be.  When confronted by someone with a solid understanding of Catholic teaching like Petrik, your lack of depth and understanding is exposed.  And instead of humbly admitting that, you retreat to what others have said and simply restate your opinion.

It seems clear that you’re having an emotional reaction to this case and are trying to cloak it in rationality -  at least from time to time, when you feel that you have an advantage over someone here.  The more I think about it, the more I think the Wikipedia description of your vampires is remarkably insightful about their creator.

“The main characteristic of Rice’s vampires is that they are all excessively emotional, sensitive, and sensual, being easy prey to intense suffering and aesthetic passions.”  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Vampire_Chronicles

Now, one thing is clear.  You have an enormous amount of discretionary time.  Good for you.  Unfortunately (or fortunately?), I do have other pressing responsibilities.  I suggest you come up for air, go out and live and get some perspective.  You’re obsessing here.  I apologize if that seems uncharitable, but as you seem to think it your job wake everyone else up here at this blog, I think it’s a fair comment.

I sincerely pray you the peace of Christ as we prepare to celebrate the fact of His birth.

Here is a quote from an article that appeared in
May of this year when the case first made the news.
Perhaps this will help to clarify my position:

“Our moral teaching allows soldiers to kill people, so long as their intention is otherwise. St. Augustine said one could kill an enemy, so long as your intention was to love the enemy at the same time. Why does McBride’s action, which may not have involved intentional killing, and which saved the mother’s life, deserve such immediate condemnation?
Maybe it’s that Catholic Worker background of mine, but a moral teaching that full heartedly supports the destruction of war and its supposedly non-intentional killing, yet condemns McBride’s action just confuses me.”—-  Joshua J. McElwee’s blog

“If the bishop forces this hospital to promise to
refuse safe, legal and appropriate medical care to
women”

Anne, you ignore all discussion on whether or not it is “appropriate medical care to women.”

If Catholic hospitals are the chronic offenders of basic medical treatment and discriminating against many people, especially women, like you claim, why haven’t they all been shut down already?  Catholics must have built them all so that we could be horrible to people, right?

Sarah, you ask:

“If Catholic hospitals are the chronic offenders of basic medical treatment and discriminating against many people, especially women, like you claim, why haven’t they all been shut down already?”

Let me suggest that you google the articles of Jacob M. Appel on this subject, and also
google the ACLU and their articles on the subject.

Very possibly Catholic hospitals will be shut down in the future,
or they will refuse to honor the wishes of Bishop Olmsted and bishops like him.

Whatever the outcome, I think all Catholics, and frankly all Americans, should
be concerned with this issue.

@Anne,

Quoting someone who misquotes St. Augustine doesn’t exactly prove your point.

Margaret, I have never felt compelled to respond to every single
comment posted here.

The discussion cannot really be structured or controlled by any one
poster.

This is a conversation.

I welcome this opportunity to draw the attention of people
to what I consider to be some very serious moral and legal issues.

http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/blog/?p=8409

The above article in Commonweal provides an interesting
exploration of the original case. Recommended.

Sara, a church that can make a complex and nuanced argument to justify American Catholic soldiers going to war and participating in battles that involve the death of innocent civilians, can indeed work out a complex
and nuanced argument to support a woman in defending her life against a fatal and failing pregnancy. That is my point.

To put it another way, the church is applying a unique and hypocritical
standard to a woman in a reproductive crisis. The standards for men allow them to defend their lives and defend their country.

Excellent argument, Ms. Rice.  Truthfully, I had not considered this and find it to be a brilliant argument.

Many of us outside the Catholic Church watch in horror at what appears to be a concerted campaign against women.  It is inconceivable to us that where one life can be saved, the church forces the mother to die to preserve dogma.  Isn’t this failure to act a form of murder?  Surely it is premeditated in that it was planned and thought out in advance.

The moral dilemma presented here is not a choice between whether the mother or the child will survive.  There are few women who wouldn’t choose to save their child.  Here, the fetus cannot survive without the mother.  Only the mother can survive.  The Church, instead, chooses to execute the mother, an innocent.  Incomprehensible in a moral and just society.

If a building is burning and there are two people inside, but you only have the time to save one, do you not make the difficult choice and allow both to die?  Of course not.  In high risk pregnancies involving twins, sometimes a decision has to be made to sacrifice one twin so the other may live.  These tough decisions are made in hospitals all over the country, Catholic hospitals included.  Will the Catholic Church be instructing Catholic hospitals that both twins must die?  How far does this dysfunctional logic extend?

Is the Church saying here that the sanctity of life does not apply to women?  How is the decision to allow a woman in reproductive crisis to die who could be saved morally consistent with the opposition to remove life support in the Teri Schiavo case?

However, as I have argued above, these moral questions have sprung outside the confines of Catholicism and Catholic hospitals.  Bishop Olmsted will get a very rude awakening here.  He is strutting his bishopric power like the cock of walk, but he is about to discover that he is a plankton in a vast ocean. The Constitution does not allow for this heinous discrimination against women.  Bishop Olmstead’s preposterous demand to send in a team of Inquisitors (the Medical Ethics Board of the Diocese of Phoenix - newly formed, I presume) to review patient records and protocols is in violation of the federal HIPAA laws.  What next, a Star Chamber?

Here is a quote from moral theologian Patrick McCormick
from a guest blog at U.S. Catholic, entitled Was Excommunication
the Right Response to the Arizona Abortion?  This was published in
June of this year and is easily found online.

“Bishop Olmsted and the Vatican have a grave pastoral problem. Catholic moral teaching on this question has become unpersuasive (even unintelligible) to a large number of committed and educated Catholics, and excommunicating a nun will not resolve this pastoral problem, only worsen it, for it suggests that the bishop and the Vatican do not have clear, cogent, and persuasive answers to tough moral questions. That is not “good news.” It is a scandal.”

Let me suggest that people here might want to google the topic and
read some of the many articles that were published this year on Sr. McBride’s
decision to save the life of a dying mother.

Abscissio,
thank you as always for your clear and intelligent post.

One problem with this case is that it apparently very difficult for people
to understand.

And it does seem to arouse intense feelings amongst Catholics and others.
You are absolutely right to remind us:
“The Constitution does not allow for this heinous discrimination against women.”

Another quote from Patrick McCormick’s June guest blog
at U.S. Catholic worth noting:

“As the late Father Bernard Haering argued, the tragic termination of a pregnancy to save the life of the mother is justified not by the “indirectness” of the medical procedure, but by the fact that the grave threat to the mother’s life can be resolved by no other means. No one “intends” to kill a fetus in this case, only to save the one life that can be saved.”

McCormick’s article is well worth reading.

Anne,

You believe the quote you re-posted above is a good answer?  Your answer doesn’t give evidence that you understand basic moral distinctions related to killing.  And it doesn’t even begin to seriously interact with the information brought forth by Mike Petrik.

Bishop Olmstead knows perfectly well what an abortion is.  If no abortion was committed, then he wouldn’t have taken any action.  If you think otherwise, then the onus is on you to prove it.  Anything else is just conjecture on your part and that is no legitimate basis on which to condemn Bishop Olmstead or to start a crusade against what you consider to be the woman-hating Catholic Church.  Above, you suggested that maybe an abortion wasn’t even performed.  But in other places at this blog, you’ve applauded Sr. McBride *specifically for advising an abortion in order to save her life*: 

Anne Rice:  “I believe Sr. Margaret McBride was morally right in providing a life saving abortion to a dying mother”

Anne Rice:  “I applaud Sr. Margaret McBride and the ethics board for supporting the termination of the pregnancy to save this woman’s life”.

http://www.ncregister.com/blog/what_are_the_true_facts_regarding_the_abortion_approving_nun/
 

So, it seems to me that either you don’t understand what an abortion is, or you’re being duplicitous with everyone.  In either case, I think you have a lot of nerve to publicly play armchair moral theologian, condemning Bishop Olmstead and the Catholic Church. 

Wouldn’t it be wise…and humble….to go to school first and at least learn the subject matter you’re addressing before presuming to teach (and condemn) others?  Why is it that some public figures -  especially those related to the entertainment industry -  seem to think people need to hear their opinions on matters about which they have no particular competence?  Should we wait for Keanu Reeves or Aaron Sorkin to set us straight about what Catholic moral theology *really* teaches (or *should* teach) about euthanasia and homosexuality now?

Good night.

Good heavens, Anne.  By the time I wrote my response you’d let fly with more posts.  Would that there were Immodium for such cases of literary diarrhea!

But to the point:  when I wrote “You believe the quote you re-posted above is a good answer?”  I was referring to Anne’s post on Dec 21, 2010 12:07 AM (EST). 

Good night.  Really.  Unless you’ve managed to post another dozen comments before I can put this one up, Anne!  One thing I will not dispute.  You are prolific!

Margaret,
Rest assured, I understand the issues completely.
And I do understand the teachings of the Roman Catholic
Church on these issues.
No problem there at all.
And for the sake of anyone just signing on:
let me reiterate what I have said before.

Many many Catholics support the position taken
by Sr. Margaret McBride in providing a life saving
abortion for a dying mother in a Phoenix hospital.
And many have questioned the wisdom of
Bishop Olmsted in condemning Sr.McBride for
her actions.

There are several issues being discussed here actively.

Was Sr. McBride morally right in what she did to save
this dying mother of four?
I and many others feel that she was absolutely morally
right.
And that the hospital was right in standing by her.
Others feel that she was wrong and that the bishop is
right in condemning her.

A second issue is the vital question of the bishop’s insistence
that the hospital agree that Sister’s action was wrong,
and also that the hospital agree not to provide this kind
of safe, legal and medically appropriate treatment to a dying
woman in similar circumstances.
The hospital, I hope, will not knuckle under to the bishop.

The third issue is a question of the law.
Catholic hospitals operating in America are not
free under our laws to withhold safe, legal and appropriate
medical care from dying women.
And if the hospital does agree to do this in future,
a thorough investigation is warranted.
The ACLU is asking for an investigation into Catholic hospitals and
their treatment of women.

Catholics are no more free than members of any
other religion to withhold safe, legal and appropriate medical
services from patients in their hospitals.

Margaret, your post, if it is honest, would indicate that you
don’t understand the issues involved here and the discussion of
these issues that is recorded in these posts.

However I have some reservation, frankly, that your post was honest.

Perhaps it would be of help to you to reread the many entries here.

Margaret S., you obviously are not well read and know little about Ms. Rice or her work.  I’ve read several of her books in the vampire genre as well as a few of her Christian writings.  You are grossly misrepresenting her and her work.  She is first and foremost a scholar.  She used the vampire genre to explore deep metaphysical themes - the nature of good and evil, what it means to be human or not, is there meaning to existence, etc.  Her vampires live, breathe, perceive, question, feel and interact with the worlds around them.  Have you read her Christian writings?  I can’t believe you have because I find it hard to believe that you would attack the woman who brought Christ into a living, breathing person would be the subject of your scorn.  I read her memoir of her return to Catholicism and envied those who were raised in the Catholic tradition.  She describes in such detail, with such rich language, that you can see, touch, feel, hear and taste - she brings you right to the complete experience.  Clearly, if you read her books, she loves the Church.  Clearly, she is devoted to Jesus and God.  Unquestionably, she is well versed in theology and the history of Catholicism.

Yet, you resort to the cheap trick of attacking her as an emotional woman.  As a woman, I’m sure this device has been used against you when you are angry and passionate about something.  It’s used against all women.  I’m a lawyer.  I happen to be very smart.  I’ve walked into settlements with $100 million dollars in my pocket to negotiate and that same damned cheap trick has been used on me to undermine my arguments.  It doesn’t matter that I’m a shrewd negotiator and that someone actually trusted me with $100 million dollars in the first place.  I’m a woman and that’s the way to knock the wind out of a woman, intelligent or not.

Remember what you did here the next time someone, man or woman, takes that cheap shot at you.  Know that you deserve it.  Know that that is the hand of God slapping you in the face for pulling that cheap stunt here.

What an amazing post, Mr. Petric!  Thank you!  You must be a professor.  I’m going to print that one out!  Are you the professor Mr. Petric who wrote this below?

Anne,

Instead of emoting, take a deep breath and try to read the following, applying reason rather than pop feminism:

Assume that it is known to a moral certainty that the only available options were either (i) do nothing and both mother and baby die or (ii) directly kill the baby so that the mother can live.

Catholic teaching is clear that the direct taking of an innocent human life is always wrong. That is the point of Directive 45. Catholic teaching does, however, permit in some cases the indirect taking of a life under the principle of double effect. This is the point of Directive 47. But the key is the word “effect.” In order to be permitted the action cannot be the direct taking of the life (i.e., an abortion). But instead the action must be a treatment of the mother than has as an indirect consequence the (i.e., the second effect) of death, even the foreseeable or inevitable death, of the baby. This is why a pregnant mother can ingest medicines or receive therapies directed to curing a pathology even though such medicines or therapies are understood to be harmful, or even lethal, to the baby. Based on the facts as reported in the Hospital’s own statement it appears that the procedure approved was a direct abortion prohibited under Directive 45 and not a non-abortive procedure permitted under Directive 47.

The Hospital appeared to have tried to suggest that Directive 47 permits direct abortions if necessary to save the life of the mother (at least if it is understood that the baby will eventually die anyway), but such a suggestion is not tenable. The meaning of Directive 47 is well-established and fully understood by all competent ethicists. Accordingly, it does appear that the Hospital violated its own Directives and in doing so also violated rather unambiguous Catholic moral teaching.

Some have asserted that Catholic moral teaching is simply wrong in this case, and therefore the Hospital should be congratulated for its courage to follow the consciences of its Ethics Committee rather than Church teaching. In particular, these critics of Church teaching claim that at the very least the teaching is inadequate to address this rather rare situation in which the baby was going to die regardless whether option (i) or (ii) is elected. This analysis is basically one of consequentialism, which evaluates moral choices by examining outcomes. In other words the ends justify the means. Many moral thinkers have advanced this utilitarian approach, but the approach has be explicitly rejected by the Church.

The Church’s view can perhaps better be crystallized by the following hypothetical: Gunman breaks into home. He tells mother that he will kill both husband and daughter unless mother shoots and kills daughter, in which case husband will live. Mother is confronted with two outcomes: one with both daughter and husband dead, the other with just daughter dead. Catholic moral teaching plainly would not permit Mother to kill her innocent daughter, even though daughter would die anyway.

Another hypothetical: Pregnant mother is dying and unconscious. Baby can be saved, but only by directly killing mother (in other words, there is no treatment of the baby as such — or the mother). Catholic moral teaching would not permit the direct killing of the mother, even if such killing allowed the baby to survive and even if baby and mother would both die otherwise.

Last one: Terrible war is raging. In order to secure a just victory our army will have to take up to one million casualties and enemy casualties would include ten times that number with many innocent civilians as “collateral damage.” One bomb successfully and intentionally targeted at 50,000 innocent civilians (not a military target) would force a peace. Catholic teaching would not permit such direct and intentional bombing of innocent civilians, even though it is believed with great confidence that many more lives would be saved.

Now, admittedly these are all very tough cases. And I would never judge the soul of those who would lack the moral fortitude to resist the temptation to commit an immoral act under such horrible circumstances. And I am sympathetic to the position that Sister McBride was in. I don’t know what I would have done under her circumstances; just as I don’t know what I would have done in Truman’s shoes. I’m just a sinner relying on God’s mercy. That said, I would not try to explain to God or His Church why my intentional taking of an innocent life was not a sin. Good people do and can commit sin in order to obtain good outcomes, and it is tempting indeed to conflate good outcomes with good reasons. This appears to be what the Hospital did.  While moral utilitarians are free to disagree (they view good outcomes and good reasons as more or less coterminous), as are those who do not regard an unborn baby as human life, the moral calculus under Catholic teaching and our Creator’s Natural law is quite clear.

Recent reports state that Sister McBride now also agrees that she made a moral error, and that her excommunication has now been lifted.  That is exceedingly happy news.

Ann, others have tried to reason with you, but you just emote and make assertions.  Try to reason instead.  If you think the reasoning above is incorrect, explain why.  Use logic.

“Know that that is the hand of God slapping you in the face for pulling that cheap stunt here.”

So the pro-aborts not only wanna talk for the Catholic Church, they think they talk for God now?  LOL   Wow.

FYI don’t see where Margie called Ms. Rice an emotional woman.  Those are your words, Abs.  Emotional, yep.  That’s her opinion and she’s entitled to it.  Women are entitled to opinions about other women aren’t we?  I think she has a point, especially when you compare her to the cool arguments and info from prof. Petrik.

I think discussions like this serve the greater good only when people remain
civil and when their contributions to the discussion are honest and responsible.
Substantive posts, posts that remain focused on the deep issues at hand,
these are what move a conversation like this and keep it morally interesting.
Ridicule, silliness, vulgar attempts to intimidate others….these things strike me
as inappropriate and frankly not very morally or intellectually interesting.

I will continue to respond to those posts here which I find to be substantive and
which advance the discussion in a responsible way.

Let me say again, because apparently, I didn’t make myself clear to all:
I think the hospital was morally right in its response to the directive and
to canon law which presumably informs the directive,
and I would like to remind people here that many Catholics thought
that Sr. McBride was right in what she did.
I suggest that anyone interested in the issues re-read the posts above.
And read some of the articles posted on the web during the last year
by people who took their time and effort to engage with the subject sincerely.

I would like to add another observation.
This blog is part of a Catholic site.
It concerns morality; it concerns matters of conscience.
It can be safely assumed that almost everyone here
is concerned, on some level with matters of right and wrong
and that those concerns, for many here, are rooted in their
faith in God and their belief that this world is His creation.

That is why ridicule, silliness, insults and the like seem
particularly inappropriate here and to be avoided.

It is difficult for me to see how anyone’s faith in God or
love of God would lead that person to vulgarity and insults,
sarcasm, ridicule or provocative dishonesty.

I think this blog serves the greater good when we all make
an effort to be straightforward and honest.

“”“a church that can make a complex and nuanced argument to justify American Catholic soldiers going to war and participating in battles that involve the death of innocent civilians, can indeed work out a complex
and nuanced argument to support a woman in defending her life against a fatal and failing pregnancy.  “”“

Only if you presuppose that the situations are in fact analogous, yet you have ignored all the rational arguments made to point out how these two situations are in fact very different.  “Nuance” isn’t a code word for “rationalizing anything you want apart from reality” as you seem to want to use the term. 

“”“Is the Church saying here that the sanctity of life does not apply to women?”“”

No, It is saying that a woman has the right to life but that that right does not extend to the point that a woman can violate the right to life of another innocent person.

Having a right to life is not the same as having the right to murder an innocent person. 

This is the foundation to the traditional American view of rights as well. “My right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins.”

You can not murder an innocent person even if you really really want to.

Gabby,
To dismiss what Anne Rice has communicated in this blog as pop feminism, and emoting, makes you an unworthy opponent.  And is is the RC Church who claims to speak for God, and if that is the case, then God speaks out of both sides of his mouth.

The argument that slaughering innocents in a war that has does not meet the Church’s own criteria for a just war, is a totally different animal than the slaugher of a fertilized ovum is just plain ridiculous. 

A cursory study of the run up to the illegal invasion of Iraq will reveal that Rumsfield and Cheney have been looking for a rationalization to invade Iraq since Reagan was president.  The shock of 9/11 and the knee jerk reaction of many Americans to this event made their plan possible.  The Church and individual Catholics should have been dilligent about ensuring that this invasion met the criteria of a just war.  It didn’t even meet the American criteria for such an action.  The Church as strangely silent at this abomination, as were the majority of Catholics, many of whom actually supported this illegal and immoral act against humanity.

But when it comes to an 11 week old fetus, you’ll all pro life.  What hypocracy.

In looking at all the posts on this matter, it seems clear that we can discuss the theological, philosophical, moral, ethical, and legal aspects of what happened at St. Joseph’s until the cows come home.

But what of the practical implications of the actions that bishop Olmsted seeks to take against St. Joseph’s?  If he declares that St. Joseph’s is no longer a Catholic hospital within the Phoenix Diocese, then Mass will no longer be said in the hospital’s chapel. But no matter what the bishop says or does, St. Joseph’s will not close its doors.  It is one of the largest, if not the largest hospital in Arizona.  Its Barrow Neurological Institute is ranked among the top 10 in the nation. It also provides advanced cardiac and cancer care—desparetly needed in a state where such services are far from commonly available.  And it will, as all American hopsitals are, remain subject to providing patients with the prevailing standard of medical care, remain subject to federal and state statutes and regulations.  And if the same situation were to occur again, the hospital would again save the mother’s life.  Because that is the law and that is what medical ethics demand.  The bishop cannot change those realities.

Bottom line: Expand all the time, ink, and name calling you want on whatever your position is and the bishop can do the same:  but it will not change how St. Joseph’s as an American hospital provides care.  The hospital will never place itself in a position where it loses its accreditations, or place itself in a position where it will be subject to potential criminal prosection for deliberately standing by to allow a gravely ill patient to die(as the bisohop advocates it do). Hopefully it can find a solution that is legal, does not compromise medical ethics, does not jeopardize its ongoing operations, and satifies the bishop.

And alos, St. Joseph’s is the only american Board of Surgeons certified Level 1 trauma center in Maricopa County (where 60% of AZ’s population lives).  It in fact it is the only such trauma center from Phoenix north to the Utah border. As such St. Joe’s treats the most critically injured and ill patients.  Patients from all over the state are helicoptered in when they need advanced trauma care because of serious auto accident, etc.  An American Board of Surgeons certified level one trauma center is place where the most advanced trauma care is provided.  This is another reason St. Joseph’s will never close its doors. 

It is one of about 41 Catholic Healthcare West CHW) hopsitals in California, Nevada and Arizona.  But the revenues from St. Joseph’s alone accounts for about of a third of the system’s total revenues.  It is essential for the financial health of CHW.  CHW could survive if it had to sell St. Joseph’s to get the bishop off its case, but hoepfully it will not come to that.  And even if CHW did sell St. Joe’s it would not change how the hospital provides care.

If I follow Mike Petrik’s explanation of church teaching, if you give a woman medicine to save her life and it causes the fetus to abort, that is acceptable.  If the pregnancy is causing the threat to the women’s life, than it is not acceptable to abort the fetus.  So,the hospital could have gotten around this technicality by given the women the medicine that the women in the first example had received, it would have aborted the fetus and thus saved the woman’s life. 

Who comes up with this rules?  Am I the only one that thinks they are insane?

Lisa, I thank you for these informative posts about St. Joseph’s and I completely
agree with you: this hospital cannot and should not close its doors.
I hope and pray that the hospital stands up to the bishop, and makes it clear
to all Americans that it will abide by the laws of the United States of America in providing
care for all, including pregnant women in reproductive crises.
After reading this blog, I think perhaps many Catholics should get of health care.
Clearly Catholics who privilege their conscience over the laws of this country
do not belong in emergency rooms.

Arguments put forth here to condemn Sr. McBride
hinge on technicalities and inconsistency in canon
law and church law.
Thank God Sr. McBride did not stand around talking
technicalities as the young mother died.
Morality is rooted in what we do, not what we say we believe.
Matthew 25 is explicit on this, absolutely explicit.
You can say “Lord, Lord, ” all you want, but the crux is:
do you walk the walk?
Morality is not philosophy.
it is not twisted and convoluted theological and philosophical arguments.
Any time abstract theory gets away from the flesh and blood reality of
real persons, it is in danger of becoming inhuman and evil.
We’ve seen this with Nazism and Communism and Fascism.
Here we see the same thing with Catholic thinking: long erudite
“arguments” for abandoning a young mother to die
with a child that could not be saved.
Sophistry.
Sr. McBride did the Christian thing, the moral thing, the life saving
thing.
Thank Heaven for her shining example.

Gabby, you wrote:

Anne,

Instead of emoting, take a deep breath and try to read the following, applying reason rather than pop feminism:

Assume that it is known to a moral certainty that the only available options were either (i) do nothing and both mother and baby die or (ii) directly kill the baby so that the mother can live.

Catholic teaching is clear that the direct taking of an innocent human life is always wrong. That is the point of Directive 45. Catholic teaching does, however, permit in some cases the indirect taking of a life under the principle of double effect. This is the point of Directive 47. But the key is the word “effect.” In order to be permitted the action cannot be the direct taking of the life (i.e., an abortion). But instead the action must be a treatment of the mother than has as an indirect consequence the (i.e., the second effect) of death, even the foreseeable or inevitable death, of the baby. This is why a pregnant mother can ingest medicines or receive therapies directed to curing a pathology even though such medicines or therapies are understood to be harmful, or even lethal, to the baby. Based on the facts as reported in the Hospital’s own statement it appears that the procedure approved was a direct abortion prohibited under Directive 45 and not a non-abortive procedure permitted under Directive 47.

The Hospital appeared to have tried to suggest that Directive 47 permits direct abortions if necessary to save the life of the mother (at least if it is understood that the baby will eventually die anyway), but such a suggestion is not tenable. The meaning of Directive 47 is well-established and fully understood by all competent ethicists. Accordingly, it does appear that the Hospital violated its own Directives and in doing so also violated rather unambiguous Catholic moral teaching.

Some have asserted that Catholic moral teaching is simply wrong in this case, and therefore the Hospital should be congratulated for its courage to follow the consciences of its Ethics Committee rather than Church teaching. In particular, these critics of Church teaching claim that at the very least the teaching is inadequate to address this rather rare situation in which the baby was going to die regardless whether option (i) or (ii) is elected. This analysis is basically one of consequentialism, which evaluates moral choices by examining outcomes. In other words the ends justify the means. Many moral thinkers have advanced this utilitarian approach, but the approach has be explicitly rejected by the Church.

The Church’s view can perhaps better be crystallized by the following hypothetical: Gunman breaks into home. He tells mother that he will kill both husband and daughter unless mother shoots and kills daughter, in which case husband will live. Mother is confronted with two outcomes: one with both daughter and husband dead, the other with just daughter dead. Catholic moral teaching plainly would not permit Mother to kill her innocent daughter, even though daughter would die anyway.

Another hypothetical: Pregnant mother is dying and unconscious. Baby can be saved, but only by directly killing mother (in other words, there is no treatment of the baby as such — or the mother). Catholic moral teaching would not permit the direct killing of the mother, even if such killing allowed the baby to survive and even if baby and mother would both die otherwise.

Last one: Terrible war is raging. In order to secure a just victory our army will have to take up to one million casualties and enemy casualties would include ten times that number with many innocent civilians as “collateral damage.” One bomb successfully and intentionally targeted at 50,000 innocent civilians (not a military target) would force a peace. Catholic teaching would not permit such direct and intentional bombing of innocent civilians, even though it is believed with great confidence that many more lives would be saved.

Now, admittedly these are all very tough cases. And I would never judge the soul of those who would lack the moral fortitude to resist the temptation to commit an immoral act under such horrible circumstances. And I am sympathetic to the position that Sister McBride was in. I don’t know what I would have done under her circumstances; just as I don’t know what I would have done in Truman’s shoes. I’m just a sinner relying on God’s mercy. That said, I would not try to explain to God or His Church why my intentional taking of an innocent life was not a sin. Good people do and can commit sin in order to obtain good outcomes, and it is tempting indeed to conflate good outcomes with good reasons. This appears to be what the Hospital did.  While moral utilitarians are free to disagree (they view good outcomes and good reasons as more or less coterminous), as are those who do not regard an unborn baby as human life, the moral calculus under Catholic teaching and our Creator’s Natural law is quite clear.

Recent reports state that Sister McBride now also agrees that she made a moral error, and that her excommunication has now been lifted.  That is exceedingly happy news.

Ann, others have tried to reason with you, but you just emote and make assertions.  Try to reason instead.  If you think the reasoning above is incorrect, explain why.  Use logic.

++++

Thank you for these truly helpful insights.  I think this will help a lot of us to understand a very complicated issue.  God bless you.

I’ve explained as patiently as I can, my position.
Sr. McBride did the moral thing and the right thing
by saving the life of the dying mother.

I applaud the hospital for standing up to the bishop.
Long drawn out philosophical and theological arguments
can be very dangerous when they seek to “abstract” life
and death, to build on their own sophistry
and ultimately abandon the life and death situations in which
human beings find themselves every day.

We have seen what abstract philosophy can do when
it detaches itself from the reality of the value of human life.
We have seen this in Fascism, Communism and Nazism.

Systems that provide abundant abstract reasons for denying people
the right to life can become profoundly evil.
The dying mother at St. Joseph’s is not an abstraction.
She is not a philosophical principle.
We must concede that sometimes the nun in the
Emergency room knows infinitely more than
the philosophers haggling over the inconsistencies of canon
law or theological “teaching.”
The little lady in the pew often knows more
about God than the theologian writing his weighty
tome for other theologians.
That is the nature of our religion, that it is
grounded not in the truth of books, but in
the truth of the life and death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Sr. McBride did the moral thing and the right thing,
and the hospital was right to stand by her.

it is a time for all out Catholic support for St. Joseph’s and
its brave men and women.

Sandra, you’re confusing me with Mr. Petrik.  I just copied in what he wrote and said I thought it was amazing.  Are women allowed to have their own opinions, or just the ones that agree with you and Ms. Rice?  So, you can attack Mr. Petrik now instead, okay.  :-)  LOL

Mary, thanks for the nice compliment but I didn’t write that.  I just copied it in.  Mr. Petrik wrote it.  I agree it was awesome though!

Gaby, wait.  You didn’t write this?

Anne,
Instead of emoting, take a deep breath and try to read the following, applying reason rather than pop feminism:

Assume that it is known to a moral certainty that the only available options were either (i) do nothing and both mother and baby die or (ii) directly kill the baby so that the mother can live.

Catholic teaching is clear that the direct taking of an innocent human life is always wrong. That is the point of Directive 45. Catholic teaching does, however, permit in some cases the indirect taking of a life under the principle of double effect. This is the point of Directive 47. But the key is the word “effect.” In order to be permitted the action cannot be the direct taking of the life (i.e., an abortion). But instead the action must be a treatment of the mother than has as an indirect consequence the (i.e., the second effect) of death, even the foreseeable or inevitable death, of the baby. This is why a pregnant mother can ingest medicines or receive therapies directed to curing a pathology even though such medicines or therapies are understood to be harmful, or even lethal, to the baby. Based on the facts as reported in the Hospital’s own statement it appears that the procedure approved was a direct abortion prohibited under Directive 45 and not a non-abortive procedure permitted under Directive 47.

The Hospital appeared to have tried to suggest that Directive 47 permits direct abortions if necessary to save the life of the mother (at least if it is understood that the baby will eventually die anyway), but such a suggestion is not tenable. The meaning of Directive 47 is well-established and fully understood by all competent ethicists. Accordingly, it does appear that the Hospital violated its own Directives and in doing so also violated rather unambiguous Catholic moral teaching.

Some have asserted that Catholic moral teaching is simply wrong in this case, and therefore the Hospital should be congratulated for its courage to follow the consciences of its Ethics Committee rather than Church teaching. In particular, these critics of Church teaching claim that at the very least the teaching is inadequate to address this rather rare situation in which the baby was going to die regardless whether option (i) or (ii) is elected. This analysis is basically one of consequentialism, which evaluates moral choices by examining outcomes. In other words the ends justify the means. Many moral thinkers have advanced this utilitarian approach, but the approach has be explicitly rejected by the Church.

The Church’s view can perhaps better be crystallized by the following hypothetical: Gunman breaks into home. He tells mother that he will kill both husband and daughter unless mother shoots and kills daughter, in which case husband will live. Mother is confronted with two outcomes: one with both daughter and husband dead, the other with just daughter dead. Catholic moral teaching plainly would not permit Mother to kill her innocent daughter, even though daughter would die anyway.

Another hypothetical: Pregnant mother is dying and unconscious. Baby can be saved, but only by directly killing mother (in other words, there is no treatment of the baby as such — or the mother). Catholic moral teaching would not permit the direct killing of the mother, even if such killing allowed the baby to survive and even if baby and mother would both die otherwise.

Last one: Terrible war is raging. In order to secure a just victory our army will have to take up to one million casualties and enemy casualties would include ten times that number with many innocent civilians as “collateral damage.” One bomb successfully and intentionally targeted at 50,000 innocent civilians (not a military target) would force a peace. Catholic teaching would not permit such direct and intentional bombing of innocent civilians, even though it is believed with great confidence that many more lives would be saved.
Now, admittedly these are all very tough cases. And I would never judge the soul of those who would lack the moral fortitude to resist the temptation to commit an immoral act under such horrible circumstances. And I am sympathetic to the position that Sister McBride was in. I don’t know what I would have done under her circumstances; just as I don’t know what I would have done in Truman’s shoes. I’m just a sinner relying on God’s mercy. That said, I would not try to explain to God or His Church why my intentional taking of an innocent life was not a sin. Good people do and can commit sin in order to obtain good outcomes, and it is tempting indeed to conflate good outcomes with good reasons. This appears to be what the Hospital did.  While moral utilitarians are free to disagree (they view good outcomes and good reasons as more or less coterminous), as are those who do not regard an unborn baby as human life, the moral calculus under Catholic teaching and our Creator’s Natural law is quite clear.

Recent reports state that Sister McBride now also agrees that she made a moral error, and that her excommunication has now been lifted.  That is exceedingly happy news.

Ann, others have tried to reason with you, but you just emote and make assertions.  Try to reason instead.  If you think the reasoning above is incorrect, explain why.  Use logic.

@Gabby,

Your posts are very direct and insightful, which is why they come out swinging at you.

<sarcasm>You aren’t really a woman, after all, a woman would agree with @Anne that women should get there turn to murder the innocent just like men have for so long.</sarcasm>

Seriously though, to gain the sympathies from this type feminist, you must agree with her.  Contradicting her will make you a murderer who irrationally hates women, even if you happen to be one.

It is not anti-woman to maintain that one can not murder and innocent person.  After all, half of the innocent persons out there are women!

Oh, I see now.  You were just representing what Mr. Petrik wrote, Gabby.  Okay.  Sorry!  Well kudos to Mr. Petrik then.

Merry Christmas.  And thank you Mother Mary that you said yes to life 2,000 years ago in your own very difficult situation.  Women could be stoned to death back then for adultery.  Your choice was one of real faith, courage and love, Blessed Mother. 

<3

You got it now, Mary.  :-)  And Amen about Mother Mary.  Now there’s a role model for women!

And hey!  I just read at a CNN blog that Sister McBride met the requirements to lift the excommunication.  Good for her!  I hope it’s true, yeah!  Thank you, Jesus.  Thank you Mother Mary!

And thanks Red Beard.  You’re funny!  I have African American friends who go through the same silly thing when they disagree with Al Sharpton.  Suddenly they’re not really black anymore!  It’s so silly.

Oh well.  :-)

Some good posts here explaining and defending Bishop Olmstead and the Catholic Church here.

Anne Rice says, “The little lady in the pew often knows more about God than the theologian writing his weighty tome for other theologians.  That is the nature of our religion, that it is grounded not in the truth of books, but in the truth of the life and death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.”

1) Please stop writing about “our religion”, Anne.  You’ve openly stated that you made a conscious decision to leave “our religion” some time ago:  “For what it is worth…I left the Roman Catholic Church.” (Anne Rice).  Unless you’ve gone to Confession and reconciled with the Church, you’re an apostate trying to rationalize and spread her error to others.  Please don’t confuse people about your status.

2)  You’re trying to portray yourself as humbly submissive to Jesus Christ.  But you’re creating a false dichotomy.  You can’t pit Jesus Christ against his Church, Anne.  The reality is that you’re submitting only to yourself. 

Read Luke 10:16.  Speaking to the leaders of the Church, Christ said, “Whoever listens to you listens to me.  Whoever rejects you, rejects me.  And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me.” 

Read Matthew 18:17-18.  Again, speaking to the leaders of His Church, Christ said, “If [a sinner] refuses to listen even to the Church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector.  Amen, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

Thank you.

Sandra Currie says, “The Church was strangely silent at [the Iraq war]...But when it comes to an 11 week old fetus, you’ll all pro life.  What hypocracy.”

1) You’re statement is false.  The Church was not “strangely silent” about the Iraq war, Sandra.  The Holy Father made his opposition plain to the chagrin and consternation of the U.S. government.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,80875,00.html

http://politics.usnews.com/news/national/articles/2008/04/16/a-rift-over-iraq-between-president-and-pope.html

http://www.cjd.org/paper/jp2war.html

http://www.americancatholic.org/news/justwar/iraq/

http://www.americancatholic.org/news/JustWar/iraq/papalstatement.asp

2) The decision to wage war lies within the jurisdiction of the legitimate civil authorities.  It’s a judgment call whether a war is “just” or not.  But there are moral criteria that must be carefully evaluated.

“The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy [of a particular war] belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.”

Catechism of the Catholic Church # 2309

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P81.HTM

Some wars are just, others are not.  And the civil authorities have the greatest amount of information available to make that call.  They’re the ones will all the intelligence-gather capabilities.  But there is no “judgment call” when it comes to abortion.  An unborn child isn’t an unjust aggressor - EVER.  She’s an innocent human being whose right to light cannot be morally taken from her.  That’s also why euthanasia of human beings is never morally licit, either, btw.

This situation underscores the reason why organised religion based on a fundamental unproven assumption can come to any conclusion is that it wishes according to the foibles of its followers. The absurdity of this excommunication reflects badly although correctly on the stupidity ofthe Catholic religion and its arcane belief structure based on a set of old Jewish tribal myths and a set of trumped up documents (Gospels)used as a successful self reinforcing marketing strategy for a corrupt priesthood exploiting gullible followers for nearly 2000 years. Organised religion based on a rigid unproven set of hypotheses empowers narrow minded self opinionated bullies to get their rocks off by indoctrinating gullible followers. I’m sure that the hospital would be a lot better off without the word catholic in its title.

<sarcasm> Wow, Greg, you really showed me how unintelligible the Catholic Church’s position is and how you are truly the silver-tongued spokesman of tolerance, reason, and hope.</sarcasm>

Your post was very amusing.

Greg,

Hey, please do not blame the weirdness of the Roman Catholic Church on us Jews, our Scripture and/or our theology! To do so is a fundamental misunderstanding of the Torah and of Jewish Scripture as a whole. This mess rests entirely within the Roman Catholic Church.  Leave us Jews out if it!  We gave up the priesthood in 70 CE (AD if you prefer).  In Judaism there are no intermedaries between us and God.  Given Bishop Olmsted’s behavior, perhaps this is a model Roman Catholics may want to explore if the Church is going to have a future!

In last year’s synod of bishop’s that focused on Scripture, the Roman Catholic bishops indicated that Catholics really are not “people of the book” because in their opinion Jesus Christ is beyond the “book”.  Given that the Roman Catholic bishops separate themselves and all Catholics from the traditions of Abraham, Moses, the patriarchs and matriarchs, I would say that they are own their own in this situation.  Jews have nothing to do with this!

A few statements by the pope does not a serious opposition to a war make.  Where were the bishops speaking out against it?  What was said from the pulpit?  Where were the excommications for those Catholics who participated in this immoral war.  And saying that it was a legitimate war because the elected officials said it was is the same as saying abortion is legitimate because the the civil authorities say it is.  You can’t have it both ways.

And Gabby, I didn’t confuse you with someone else for a moment.

Lisa, my Jewish friends (rabbis included) would be ashamed of and embarrassed by what you’ve written above.  As a Catholic with many Jewish friends and a sincere respect for Judaism, I’m repulsed by your needlessly divisive and denigrating words.  And your feigned concern for the future of the Catholic Church is also insulting and ridiculous.  With over 1 billion of us Catholics worldwide (and growing each year), you should be so fortunate as to have such worries.

We Catholics believe that Jesus Christ, the Jew, is the fulfillment of “the book” -  the Torah.  As He said, “For had you believed Moses, you would have believed me: for he wrote of me.” (John 5:46)  He is the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world -  the lamb who was foreshadowed by the Passover. He is the living Word of God.

Praise be to God that his Jewish mother said “yes” to God.  Yes to Life.  L’chaim!

Baruch ha’Shem

Sandra, you only continue to illustrate your arrogance and also your ignorance of Catholic teaching with each comment.  Your unwillingness to admit your error about the Church’s supposed silence regarding the war in Iraq is much to your discredit.

And here is some more information regarding the moral distinctions as they apply to abortion/euthanasia and just war/capital punishment.

Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion - General Principles

L’espresso, June 2004:

Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.

Cardinal Ratzinger (now, Pope Benedict XVI)

Read:  http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2009/11/27/abortion-capital-punishment-and-war-one-of-these-things-is-not-like-the-other/

Wes - Pot calling the kettle black on the arrogance thing.  I’m not ignorant, I’m quite aware of Catholic teachings, and aware of the hypocrasy therein.  Just because some guys in Rome say that abortion is more serious than the slaughter of innocents by war doesn’t make it so.  Get a grip

Sandra, you obviously do not know Catholic teaching on the just war doctrine, nor are you aware of the USCCB’s failing to justify the Iraqi war.

From the United States Council of Catholic Bishops’ Statement on the Iraqi War:

*“People of good will may differ on how to apply just war norms in particular cases, especially when events are moving rapidly and the facts are not altogether clear. Based on the facts that are known to us, we continue to find it difficult to justify the resort to war against Iraq, lacking clear and adequate evidence of an imminent attack of a grave nature. With the Holy See and bishops from the Middle East and around the world, we fear that resort to war, under present circumstances and in light of current public information, would not meet the strict conditions in Catholic teaching for overriding the strong presumption against the use of military force.”*

Bishops across the nation proclaimed this statement of being against the Iraqi war.

If you’re going to comment on someone’s religion, please know what you’re discussing.

http://www.usccb.org/bishops/iraq.shtml

link to the above statement

Sandra, 

1) The word is HYPOCRISY, not HIPOCRACY.  The second sounds like a combination of hypocrisy and hippocratic (as in oath).  There’s a subtle irony there.

2)  You continue to insist on illustrating your arrogance and ignorance of Catholic teaching for some unknown reason. 

Thanks for the additional citation, liseux.

I’m sorry, Sandra.  I can’t seem to keep up with your misspellings of hypocrisy.

It’s not “hypocracy”.  Nor is it “hypocrasy”.

Wes and Liseux,
Thank you for stepping in and continuing to speak the truth, clearly and rationally.  Keep up the good work.

I thought this would be worth posting:

http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1005213.htm

The public scandal resulting from the 2009 abortion isn’t the first time Bishop Olmsted took issue with Catholic Healthcare West’s adherence to the “Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services,” to which all Catholic hospitals in the United States are required to adhere.

Seven years ago, the bishop learned that Catholic Healthcare West did not comply with these directives at Chandler Regional Hospital.

“I have continued to insist that this scandalous situation needed to change,” the bishop said. “Sadly, over the course of these years, CHW has chosen not to comply.”

During the news conference, Bishop Olmsted detailed other Catholic Healthcare West facility violations of the U.S. bishops’ directives. St. Joseph’s Hospital is involved with the Mercy Care Plan—an organization that provides health care through Arizona’s Medicaid program. By virtue of its involvement in the plan, the hospital has been “formally cooperating with a number of medical procedures” against Catholic teaching—a fact that the bishop said he learned about in the past few weeks.

This cooperation included setting up a structure through which patients receive procedures—such as abortions and sterilizations—which are against church teaching, according to Father John Ehrich, director of medical ethics for the Phoenix Diocese.

Learning about the Mercy Care Plan was the “tipping point” in Bishop Olmsted’s relationship with the hospital, Father Ehrich said. The Mercy Care Plan, the largest provider of Medicaid in Arizona, has been in existence for 26 years. In meetings with diocesan leadership, the hospital said it had learned of Mercy Care Plan’s cooperation with unethical procedures 16 months ago.

“They hid it from the bishop for a year and a half,” Father Ehrich said. The hospital, he said, promised to address the issue but had signed contracts good through 2013. “It’s a systemic problem,” Father Ehrich said. “We’re not talking about one isolated incident.”

Through its involvement in the Mercy Care Plan, the bishop said Catholic Healthcare West has been responsible for a litany of practices in direct conflict with Catholic teaching. These include: contraceptive counseling, provision of various forms of contraception, voluntary sterilization and abortions “due to the mental or physical health of the mother or when the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest.”

“The Catholic faithful are free to seek care or to offer care at St. Joseph’s Hospital,” the bishop said. “But I cannot guarantee that the care provided will be in full accord with the teachings of the church.”

Bishop Olmsted, explaining his authority to revoke the Catholic identity of St. Joseph’s Hospital, cited Canon 216, which states: “No undertaking is to claim the name Catholic without the consent of competent ecclesiastical authority.”

“I have hoped and prayed that this day would not come,” the bishop said. “However, the faithful of the diocese have a right to know whether institutions of this importance are indeed Catholic in identity and practice.”

After learning about the abortion earlier in the year, Bishop Olmsted met with hospital officials to learn more about the particular case, he said at the news conference.

“It became clear that, in their decision to abort, the equal dignity of mother and her baby were not both upheld,” he said. The baby “was directly killed,” which is a violation of the ethical and religious directives.

Throughout the process, St. Joseph’s Hospital and Catholic Healthcare West have maintained that the intention was to save “the only life that could be saved,” the mother’s, according to the hospital.

The bishop responded to the claim in a May 14 statement, reiterating that “the direct killing of an unborn child is always immoral, no matter the circumstances, and it cannot be permitted in any institution that claims to be authentically Catholic.”

The U.S. bishops’ Committee on Doctrine also weighed in on the issue with a June 23 statement.  “No circumstance, no purpose, no law whatsoever can ever make licit an act which is intrinsically illicit, since it is contrary to the law of God which is written in every human heart, knowable by reason itself and proclaimed by the church,” the committee said.

The withdrawal of a hospital’s Catholic identification is not without precedent.

Bishop Robert F. Vasa of Baker, Ore., announced in February that St. Charles Medical Center in Bend had “gradually moved away” from the church’s ethical directives and can no longer be called Catholic.  As a result of that decision, Mass is no longer celebrated in the hospital’s chapel and all items considered Catholic were removed from the hospital and returned to the church. The hospital retained the St. Charles name and a cross remains atop the building.

[Report Via CNS]

I would like to know if a noncatholic is subject to the same canon as a catholic in one of your hospitals. This issue is of paramount interest to me since we are so against other forms of outsider laws such as sharia.  For me this has meant a final break with the church of my background.  It has finally become too much to sustain any kind of faith in its strange and hateful behavior to women.  Canon law? are you kidding? You burned the witches, you terrorized most of europe in the middle ages, etc. etc.  A shameful history.  For me though, it is what I have decided to do in the present.  No catholic doctors or hospitals or rehabilitation centers for me or my family.  No money at times for any of their charities.  No midnite mass this year, etc. etc.  Everything about this church rece tly grates and I am finally, finally out or its clutches.  There are other places to put money and I will follow up on the church-state situation with the new health care law.  I will work to defeat and get the church our of our health care.

“”“This issue is of paramount interest to me since we are so against other forms of outsider laws such as sharia.”“”

This is a false analogy.  The Catholic Church (who invented hospitals, by the way) is not “imposing” it’s law on anyone.  It is maintaining that you can not murder an innocent person.  If you choose to do so, you can not call yourself “Catholic” in good standing.

The only imposition anyone in this thread is discussing is whether or not you can compel a Catholic Doctor to murder a baby against his conscience, which should give any freedom loving American reason to pause.

Because the CHW and St. Joseph’s have bravely refused to cave in to the bishops’ arrogance and bullying, every pregnant woman, Catholic and non-Catholic si safe at St. Joseph’s.  The bishop had sought to impose his mistaken interpretation of canon law upon every pregnant patient seeking treatment at the hospital.  St. Joseph’s has bravely stood up to say that it will follow all applicable state and federal law and regulation and every applicable item of medical ethics in providing the highest standard of medical care for all patients.  The bishop was asking that healthcare staff commit homicide by refusing to treat a dying patient whose could be saved via medical treatment.  In other word,s the bishop’s stand was pro-crime and pro-death.

“”“In other word,s “”“

In abused words, methinks. 

Welcome to America, where the willing refusal to murder an innocent child is “pro-crime” and “pro-death.”  In other news, we’ve voted to have “black” mean “white,” “up” mean “down,” and actively murdering an innocent child be both “pro-life” and “medical treatment.”  The insanity continues.

You can not murder an innocent, even if you really really want to.

RE:  Bishop Olmstead:  ” And the theology of the Catholic Faith, as concretized in the Code of Canon Law, dispels any doubt whose opinion on matters of faith and morals is decisive for institutions in the Diocese of Phoenix.”

And:

Abscissio:  “Red_Beard, you have argued deceptively.  The Church considers Canon Law to be the embodiment of the Catholic Faith.”

I know I’m coming a bit late to this discussion, but I have to say, Abscissio’s statement above is what comes from taking a quotation out of the context of the whole.  Throughout the Bishop’s letter to LLoyd Dean, he stresses his authority as the Bishop to interpret matters pertaining to the moral law.  Thus, when he says: ” the theology of the Catholic Faith, ... dispels any doubt whose opinion on matters of faith and morals is decisive for institutions in the Diocese of Phoenix,”  he is referring NOT the the ENTIRE theology of the Catholic Church, but to the specific point he is making. 

That is, our theology says that in matters of faith and morals, the buck stops with the Bishop of the local diocese, and it is that fact which is “concretized in canon law.”

Thus, it is completely incorrect to state, as Abscissio does, that “The Church considers Canon Law to be the embodiment of the Catholic Faith.”

Sarah, To the the extent that Bishop Olmsted believes that Catholic hospitals are not subject secular laws, particularly those having to do with homicide, to the extent that he would have medical personnel stand and do nothing for a dying patient in the ER, then he is pro-crime and pro-death. As the Church and its bishop have discovered via the pedophile priests scandal, the Church and its bishop are subject to secular law.  The Church is not and its bishops are not above the law.  They cannot commit crimes and should not be advocating the commission of crime. 

And no willing murder of anyone has occurred at St. Joseph’s Hospital in Phoenix.

Wes, your post regarding my remarks as a Jew are totally off-base.  Someone named Greg invoked Jewish theology as a reason the Church the behaves the ways it does.  I am simply saying that, his take on this is incorrect and that Jews and Judaism have nothing to do with the way the Roman Catholic Church behaves.

Lisa, good to see you are still fighting the good fight here.
The Bishop does indeed want Catholic hospitals to
break the law, and thank God, the people of St. Joseph’s are
standing up to him.
Sooner or later, the Catholic Church is going to have to recognize
that women and children are human beings. 
The RCC has never really been pro life or pro family.
But I do think this crisis may change things.  Bishops may
be forced to realize that Olmsted has underestimated the
value of a woman’s life, and the value of a woman’s conscience.

@Lisa said: “”“To the the extent that Bishop Olmsted believes that Catholic hospitals are not subject secular laws, particularly those having to do with homicide”“”

Please provide a link to the law that is being violated when a Doctor refuses to murder a child.  I don’t think you’ll find it.  I have a feeling you are making up a law that you wish existed and using that pretend law to bash the Church and the bishop.  Feel free to prove me wrong.

“”“And no willing murder of anyone has occurred at St. Joseph’s Hospital in Phoenix.”“”

The act of cutting a child to pieces, ripping a child to pieces, or eating a child away with caustic chemicals for the express and intentional purpose of killing the innocent child took place.  It was intended - the act itself, as well as the only principal effect. I call that murder. 

@Anne said:”“"Olmsted has underestimated the valTo the the extent that Bishop Olmsted believes that Catholic hospitals are not subject secular laws, particularly those having to do with homicide,ue of a woman’s life, and the value of a woman’s conscience. “”“

There you go, a woman’s life or a woman’s conscience is worth more than a baby’s life.  This is America, where all are equal, except that some are more “equal” than others.  We can legally murder those “others.”

You can not murder an innocent, even if you really really want to.

Whoops, paste error, @Anne said: ““Olmsted has underestimated the value of a woman’s life, and the value of a woman’s conscience. “”“

Again, Anne is claiming that some lives are more valuable than others.  Not a position a Christian if free to take.

Anne,

You have repeatedly asserted that in not providing abortion services (even to save the life of the mother), Catholic hospitals are “breaking the law.”  You state most recently: “The Bishop does indeed want Catholic hospitals to break the law.”

In fact, since the passage of Roe v Wade in 1973,  laws have been enacted at both the federal and state levels, which protect medical establishments and personnel from being forced, aganist their conscience, to perform abortion and abortion-related services.  These laws apply particularly to religious institutions and personnel with religious objections.

Beginning with “The Church Amendment” (Named for Senator Frank Church - Democrat), in 1973, those laws have been expanded to provide protection even for a wide range of “services” - such as contraceptives, sterilizations, and termination of life support. They’ve even been expanded to include HMO’s and other insurance plans, citing reasons for not providing such services that are “other than” religious, e.g., to save money. 

So, whether you and the ACLU like it or not,  it is hardly “breaking the law” to refuse to abortions. RATHER, it is breaking the law to attempt to force hospitals to perform abortions. 

It is also discrimination to refuse federal funds to hospitals which don’t perform abortions, so the idea some have that, since the Phoenix hospital is receiving federal funds, the HAVE to provide abortions services. 

For more information on these abortion conscience clause laws, see this CRF Report for Congress: 

http://www.law.umaryland.edu/marshall/crsreports/crsdocuments/RS2142801142005.pdf

Whoops!  I meant to write: 

“Based on the wording of these clauses,  is also discriminatory to refuse federal funds to hospitals which don’t perform abortions, so the idea some have that, since the Phoenix hospital is receiving federal funds, they HAVE to provide abortions services, is simply erroneous.”

@TheresaEE

Way to lay it all out there!  We’ve been too quiet in not questioning the legal claims of those who wish to take away our freedoms.  In America, you are not legally required to murder an innocent, contrary to the claims of some here.  I thank God for allowing us to have the liberty to legally follow Him in this country.  May that never change.

Red Beard,

Arizona Revised Statutes (ARS) 13-1102 on negligent homicide:

13-1102. Negligent homicide; classification

A. A person commits negligent homicide if with criminal negligence the person causes the death of another person, including an unborn child.

B. An offense under this section applies to an unborn child in the womb at any stage of its development. A person may not be prosecuted under this section if any of the following applies:

1. The person was performing an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on the pregnant woman’s behalf, has been obtained or for which the consent was implied or authorized by law.

2. The person was performing medical treatment on the pregnant woman or the pregnant woman’s unborn child.

3. The person was the unborn child’s mother.

C. Negligent homicide is a class 4 felony.

Criminal negligence is defined by ARS 13-105 as:

“Criminal negligence” means, with respect to a result or to a circumstance described by a statute defining an offense, that a person fails to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the result will occur or that the circumstance exists. The risk must be of such nature and degree that the failure to perceive it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the situation.

Also, failure to provide emergency care when a patient presnet in the Emergency Department is a violation of federal law.

Whoever wrote that Roe v. Wade exempts medical personnel and/or hospitals from having to provide emergency services to women that may include a medically necessary abortion to save a woman’s life is just plain wrong.  Again federal law requires hospitals that operate emergency departments to provide care when a patient presents in the ER with a life threatening condition or in active labor.

St. Joseph’s in saving the life of the woman in question was acting according to federal law, state law, and in accordance with medical ethics.

I am a lawyer and am currently working for a large AZ hopsital (not St. Joe’s).  So I am well aware of what healthcare staff are required to do in the ER.

I would be more impressed with Bishop Olsmted’s position in requiring Catholic hospitals to commit the crime of negligent homicide, if he said he would be willing to serve the prison sentence in place of hopsital personnel who were following his dictates.  He talks the talk, but won’t walk the walk.

@Lisa,

The first half of what you quoted says that Murdering a child is not illegal in this country (i.e. - not “negligent homicide).  I grant that.  I’m shamed by it, but I grant it.

You have to provide more if you want to prove that failure to perform this particular act of murder counts as: “the person causes the death of another person” “with criminal negligence”  First, we need to know what the definition of “criminal negligence” and the definition of “causes” are legally in this context.  I find the application of either of these terms to this scenario to be questionable.

Also, all the talk that has been thrown out there on the legality of the issue has vaguely referred to “everywhere” or “every woman” needs to be concerned.  This led me to believe that we where discussing federal law.  It might not matter.  An unjust federal laws is no more morally binding than an unjust state law.

People should read the document that @TheresaEE linked to.  I espescially liked the following:

“”“As noted above, the 1996 conscience clause law prohibits the federal government and state and local governments from discriminating against health care entities that refuse (1) to undergo abortion training, (2) to provide such training, (3) to perform abortions, or (4) to provide referrals for such training or abortions.”“”

@Lisa, if what you say is true in the state of AZ, it looks like the rights of the “health care entities” are being violated.  Perhaps the ACLU should come to stand up for a Catholic Hospital’s right to not murder an innocent person.  Oh wait, they aren’t into THOSE kinds of liberties.

Legal or not, it is never morally permissible to murder an innocent person, even if you really really want to.

Red Beard,

If you re-read my previous post, you will see that I included the defintion of criminal negligence under Arizona Revised Statutes 13-105.

Sorry, but you are confusing the issues.  Hospitals that operate ERs cannot deny emergency care, even if that emergency care is an abortion.  It is sometimes necessary to save a woman’s life.  Hospitals do not have to perform elective abortions and St. Josephs’s does not do that.

But in the situation we are discussing, a case where the patient presented in the ER in need of emergency care, under federal law, the hopsital is required to provide it.  And to stand still and deliberately let the patient die is a violation of federal law, of Arizona state law and of medical ethics. 

And it does not matter if you feel the federal and state laws are unjust, it does not matter if the bishop feels they are unjust.  What matters is that the hospital determined it is bound by those laws and that it would abide by those laws—which save lives.

The federal law that requires hopsitals that operate ERs to provide treatment for patients presenting in the ER with life threatening conditions or in active labor is called the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act.  It is often referred to as the EMTALA.  It was enacted in 1986 and is found in federal statutes at 42USC1395dd.

USC means United States Code—the official published body of federal statutes.

The first two sections of the law are:

(a) Medical screening requirement
In the case of a hospital that has a hospital emergency department, if any individual (whether or not eligible for benefits under this subchapter) comes to the emergency department and a request is made on the individual’s behalf for examination or treatment for a medical condition, the hospital must provide for an appropriate medical screening examination within the capability of the hospital’s emergency department, including ancillary services routinely available to the emergency department, to determine whether or not an emergency medical condition (within the meaning of subsection (e)(1) of this section) exists.
(b) Necessary stabilizing treatment for emergency medical conditions and labor
(1) In general
If any individual (whether or not eligible for benefits under this subchapter) comes to a hospital and the hospital determines that the individual has an emergency medical condition, the hospital must provide either—
(A) within the staff and facilities available at the hospital, for such further medical examination and such treatment as may be required to stabilize the medical condition, or
(B) for transfer of the individual to another medical facility in accordance with subsection (c) of this section

In the case at St. Joseph’s the physicians determined, legally and ethically, that the patient was too near death, to critically ill, for her to be transferred to another hospital.  They ahd to provide treatment in order to save her life.  It is what all hospitals that operate ERs are required to do.

The Bishop Olmsted advocates teh criminal act of defying state and federal law.  his position is pro-death and pro-crime.

@Lisa,

I may be over my head here in the legal question.  I’m not convinced that the law is on your side, but I don’t doubt that you know this subject better than I do.  Thank you for providing the quotes.  I think they add to the conversation.

I see a number of potential holes in what you are presenting to be true. For instance “within the staff and facilities available at the hospital” may very well be enough to exempt a Catholic Hospital from performing a procedure that their staff does not perform.  Analogously, getting brain surgery at a tiny hospital isn’t an option because they don’t have people who do that or the facilities to do that precisely because they, as a hospital, don’t do brain surgery.  That would make sense to a normal human being, but that doesn’t mean it is legally correct. 

Either way, you are making an incredible leap once you leave the legal arguments.

“”“And it does not matter if you feel the federal and state laws are unjust, it does not matter if the bishop feels they are unjust.”“”

This is a silly statement.  If “law” rules just because it is “law”, then the US is an illegal organization that owes England an awful lot of back tea taxes!  One of the foundational principals we hold - the idea that unjust laws are not binding - is the basis for the revolution that our country is based upon. 

“”“What matters is that the hospital determined it is bound by those laws”“”

They are only bound by them if they are not unjust laws. 

“”“[1]The Bishop Olmsted advocates teh criminal act of defying state and federal law.  his position is [2]pro-death and [3]pro-crime. “”“

Ok, if you are right on the legal argument, then #1 follows, and potentially #3 depending on how you define your terms.  (And I’d stand with him!) However, #2 does not rationally follow. 

The refusal to murder is not the same as “pro-death.”  You are abusing reason itself.  It is incongruous to say that “actively murdering” is not “pro-death” and “refusing to murder” is “pro-death.”  To defend such a statement rationally would have to involve some very strange definitions based upon some very strange philosophy that you have not presented here. 

You either need to provide more background of your philosophy to show that your apparently irrational statements actually have a context within which they are rational or your statements are irrational.  From my reading, it is just more abuse of language to vilify those you disagree with. 

No one has the legitimate authority to force you to sin. 

No one has the legitimate authority to force you to murder an innocent.

No one has the legitimate authority to murder an innocent person, even if they really really want to.

Red Beard,

I don’t think you are understanding the legal issue here.  Under the federal statue, all hopsitals operating ERs are REQUIRED to provide treatment when a patient comes into the ER with a life threatening condition or in active labor.  In this case we are discussiong the woman came in with a life threatening conditiona nd the physicians determined that that she was too critically ill to tranfer to another hospital—she was dying.  They had to treat her then and there under the statute.  The physicians in the ER & in the hopsital that day knew how to perform the abortion/terminate the pregnancy and they did so to save the woman’s life.  Just because a hospital is Catholic does not mean that the physicians working in the hospital do not know how to and/or do not terminate pregnancies.  Most OB/GYN physicians during their medical training learn how to do this.

Again, the hospital has determined that it is bound by the federal statute and it is because it accpets patients who pay via Medicare and Medicadi.  When a hopsital accepts any Medicare or Medicadi patient and oeprates an ER, it is bound by the statute.  The hospital has determined that it will abide by the statute, that the statute is fair and binding as far as it is concerned. Under the federal statutue there are no exemptions for Catholic hospitals.  That is not the law as it is currently written and approved by Congress.

The bishop is pro-death because he would have let the mother die, even though her life could be saved.  He does not value the lives of women.  That means he is pro-death.  The baby in this situation, att 11 week, could not have been saved.  Letting 2 die, instead of saving one is being pro-death.

He is pro-crime because he advocated that the hospital vilate federal law and state law (letting the mother die by physicians deliberatel not treating her in the ER wouldb negligent homidice under Arizona law).

Red Beard,

Letting the moterh die without treatment in the ER is homicide—it is a crime.  That makes the bishop pro-death.

If you do not believe not beleive me re the federal statute, I gave you the citation to the USC in a previous post.  Feel free to look it up yourself

“”“The bishop is pro-death because he would have let the mother die, even though her life could be saved.  He does not value the lives of women.”“”

See, you keep circling around.  You provide more data on the legal issue, on which you may be correct (I’m not convinced yet but I’m not an expert) Then you matter-of-factly throw out utterly unrelated proclaimations on the other issue without supporting them. 

If I value one life enough to take it, that doesn’t rationally mean that I don’t value the other life. 

I’m not saying that you guys hate the baby you desire to murder.  I understand that you believe that this murder is regrettable and that saving both would be far better. 

No one desires the death of the mother. Are you “pro-rape” for not hunting down and killing rapists?  Why can’t you at least acknowledge the Church’s position rather than misrepresent it? 

There is a fundamental difference between “murdering” and “refusing to murder.”  Refusing to do evil is not the same as supporting another evil.  A Christian can not licitly do evil, even if there is another evil that could be prevented by that sin.

As a Catholic, I believe that any given person is more valuable than the non-personal created universe.  It does not follow that I would murder one to save another.  I can not do evil to attain a good end.  I can not murder an innocent person even if I really really want to.

Red Beard,

If you are not convinced by the legal issues, then perhaps you are wishing that the law would be something other than it is.  Sorry, but I am correctly stating the law as it stands.  Again, if you want to look it up and read it for yourself, I have given you the USC citation so you can do that.

St. Joseph’s accepts Medicare and Medicaid patients (for inpatient and outpatient treatment—men, women, children, for emergency and non-emergency medical care).  That means that the hospital is bound by EMTALA.  Those are the facts.  If you want to cahnge those fact, then talk to you Congressional rep/senator.  the law will cahnge if and when Congress changes it.  It does not matter what you believe the should be or is—I am telling you as lawyer what the law is.

And as long the bishop advocates letting women needlessly die in hosptials, then he is centainly not pro-life.  If he not pro-life, he is pro-death.  The woman’s life counts.  It does because women are made in the image of God as are men. Letting patients deliberately die in the ER is a crime in Arizona.  that is the law, not matter that you do not beleive it.

And yes, Catholic hospitals and Catholic dioceses and Catholic organizations of all sorts are subject to secular/civil law in the United States.  As the bishops found out when they tried to conceal the crimes of pedophile priests.  And again, it does not matter if you feel the law is unjust.  St. Joseph’s Hospital, Catholic Healthcare West and the Catholic Hospital Assocation see/understand that the secular laws are just and abide by them.  Again, those are the facts, no matter that you wish the facts were different.

Quick question: If it is standard operating procedure for all hospitals (Catholic and otherwise) to perform “lifesaving abortions” (quite the oxymoron), why did Sr. McBride have to consult the ethics committee?

The ethics committee was consulted ( I will have to assume, because I was not there), to ascertain if performing the procedure was ethical under the healthcare directives that are in place in Catholic hospitals.  The ethics committee decided that the procedure could be ethically performed under Directive 47.  The bishop disagreed (and his interpretation has not been accepted as correct by a number of Catholic canon lawyers and theologians).  These directives do not supersede secular laws and do not exempt Catholic hospitals from such laws.  They guide Catholic hopsitals in how they provide care.  They are still subject to civil law.

For the sake of arguement, let’s say, the ethics committee decided that the procedure could not have been performed under Directive 47.  Then the hospital would have to make a decision.  If it did nothing and deliberately let the mother die in the ER, then it would have been in violation of federal law and the involved healthcare staff subject to poential criminal prosecution under Arizona state law (negligent homicide). In addition, such a failure to treat would have subjected the hospital and all involved healthcare staff to civil medical malpractice lawsuits and/or the potential loss of their license to practice medicine/nursing in the state of Arizona. There would have been additionl penalities and potential loss of accreditations for the hospital as well.

Or if the ethics committed decided it could not proceed under Directive 47, then the involved staff would have to decide if they could, pursuant to the standard of medical care (this is a legal term that is understood to be applicable to all healthcare professionals and institution at all times and in all facilities), go ahead with the procedure or not.  And in any hosptial ER where this situation occurred, general medical ethics and the standard of medical care would agree that the mother would have to receive the standard of medical care.

In other words, yes, the hospital and staff was caught between a rock and hard place. This was a horrible situation. I am sure everybody would have preferred that the baby could have been saved.  It was just not medically/biologically possible.  So the hopsital acted to save the life it could save.

It seems that may be a stream of magical thinking going with some hwo are posting her:  that somehow the Church and Catholic organizations are above the law or exempt from the laws of the federal and local governments.  That may have been true sduring the Middle Ages in Europe.  But it is not true in the United State and has not not been true since the U.S. Constitution became the law of the land and separated church from state.

There has been some discussion also of conscience clauses.  Let’s be clear, a conscience clause applies to individuals.  Individuals choose to exercise a “conscience clause” or to NOT excercise it.  In the situation in question at St. Joes, apparently all the invovled healthcare professionals understood that it was morally, ethically and legally necessary to save the life of the mother.  And even if someone had decided not participate in the procedure, the hospital, as institution subject to federal and state laws and regulations, still would have been legally obligated to save the life of the mother.

And again, I notice that the bishop advocated that the hospital violate fedral and state law and that the mother be left untreated and be left to die—a crime.  And again, I notice that he wants other people to suffer the consequences of such violations of the law.  He has NOT said He would be happy to go to prison in place of healthcare professionals who let patients die based on his understanding of canon law.  Until he makes such a declaration, then it has to be said that he must be uncertain of his interpreation of canon law.

“”“that somehow the Church and Catholic organizations are above the law or exempt from the laws of the federal and local governments. “”“

No, merely that one may be obliged by conscience to civilly disobey unjust laws.  Just ask Rosa Parks.

All of this being said, based on the document linked to by @TheresaEE, I’m not convinced that @Lisa’s explanation is correct. 

If someone where to attempt to compel me to murder a child, I pray that God would give me the courage to follow Him, no matter the cost.

Red Beard,

You may be convinced that I am not correct in my explanation of the law.  That’s fine.  You remain unconvinced, and incorrect in your understanding of the law.  Your remaining unconvinced does not change reality and does not change the law.

Again, I would would point out that the Catholic Hospital Association agrees with me and with St. Joseph’s Hospital—that St. Joe’s was legally bound to take the course of action it took.  Hospital administrators and hospitals lawyers understand what federal law requires of all hospitals which operate ERs.  That’s all that matters.  It does not matter that you do not understand what the law requires in this regard.

I would point out as well that the a theologian (one of several) from Marquette University (a Catholic university) disgareed with the bishop’s interpreation of canon law. 

The recent bishops of Phoenix are no respecters of human life.  Bishop Thomas O’Biren (Olmsted’s predecessor) barely escaped indictment by the Maricopa County District Attorney for his egregious cover up of crimes committed by pedophile priests in the diocese.  His covering up and failing to report the crimes of these priests, was in itself a crime.  He is today, a convicted felon.  He ran over a pedestrian in a Phoenix street, did not stop, and left the man to die in the street.

Now Bishop Olmsted wants to leave women to die in hospitals. 

Not a great pro-life record from these guys.  The Vatican uses a phrase that translated into “promote in order to remove.”  Perhaps, the Phoenix Diocese will luck out & the Vatican will remove Olmsted by promoting him to some obscure post where he can do no harm to dying patients.

Yeesh, I heard about that case, it seems you did have a lousy bishop.

“”“Now Bishop Olmsted wants to leave women to die in hospitals”“”

<sarcasm>Yep, Bishop Olmsted and the Catholic Church both want all pregnant women to die.  It is our guiding principal.</sarcasm>  It really is more fun to attack the man then to honestly approach the reality of the act.  I get it.  I hope you’re having fun.

“”“Again, I would would point out that the Catholic Hospital Association agrees with me and with St. Joseph’s Hospital”“”

The boards of these two organizations have a lot of crossover, as Jummy’s other article explains.  Niether has prooven to really care about the Church’s actual position.  This is both sad and scandalous.

“”“It does not matter that you do not understand what the law requires in this regard.”“”

Of course not! As a legal issue, my understanding isn’t important, neither is yours.  Luckily, the issue can be judged far less ambiguously on the moral level: “Though Shalt Not Murder.”  Wow, for a minute I thought that this might be a complicated issue!

“”“I would point out as well that the a theologian (one of several) from Marquette University (a Catholic university) disgareed with the bishop’s interpreation of canon law.”“”

The Holy Spirit has not been promised to prevent “theologians” from teaching error in matters of faith and morals.  Christ has not promised that “those who hear dissenting theologians hear me.” Only the majesterium, through its apostolic succession, has such a promise.  As such, no theologian’s opinion on the matter carries any weight.  As a matter of faith and morals, it has been settled that: You can not murder an innocent person, even if you really really want to and even if you can find people who say it’s ok to murder this time.

You can not murder an innocent.

Lisa wrote:  “Whoever wrote that Roe v. Wade exempts medical personnel and/or hospitals from having to provide emergency services to women that may include a medically necessary abortion to save a woman’s life is just plain wrong.”

To my knowledge, no one wrote that.  I suspect you have completely failed to correctly read what I wrote, which was:

“In fact, since the passage of Roe v Wade in 1973,  laws have been enacted at both the federal and state levels, which protect medical establishments and personnel from being forced, aganist their conscience, to perform abortion and abortion-related services.”

I named the Church Amendment by name, and linked to a document which discussed these abortion conscience laws.  At no time has anyone suggested that Roe v Wade gives these protections to hospitals and medical personnel.

Lisa wrote:  “Under the federal statue, all hopsitals operating ERs are REQUIRED to provide treatment when a patient comes into the ER with a life threatening condition or in active labor.”

Where is your proof that the patient at St. Joe’s was in the ER?  According to one statement I read, she was NOT in the ER when the Ethics Committee met.

Regarding the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act: 

The Becket Fund argues that the ACLU misinterprets the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act.  It’s pretty brazen, according to the Becket Fund, for the ACLU to do this, since, in part,  that law was initially designed to protect the conscience rights of healthcare workers.

Here is a link to the letter the Becket Fund wrote in August to the Dept of HHS, promising to “represent, pro bono, any religious hospital or its personnel that HHS threatens because of their conscientious objection to abortion.  And we will, if necessary, sue to block any such proposed policy.”

According to the Becket Fund, “The ACLU has no business radically re-defining the meaning of “emergency health care,” just as it has no business demanding that religious doctors and nurses violate their faith by performing a procedure they believe is tantamount to murder.  Forcing religious hospitals to perform abortions not only undermines this nation’s integral commitment to conscience rights, it violates the numerous federal laws that recognized and protect those rights.  Ironically, it is also contrary to the text and purpose of the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (“EMTALA”),3 the very law the ACLU cites as the basis for its proposal.”

Here’t the link to the Becket Fund’s letter to the Dept. of HHS:

http://www.consciencelaws.org/issues-legal/legal052.html

Performing elective abortions is not the same as performing an emergency abortion to save a patient’s life.  Again, St. Joseph’s and the Catholic Hosptial Association understand and have stated that that St. Joseph’s was legally obligated to to provide the patient with emergency care.  This is the correct legal position.

If you read the Arizona Republic newspaper, you would see an excellent article that set out the facts of the situation Including a statement from the hospital’s chief medical officer—Charles Alfano, MD that the patient was near death in the hospital. 

Beckett’s Fund or whomever can state whatever they like.  The patient was too ill to transfer to another hospital, she was in imminent danger of death and the hospital was legally , morally and ethically required to intervent to save her life.  I am sorry that you all do not agree with the law, but hospitals understand their legal obligations.

In the United States of America, healthcare professional do not stand by and idly watch patients die when they intervene to save a life.  Standing idly by and just letting a patient die because some bishop wants that done ( and not all canon lawyers or theologians agree with him) would be a violation of medical ethics and a violation of federal and Arizona state law.

There is no indication or evidence that the conscience of any healthcare professional at St. Joseph’s was violated.  At a very large hospital like St. Joe’s most of the healthcare providers are not Catholic and do not believe that their care of patients is dictated by someone who is not present, is not a physician, has no understanding of the patient’s condition, has not seen or examined the patient, has no medical training.

Reality is reality.  Beckett’s Fund letters do not change the law.  They can assert whatever silly thing they want to assert.  The president of St. Joseph’s Hospital, Catholic Healthcare West and the Catholic Hospital Association agree that St. Joseph’s did what was legally, ethically and morally correct in saving the life they could save.

“Nothing in the ACLU’s letter explains why a public health emergency exists where it has never been found before.”
Lisa wrote:  ” Beckett’s Fund letters do not change the law.”

Nor do letters from the ACLU “change the law.”

Based on 25 years of case law, there is nothing in the ACLU’s letter which “explains why a public health emergency exists where it has never been found before.”

“In the light of EMTALA’s text and purpose, it should be no surprise that, in the nearly 25 years since it was passed in 1986, no court has ever read it to require a hospital or doctor to perform an abortion.  The ACLU nowhere explains why, in light of this history, the HHS should find this requirement in the statute now.”

Laws need to be interpreted, and for the last 37 years, no one has interpreted the conscience protections to be anything other than what they are - and no one can force Catholic hospitals perform abortions, even “emergency” abortions, in violation of these laws. It’s no doubt, because of some lawyers as well as those at the ACLU, who apparently misinterpret existing laws (or wish they were otherwise), that many healthcare professionals THINK they have to perform abortions, when, in fact, the law says they do not.

That Lisa can claim “There is no indication or evidence that the conscience of any healthcare professional at St. Joseph’s was violated,” is astounding!  How does anyone know the individual conscience of every healthcare professional at St. Joe’s? 

And, if you are correct, then the Bishop was absolutely correct in removing their right to call themselves a “Catholic” institution, since it would be obvious their consciences have not been formed against objective standards of Truth, and are therefore, erroneous.

I am not defending the ACLU and its position. I am talking about the plain text of the law.  I have provided the USC citationf or the statute so that youa ll can read it for yourselves.  I am not dpending an ACLU interpretation and I am not depending on a Beckett Fund interpretation.  I am refering to the plain text of the statute.  In this situation, the patient was in need of emergency care—which happened to be an abortion.  The law and medical ethics requires that the hospital provide the care the patient needs.  No doctor is going to stand idly by and watch a patient die.

My assertion that there is no indication that anyone’s conscience was violated is based on the fact that the patient actually did receive the treatment she need, that the involved hospital staff did in fact act to save her life.

In reading statement from the president of St. Joseph;s Hospital, it does not seem to me that the hospital felt it was forced to do anything that violated its status a a Catholic hospital.  Remember the hospital’s ethics committee decided that providing the abortion was morally permitted under the the Catholic bishops’ healthcare directive #47.

Lisa writes: “Remember the hospital’s ethics committee decided that providing the abortion was morally permitted under the the Catholic bishops’ healthcare directive #47.”

Yes, they believed (wrongly) that the abortion could be “justified” under #47, which essentially outlines the Principle of Double Effect (PDE).  However, the Bishop rejects that, and EVEN THEIR OWN ANALYSIST, DR. M. THERESA LYSAUGHT, admitted that the abortion did NOT qualify as PDE.

I think this latter FACT is being ignored by many posters who insist they were following ERD #47. 

Dr. Lysaught, however, attempts to “justify” the abortion under an apparently “third” category, (intentionally terminate the pregnancy while not intending to kill the fetus). 

The Bishop, the Catholic Medical Association, The National Catholic Bioethics Center, and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops reject this novel (VERY NOVEL) “justification.”

Again, had this been the ONLY time the hospital performed an abortion by misinterpreting #47, that would be one thing.  But this was one of many, many violations, taking place for over 26 years (the Bishop was involved only for the last 7 years).  He is absolutely within his right to make the decision he has.

I do not believe that you have shown that there is any such federal or state law which would have forced any Catholic hospital to perform even an “emergency” abortion, so when people say: “They did what was LEGALLY necessary”, I think they are under a mistaken notiong that they are required by law - in direct violation of the numerous conscience amendments - to perform an “emergency” abortion.

And, once again, the woman was not in the ER when the Ethics Committee met.  She was in the maternity ward,

http://thebishopshour.org/2010/12/23/the-bishop-the-hospital-and-the-diocese-of-phoenix/

so even if you are correctly interpreting the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act that hospitals (in violation of the Church Amendment, the Hyde Amendment, etc) must perform “emergency” abortions, it wouldn’t apply to her anyway.

Theresa,

You are incorrect about the law.  EMTALA can apply to patients not in the ER, but inpatients who are medically unstable.  This interpreation of EMTALA comes directly from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) web site.  If you are not a lawyer, you not should be trying to comment on the legal nuances.

The bishop’s interpretion of directive #47 is only one interpretation.  Infallibility does not apply to bishops (and it should not even apply to the Pope). It is more than conceivable that the bishop is incorrect. There are other canon lawyers and theologians who have come forward to state that the hospital interpreted Directive #47 correctly.  The Catholic Hospital Association supports the decision St. Joseph’s made.

You also misrepresent Dr. Lysaught’s theological analysis.

Lisa writes: “EMTALA can apply to patients not in the ER….” 

I understood you to say that it applied to patients in the ER, so, if I misunderstood that, I stand corrected.  However, I do not believe that the EMTALA has EVER been, in 25 years of case law, interpreted the way the ACLU would like to believe it should be interpreted.

Lisa writes: “The bishop’s interpretion of directive #47 is only one interpretation.  Infallibility does not apply to bishops (and it should not even apply to the Pope).”

The Pope’s infallibility has nothing to do with this, so I won’t comment on your “opinion” on whether or not Jesus gave the Church that charism in Faith and Morals.  This issue is not a question of infallibility, but of authority.  Regardless of whether or not some canon lawyers and theologians interpret it one way.  The fact remains, OTHERS interpret the way the Bishop interprets it, and the Bishop has the final authority in these matters.  Anyone who doesn’t accept that authority is in violation of Canon Law.

I wrote my opinion of Dr. Lysaught’s paper on another thread.  I do not believe I have “misinterpreted her” as you claim, so please tell me precisely HOW I “misinterpreted” her. 

Here is what I wrote regarding only ONE of my concerns with her analysis:

The Bishop’s authority IS the crux of this issue, which is why, I believe, he stressed it so often.  While the hospital did present a “well-thought out defense of their position,”  so did the Bishop, with regard to the USCCB Committee on Doctrine, ““The Distinction Between Direct Abortion and Legitimate Medical Procedures,” as well as The National Catholic Bioethics Center Analysis—June 11, 2010.  Even the CMA (Catholic Medical Association) has come out in favor of the Bishop.  So, I don’t think it’s a case of “well, they have the better argument,  so the Bishop is simply pulling rank.”  I think he has cogent arguments,  omedically, ethically, and theologicaly,  and so, in these situations,  the only resolution lies in the one who ultimately has the authority to decide if Catholic principles are being adhered to, or violated. 

Unfortunately, we don’t have the NCBC’s analysis (which I would love to read), but we have to believe that the Bishop has valid concerns.  The fact is, the bottom line is ALWAYS one of authority - from the earliest years of the Church, who has the ultimate authority in matters of dispute?  Throughout history,  those who rejected this authority were no longer Catholic.  It’s a novel idea that one can still be “Catholic” and yet reject the Church’s binding authority. 

The whole thing can be boiled down to this:  Some ethicists, theologians, and medical doctors agree with the hospital, and some agree with the Bishop.  So, does the Bishop, who has the ultimate authority, simply agree to disagree?  He says no, he is exercising his duty to make a definitive determination. 

I’m not a theologian, but I have a very strong background, many years’ experience, and several degrees in medical technology and related fields.  My own reading of M. Therese Lysaught’s analysis leaves me very concerned that such an analysis, if accepted, sets a very dangerous precedent.  She argues that the intervention was neither a direct abortion, NOR one which can be considered falling under the principle of double effect.

In short, she seems to be presenting a “third” category - a definite “termination of pregnancy” - but without “intent”  to kill the fetus.

As such, can not EVERY “intervention” done to “save the life of the mother” fall into this “third” category?  “We didn’t ‘intend’ to kill the fetus, we only intended to terminate the pregnancy”.  Ultimately, one could use this defense to “justify” abortions even to protect the “health” of the mother - in effect, MOST abortions.  “We didn’t intend to kill the fetus, we only intended to terminate a pregnancy which was causing the mother much stress and anxiety.” 

I have many other problems with her analysis, but will state just one.  The NCBC’s analysis (which we don’t have access to, but which was quoted, in part, in Dr. L’s analysis),  stated:  “The pregnancy was seen as a pathology. However, there was no evidence of any pathology of the reproductive organs, nor of the fetus, its placenta or its membranes.”

To this, Dr. L responds:  “Here the NCBC draws too stark a distinction between particular organs and the entire physiological system of which they are a part. I do not mean here to invoke the principle of totality;  rather, this is simply a biological fact.”  Yet, later, she does virtually the same thing – on a smaller scale - which she complains the NCBC has done – she draws a very sharp distinction between the fetus (the particular organ), and the “pregnancy”  (the larger physiological system).  In fact, her entire analysis was peppered with attempts to highlight this distinction, finally culminating in her statement that:  “Given the clinical facts of the situation, the phrase “termination of pregnancy” is an accurate medical description of what the intervention was trying to achieve (to terminate the burden of the pregnancy not to kill the child).” 

Virtually any medical textbook, dictionary, etc, defines pregnancy as “The state of carrying a developing embryo or fetus within the female body.”  Dr. L.  argues that, even if the fetus dies, the “pregnancy” can continue, for weeks, or even months.  This is a VERY NOVEL thing to state.  If fact, if the fetus dies,  that is a miscarriage (or, spontaneous abortion), and the PREGNANCY ends with the death of the fetus.  Thus, miscarriage is commonly defined as:  “Any pregnancy that ends spontaneously before the fetus can survive.”

For years, most medical personnel were taught that pregnancy began at fertilization.  Since the advent of the Pill,  in around 1965, the American College of OB and GYN re-defined pregnancy as beginning at implantation,  leaving a 7-10 day window between fertilization and the “beginning of pregnancy”  that was a novel distinction.  Many have argued, cogently, that the “purpose” behind this change in definition of the beginning of pregnancy was to minimize the abortifacient potential of the Pill.  If it prevented implantation, then it prevented pregnancy,  and since abortion is the early termination of pregnancy, it could “legitimately” be argued that no termination of pregnancy took place, since on pregnancy took place. 

With all due respect to Dr. L.,  (and I do NOT claim that she is intending to do this),  I have serious concerns that, once again,  the very definition of “pregnancy” is being changed, in a novel way,  and, if accepted,  can justify virtually any abortion.  I don’t doubt the Bishop sees this, too.

So, please tell me HOW I “misinterpreted” Dr. Lysaught’s analysis.

On page 24 of her analysis, Dr. Lysaught writes that:  “...I agree with Rhonheimer that this case does not fall under the principle of
double effect….”

Since the hospital initially claimed the “intervention” was licit under ERD #47, and ERD #47 specifically addresses the PDE, then it is clear that even Dr. Lysaught does not agree with the hospital that the “intervention” can be “justified” under the PDE.

That was my point, and it in no way “misrepresents” Dr. Lysaught’s analysis.

From the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops:

http://www.usccb.org/prolife/publicat/lifeissues/070910.shtml

“The Committee on Doctrine reminded us that “…. abortion (that is, the directly intended termination of pregnancy before viability or the directly intended destruction of a viable fetus) is never permitted… One may never directly kill an innocent human being, no matter what the reason… By contrast, in some situations, it may be permissible to perform a medical procedure on a pregnant woman that directly treats a serious health problem but that also has a secondary effect that leads to the death of the developing child… The difference can be seen in two different scenarios in which the unborn child is not yet old enough to survive outside the womb.”

“In the first scenario, a pregnant woman is experiencing problems with one or more of her organs, apparently as a result of the added burden of pregnancy.  The doctor recommends an abortion to protect the health of the woman… The surgery directly targets the life of the unborn child. It is the surgical instrument in the hands of the doctor that causes the child’s death.  The surgery does not directly address the health problem of the woman, for example, by repairing the organ that is malfunctioning… The abortion is the means by which a reduced strain upon the organ or organs is achieved. As the Church has said many times, direct abortion is never permissible because a good end cannot justify an evil means….”

Clearly, the USCCB agrees with Bishop Olmstead.  This first scenario, (which Dr. Lysaught claims does not describe the “intervention” at St. Joseph’s, but her “defense” seems to be simply that the doctors weren’t “intending” the death of the fetus, and the fetus was going to die “anyway”) seems to describe almost exactly what happened in the Phoenix case.

In addition, the analysis given by the National Catholic Bioethics Center was confidential, so we do not have access to it - yet we know it supported Bishop Olmstead’s position.  However, since CHW, through Dr. Lysaught’s analysis, made public portions of their analysis, the NCBC has published a statement in response, which can be found here:

http://www.ncbcenter.org/NetCommunity/Document.Doc?id=171

Thus, Bishop Olmstead has not made his decision in a vacuum.  He is both a theologian AND a canonist, and has the backing of the above organizations, as well as medical doctors and ethicists, canonists and theologians, in making his decision.

To blindly follow a bishop because he has “authority” in the diocese is to use the same arguement Nazis used to justify their immoral acts.  To just blindly follow authority is an abdication of our responsibility as human beings.  Bishops are human beings and are quite capable of misusing their authority—as did the bishops who covered up crimes of child sexual abuse, as did the bishops who for 600 yrs tortured and murdered in the name of the Inquistion, etc, etc.

Dr Lysaught said the following:

“The patient’s attempt to continue the pregnancy in order to nurture the child’s life led to two negative physiological outcomes: the failure of the right side of the patient’s heart and cardiogenic shock,” Lysaught wrote.

“On Nov. 5, 2009, the mother and fetus were both in the process of dying,” she said. “Due to the age of the fetus, there was no possibility that it could survive outside the womb. Nor, due to the mother’s heart failure and cardiogenic shock, was there any possibility that the fetus could survive inside the womb. In short, in spite of the best efforts of the mother and of her medical staff, the fetus had become terminal, not because of a pathology of its own but because of a pathology in its maternal environment. There was no longer any chance that the life of this child could be saved. This is crucial to note insofar as it establishes that at the point of decision, it was not a case of saving the mother or the child. It was not a matter of choosing one life or the other. The child’s life, because of natural causes, was in the process of ending.”

Lysaught, an associate professor of moral theology and director of graduate studies at Marquette University in Milwaukee, also noted that what exacerbated the woman’s pulmonary hypertension and was causing heart failure and cardiogenic shock was not the fetus, but the placenta, an organ shared by the mother and the child in her womb.

“The placenta was producing the physiological changes that imperiled the mother’s and child’s lives. … Although in one respect the placenta was functioning ‘normally,’ it was also functioning pathologically in two ways,” she said. “First, once the placenta initiated its normal function at week ten, a crisis was created. Second, once the patient entered cardiogenic shock, the placenta also became hypoxic [unable to get enough oxygen]. In these two ways, then, the placenta not only initiated a threat to the mother’s life; it also became the immediate/presenting cause of the inevitably fatal threat to the fetus.”

In acting to remove the placenta, the hospital knew that this intervention would inevitably also cause the death of the child—just as the child’s death is inevitable when a mother’s fallopian tube is removed in an ectopic pregnancy or when a pregnant woman’s cancerous uterus is removed—both classic examples of licit medical procedures in moral theology and church teaching.

Lysaught quoted Pope John Paul II defining procured abortion as “the deliberate and direct killing, by whatever means it is carried out, of a human being in the initial phase of his or her existence, extending from conception to birth.”

She also quoted Pope Pius XII, who also emphasized the significance of “direct.”

“It has been our intention here to use always the expressions ‘direct attempt on the life of the innocent person,’ ‘direct killing.’” Pius said in a 1951 address. “The reason is that if, for example, the safety of the future mother, independently of her state of pregnancy, might call for an urgent surgical operation, or any other therapeutic application, which would have as an accessory consequence, in no way desired or intended, but inevitable, the death of the fetus, such an act could not be called a direct attempt on the innocent life.

“In these conditions,” Pius continued, “the operations can be lawful, as can other similar medical interventions, provided that it be a matter of great importance, such as life, and that it is not possible to postpone it till the birth of the child, or to have recourse to any other efficacious remedy.”

Lysaught explored at length Thomas Aquinas’ distinctions concerning the “moral object” of an act and unintended, even if inevitable, other consequences of the act.

She also analyzed what occurred at St. Joseph’s through the writings of two noted conservative theologians today: Fr. Martin Rhonheimer, an Opus Dei priest who teaches at the Pontifical University of the Holy Cross in Rome, and Germain Grisez, professor emeritus of Christian ethics at Mount St. Mary’s University in Emmitsburg, Md., and author of a major study on Christian morality, The Way of the Lord Jesus.

She said Rhonheimer, in his 2009 book Vital Conflicts in Medical Ethics: A Virtue Approach to Craniotomy and Tubal Pregnancies, confronts two situations—obstructed delivery and ectopic pregnancy—in which “medical personnel are faced with a situation in which it is certain that without medical intervention, both mother and child will die.”

(In today’s medicine, she noted, advances in Caesarian section have made the 19th-century moral debate over craniotomy moot, but it is instructive to see how moralists addressed it when it was a life-or-death issue.)

She said Rhonheimer—whose book was written and published at the request of the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith—clearly rejects direct abortion or any “weighing” of one life against another, but seeks to assess cases in which “the child’s chance of survival is negligibly small or, in fact, non-existent.”

“These cases, he argues, have a distinguishing, morally relevant feature, namely, that ‘only the life of the mother is at the disposal of another human being—the fetus is no longer even subject to a decision between “killing or allowing to live”; the only morally good thing that can be chosen here is to save the life of the mother,’” Lysaught wrote.

She added, “He also states clearly that ‘the decision to allow both mother and child to die — at least when the mother can be saved and the child will die in any case—is simply irrational’; this is not an ad hominem comment but rather a very specific Thomistic critique, based on the critical role of reason in moral discernment and action.”

She said Rhonheimer further argues that the principle of double effect does not apply here “because there are not in fact two effects. Given that no action can save the life of the child, its death effectively falls outside the scope of the moral description of the action. Moreover, since there are not two effects, one cannot argue that the death of the child is a means to the end of saving the life of the mother.”

She quoted the priest: “Only if the fetus would otherwise survive could its death be said to be chosen as a means—and thus caused ‘directly’ in a morally relevant way. But in our case the death of the fetus is not willed in order to save the mother; as far as the life of the fetus is concerned, it is beyond any kind of willing.”

She said Grisez holds that it would be licit to accept the baby’s death to save the mother’s life “only when certain conditions are met.”

She quoted from volume two of The Way of the Lord Jesus: “Sometimes the baby’s death may be accepted to save the mother. Sometimes four conditions are simultaneously fulfilled: (i) some pathology threatens the lives of both the pregnant woman and the child, (ii) it is not safe to wait or waiting will surely result in the death of both, (iii) there is no way to save the child, and (iv) an operation that can save the mother’s life will result in the child’s death.”

The bottom line is this (to use a sports analogy):  in providing its stellar medical care for 115 yrs, St. Joseph’s was playing baseball.  The bishop shows up with a football and wants the hosptial to play baseball with a football.  The hopsital rightly told the bishop, they did not need or want hsi football and to take his football home.

The bishop accomplished nothing by his actions.  All he did was assure that he no longer had a voice at St. Joseph’s.  The hospital will continue to provide needed and stellar medical care in Arizona.  The hospital will long outlast this bishop.

If anyone want to continue to make the “how many angels can dance on the head of a pin” discussion, that’s great.  Changes nothing.  The reality is that the hospital did what it had to do to save the life it could save. The bishop’s disapproval does not supersede civil law, medical ethics or change reality.

“”“The hospital will continue to provide needed and stellar medical care in Arizona.  The hospital will long outlast this bishop.”“”

But the Church, which invented hospitals, will far outlast this particular hospital.  It will continue to preach Christ’s Truth, that All people are made in the image and likeness of God.  All people have inherent dignity that can not be ignored.  Because of this inherent dignity, you can not murder an innocent person.

I thank God for giving us the Church to teach His Eternal Truths to us in all times and all places.  Without that constant voice, even more people would be led astray by the error in moral judgment that is consequentialism.

Red Beard,

Your statement re hospitals is incorrect. The Church did not invent hospitals.  In the West, the ancient Romans had hospitals at least by at least 100 BCE (or BC if you prefer).  Certainly monks and nuns, after the 4th century CE (AD, if you prefer) brought hospital care to more people and advanced hospital care.  Which goes to my thesis, that no one can run hospitals as well as Roman Catholic nuns—not even bishops who think they can even when they medcial training, medical knowledge or knowledge of a specific patient.

If the Church continues on its current path, it may not last out the century except as a small marginalized organization.

Interesting point, Lisa, about the Romans and hospitals.  Please post a source so that I can find out more about them.

Liseux,

If you Google the term ancient Roman hospitals, you will turn up a number of sources.  Also, you could Google the name Steven Saylor.  Steven is an author who writes a mystery series set in ancient Rome—he know a lot about ancient history.  He is also on FaceBook and you could talk to him about this topic via his FaceBook page.

To blindly follow theologians and doctors because he or she happens to agree with one’s belief that it is morally licit to kill one human being so another may live, is to use the same arguement Nazis used to justify their immoral acts.  To just blindly follow theologians and doctors is an abdication of our responsibility as human beings.  Theologians and doctors are human beings and are quite capable of falling into errors dominant in the culture in which they live.

Posting some of Dr. Lysaught’s analysis (which I have already read), does not deal with the questions I have already raised (see my post above).  In fact, it completely ignores Dr. Lysaught’s conclusion that, while the “intervention” at St. Joe’s was neither direct, nor PDE, it nonetheless was a direct intention to “terminate the pregnancy” without intent to kill the fetus.

So, again, why can this argument not be used to “justify” virtually any abortion done to “save” the “life or health” of the mother?

Dr. Lysaught’s interpretation of Grisez and Rhonheimer is just that - an interpretation.  It would be interesting to hear what Grisez or Rhonheimer have to say about her use of their work.  I have read on another site a former student of Grisez saying that he is being completely misrepresented.  I myself, have his “The Way of the Lord Jesus”, and while not a theologian myself, I have my doubts that he would agree that the placentectomy of a perfectly healthy placenta would be the same thing as performing a hysterectomy of cancer-ridden uterus, or a salpingectomy of a damaged fallopian tube, as Dr. Lysaught suggests.

Intelligent, rational people can disagree.  Once again, it’s a question of who has the authority, from God Himself, to decide in matters of dispute. One either accepts his authorty, or they do not.  To blindly follow theologians and doctors who have no authority from God, simply because they agree with one’s own conclusions, is no great intellectual feat!

Let’s take a sports analogy to illustrate what has been happening at St. Joe’s, and many other so-called “Catholic” hospitals across the nation:

In providing its stellar medical care for 89 yrs, St. Joseph’s comprimised their own directives and mission statement, and switched in the 90th year (around 1994) from playing baseball to playing the dominant culture’s new favorite game, football.  For 19 years, the bishop’s ignored this new football game of doing evil that good may come from it.  Seven years ago, a new bishop shows up with a basketball and wants the hosptial to play baseball - which was the game which made them great.  The hopsital, betraying what made them great for 89 years, and buying into the dominant culture’s belief that football is the ONLY way to go, told the bishop they did not need or want his basketball and to take his basketball home.

So, the Bishop took his basketball home, and the hospital will continue to play football.  The football fans, however, just can’t seem to let it go.  They got what they wanted - football - but they just can’t seem to get over the fact the Bishop had the audacity to even suggest that football is not the ONLY game in town, and that there are actually people (however “blind” and “misguided”), who actually AGREE with the bishop!!! 

Go figure.

@Lisa

Hospitals, or a place intended to provide health care to the public, where invented by the Catholic Church.  Romans did have places to provide health care to their troops and places to get the sick and dying out of the street, though not to provide them with care. 

Like you said, a quick google search of “ancient roman hospitals” comes up with the following:

“”“The concept of the modern hospital (the actual care, ‘hospitality’ and treatment of visitors) for the civilian masses in Europe didn’t come to fruition until post Constantine and the rise of Christianity. While these early Christian hospitals were grossly over their heads regarding medical capability (they essentially served as last stops for the dying or quarantine centers), the concept of providing care to the public was the actual intent. In this regard, the first civilian hospitals were develop”“”

http://www.unrv.com/culture/roman-hospitals.php

@TheresaEE

As always, your posts are eloquent and insightful.

““Theologians and doctors are human beings and are quite capable of falling into errors dominant in the culture in which they live.”“”

This is very true.

“”“Posting some of Dr. Lysaught’s analysis (which I have already read), does not deal with the questions I have already raised (see my post above).”“”

I don’t think you are going to get a direct answer.

TheresaEE,

Medicine is an objective/immediate discpline.  A patient recovers or does not. Disease is cured or not.  A wound heals or does not.  Faith obvioulsy does not work that way. Faith is very personal. Christians interpret the NT in different ways.  So blindly following someone who says that he/she has all the answers re what God wants is a very different thing than allowing a physician who is an expert in how the body functions to treat a patient.  Only God is eternal, only God is all knowing and all powerful.  The fact the Catholic Church says it is the one true faith, does not make it so.  As St. Paul says,  “We see now through a veil darkly”.  Only God, not any human being, not any bishop, is the source of true spiritual illumination.

The hierarchy’s interpretation of faith & Scripture just coincidentally benefits the hierarchy.  Or as Lord Acton famously said, “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”  The ongoing pedophile scandal in the Church is a very clear demonstration of how corrupt the hierarchy has become (to say nothing of the current Vatican bank scandal).  And if you read Bishop Olmsted’s letter to CHW, you will see that he only metions his authority, his diocese.  There is no mention God or Jesus Christ.  It was all about the bishop, not God.  His ego seems to have gotten in the way of any true healing of the situation, of any true resolution, of any true reconciliation. He shut down any possibility of true dialogue but making baombastic demands he knew the hospital and Catholic Healthcare West would never agree to.

And again, the bottom line is that St. Jospeh’s does not need the bishop. It will continue to function,as it has for 115 yrs—as the premier hospital in the Phoenix-area. The bishop has only accomplished taking himself out of the equation.  He has only denied himself any voice in how St. Joseph’s operates.  Of course, anyone is free to agree with the bishop—its just that he has rendered himself ineffectual.

@Red Beard,

I could say the same about your posts! I always enjoy reading them!  And, that you for defending the Church’s role in “inventing” hospitals!  In our post-Christian culture, no one wants to give Christianity credit for anything other than “the Crusades, and Inquisitions” while simultaneously minimizing The Church’s role in building Western civilization.

No, I doubt I will get an answer to my questions regarding Dr. Lysaught’s analysis.  It seems it’s tantamount to “heresy” to raise questions about her analysis - we should just blindly accept it as irrefutable “gospel” truth. 

It would have been helpful if Dr. Lysaught had provided some footnotes to support her novel assertion that the “pregnancy” may continue for weeks or months after the death of the fetus.  It certainly is true that some of the physiological effects of the pregnancy may continue for a time, but I have never seen this described in the literature as the “pregnancy continuing” after fetal death.

Yet, this language (and the attempt to draw a sharp distinction between pregnancy and living embryo/fetus) is important to her conclusion that the “pregnancy was terminated” - without reference to the fetus.

There are several other places where she makes interesting (medical) assertions without references or citations - I think those citations (if any exist), would certainly have been helpful.

At any rate, it would be great to read a detailed analysis of her analysis, by some of her peers.  We have statements by 2 OBGYN’s in Phoenix supporting the Bishop, but they don’t deal directly with Dr. Lysaught’s report.

Thanks, Red_beard, that information makes much sense about the Romans and the hospitals, as they were infamous for their infanticide.

Re the invention of hospitals— let’s give the ancient cultures their due.  Just becaue they were not Christian cultures does not mean they did not accomplish anything or did not know anything.  One cannot just dimiss the entire Roamn culture becaue they were “famous for their infanticide.”  I mean, I suppose you could, be it would show a great ignorance of history. The Roman Empire and the Roman Catholic have both shed their share of innocent blood for various reasons. Catholic monastice communities and orders did not “invent” hospitals out of nowhere, out of whole cloth. They replicated and advanced what went before in terms of caring for patients. The Roman Empire and its institutions had much influence on the development of the Church.  And while the Church certainly did advance Western culture (and impeded at times as well), the Church was not the only influence on that advancement.

TheresaEE, if you are eager for some footnotes from Dr. Lysaught you can probably just contact her at Marquette and make that request.

And it would have been nice if the bishop had had something more expansive to say about her analysis other than he simply did not agree with it.  He has given the appearance of having made up his mind before CHW could respond.

@Lisa: “Medicine is an objective/immediate discpline.”

That’s your first mistaken assumption. Medicine is just as much an art as it is a science.  Doctors can offer only their best guesses in both Dx and Rx, and their best guesses at many Dx and Rx have been ultimately proved wrong -  numerous times. I could offer numerous examples of how patients have suffered as a result of their doctors’ inability to “think outside he box” in both Dx and Rx.  Doctors are just as “dogmatic” as any bishop is perceived to be - just ask any doctor who refuses to accept the status quo how many of their collegues shun them and act unprofessionally toward them. Just as any holistic doctor who prescribes bioidentical hormones to their women patients, and would flush any synthetic hormone down the toilet if he/she ever got their hands on what they consider poison to their patients.

This is why doctors “practice” medicine.  They are not infallible, and most of them know it. 

I have analysed Dr. Lysaught’s analysis from a medical perspective, and find her medical knowledge to be sorely inadequate.  As you yourself advised me, since I am not a lawyer, I should not attempt to interpret laws.  You should follow your own advice and not attempt to interpret medical practices unless you are competetant in the field of medicine. 

I have asked twice, and so will ask again:  “Why can not her ‘conclusion’ - that direct ‘termination of pregnancy’ without ‘intent’ to kill the fetus be used to ‘justify’ virtually any abortion?”

You have not answered this, yet your answer regarding “faith” reminds me of what Fr. Pavone says.  Whenever he attempts to speak about what science shows regarding the question of when life begins, his pro-abortion/choice opponents always respond with a religious answer! 

@Lisa:  “And if you read Bishop Olmsted’s letter to CHW, you will see that he only metions his authority, his diocese.  There is no mention God or Jesus Christ.”

That’s because he knows, as does every Catholic, that his authority comes directly from God, and so he doesn’t need to “mention” this fact.  Only those who attempt to seperate the bishop (successor to the Apostles) from the authority Christ gave them would think he “needs” to “mention” this - even though they wouldn’t accept it even if he DID “mention” this.

Believe it or not, one can arrive at the conclusion, by REASON ALONE, that God exists, that we have certain duties towards Him, including the practice of religion, that we have certain duties towards ourselves and our neighbors, and that we have an immortal soul.  We can arrive at the conclusion, by studying the Gospels simply as historical documents, (not the “inspired word of God”), and through both internal and external evidence, that revelation from God to man exists, that the Gospels are integral and authentic accounts of this divine revelation, that Jesus, Who claimed to be God proved that He IS God by His miracles, prophecies, and the probative force of both is miracles and prophecies, that He founded a Church and appointed certain men to carry on His mission, that that Church IS the Catholic Church, that the Apostles appointed men to succeed them, and those men appointed men to succeed them, and that this succession continues today.

It takes a lot of work to do this, and many years of study.  You can dispute this all you want, but I doubt you’ve even attempted to go through all the logical steps necessary to arrive at the truth that the Bishops of the Catholic Church today are the authentic successors of the Apostles, carrying all the authority that Jesus gave originally to His Apostles. 

It is possibly because you have not taken the care and time to go through these logical steps yourself, (that is, you blindly follow the prevailing winds of the culture), that you assume everyone has been negligent in this area of study.  Thus, you accuse them of “blindly” following the Bishop, when, in fact, it is you who is “blindly” following the errors of the culture. 

This is why you can say: “...that St. Jospeh’s does not need the bishop.”  If Jesus, the Son of God, took the trouble to become Incarnate, appoint men to teach and preach in His Name, ordain them, give them HIS authority, found a Church to be the “pillar and bulward of truth” (1 Tim 3:15), die and rise from the dead to bring salvation to all people through His Body, the Church, then I think it’s spectacularly arrogant for anyone to claim that anyone, let alone an institution which claims to be carrying out Jesus’ mission, “does not need the bishop.”  I think Christ would beg to differ.

And, once again, you ignore the fact that St. Joe’s has interrupted their functioning as a Catholic hospital about 26 years ago.  They will continue to cave in to the dominant culture’s errors,  but without the duplicity of calling themselves “Catholic” when they are not. It would have been more honorable if they had just admitted they are no longer Catholic, rather than force the Bishop to act. 

He has accomplished much.  Now, Catholics who want authenticly Catholic health care - the kind practiced by St. Joe’s for 89 years, will know that they won’t be getting it anymore at St. Joe’s today. In other words, Truth in advertising.

Lisa, I do believe Red_Beard is correct in stating that the Catholic Church invented hospitals, at least as we know them.

Surely, one can’t call a Roman bivouac that cares for sick or wounded soldiers and not the general population a hospital.

According to Alvin J. Schmidt, in his book “Under the Influence: How Christianity Transformed Civilization,” pp. 153-55, the Church pioneered the establishment of institutions staffed by doctors who made diagnosis and prescribed remedies as well as providing nursing provisions.

To be called a hospital, shouldn’t it be open to the public, particularly the poor?

Also, Guenter Risse states in his book, “Mending Bodies, Saving Souls: A History of Hospitals,” Christians replaced “the reciprocal hospitality that prevailed in ancient Greece and the family-oriented obligations of the Romans” in order to care for “particular social groups marginalized by poverty, sickness, and age.” (as quoted from Thomas E. Wood’s opus, “How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization)

If one looks at what a modern might call a “hospital” before Christianity and her charity, I think one will find a limited engagement directed at military, family, or as Risse, states, the Greek “reciprocal hospitality.”

Once again, Red_beard, thanks for your insightful posts.

TheresaEE,

I have degree in Roman Catholic theology from a Roman Catholic college.  So I have done a lot of study re the Church.

You make the assumption that the NT talks about the Roman Catholic Church.  And that the Church as it is constituted today is the intention of God.  That is one interpretation fo the NT, but certainly not the only one.  Honestly, I do not make that assumption, nor do I believe it.  I do not think that the Pope or the cardinals or the bishops carry any authority from God.  It benefits the hierarchy for people to believe that that. The hierarchy are hung up on its authority rather than truly serving the people of God. 

I think the Church as it stands today is corrupt and dishonest, that it does not as an institution serve God.  Individuals within the Church certainly do carry out God’s work.  There are many lay people and clergy who work tirelessly to carry out the corporal works of mercy and to help people live lives in relationship to God. 

But the the instution itself is corrupt and dying.  A traditional anti-Catholic sentiment has been to compare the Church to the Book of Revelation’s “great !@#$% of Babylon.” I always thought that was awful and over the top.  However, the behavior of the Church hierarchy in recent decades makes this old canard harder and harder to refute or to reject.

God is God, eternal, all-powerful, all-knowing, beyond comprehension and is not and cannot be contained within any one human statement of faith. St. Joseph’s can do and does the work of God on earth without any kind of endorsement from any human being, including Thomas Olmsted.  So no, the hospital does not need the bishop.  Neither it nor any person needs any intermediary to God. 

Slavish adherence to any supposed authority to anyone who says they have such authority from God borders on idolatry.

@Lisa

“”“I have degree in Roman Catholic theology from a Roman Catholic college.  So I have done a lot of study re the Church.”“”

If I where you, I’d ask for a refund as they seem to have missed a lot of the basics.

Your anti-Catholic bigotry is showing. We get that you hate the institution, which really shines a new light on many of your “arguments.”

@ Lisa:  “I have degree in Roman Catholic theology from a Roman Catholic college.  So I have done a lot of study re the Church.”

How convenient, for this discussion, that you have both a law degree, AND a degree in theology.  Unfortunatly, this hasn’t helped you one bit to answer my question.

For the fourth time, I will restate it:  “Why can’t Dr. Lysaught’s conclusion that we may ‘directly intending to terminate the pregnancy’ - without ‘intending to kill the fetus’ - be applied to virtually any and all abortions?”

Lisa: “So I have done a lot of study re the Church.” 

Doing “a lot of study re the Church” is not the same thing as following the logical steps, which I have briefly outlined, which show objectively, cogently and rationally that the Catholic Church is the Church Christ founded.  Anyone with even a high school degree from a Catholic school should at least know these basic apologetical arguments, and anyone even the least familiar with these logical progression of these steps would never make the silly assertion that “You make the assumption that the NT talks about the Roman Catholic Church.”

@ Lisa: “Honestly, I do not make that assumption, nor do I believe it.  I do not think that the Pope or the cardinals or the bishops carry any authority from God.”

It doesn’t matter what you believe or don’t believe.  What matters is what is objectively true.  If you sincerely believe this, then you have no NT canon from which to argue against the Church’s interpretation of Her NT canon.  Anyone even remotely familiar with the proofs I outlined above would realize how illogical any position is which attempts, on the one hand, to deny that God has entrusted certain men to teach infallibly in His Name, yet still wishes to cling, blindly, to the belief that we have any certainty there is a New Testament canon, let alone which books belong in it. 

I believe there are 27 books in our NT canon, no more, and no less, that each book is the inspired Word of God, that no uninspired book was canonized accidently, and that no inspired book was left out accidently.  In short, I have an infallibly defined NT canon because God gave authority to certain men to making binding and infallible decisions.  Those decisions regarding the NT canon were made by Catholic Bishops, meeting in Church Councils in the late 4th and early 5th centuries.

If they had no authority from God to make this infallible determination, then all you have is a nice collection of books - some of which might be the inspired WOrd of God, and some which might not be. You may be missing a few inspired books.  So, it does you no good to bring up anti-catholic interpretations of the Book of Revelation, since anti-catholics have no way of knowing infallibly that it is an inspired book which even belongs in the canon. In truth, they have to say:  “This is the inspired Word of God, I think.”

BTW, one can interpret the w——e of Babylon as the Catholic Church only if they ignore both the Old Testament background, and the internal evidence from the Book of Revelation itself for the identity of w——e of Babylon.  In short, if they don’t know how to use Scripture to interpret Scripture.

You are right, God is all powerful and all knowing.  He certainly has the power to preserve His truths which He has entrusted to sinful men - despite their sinfulness.  Otherwise, Christ’s message would have been lost with the Apostles (who, BTW, were sinners). If sinful men can’t transmit God’s infallible truths, then once again, you have no NT canon.

God is also all knowing.  He knew that the Bible would be misinterpreted by people who place their own private interpretation above the written Word of God.  That’s why Christ didn’t say He came to found a Bible that would be the pillar and bullwark of truth. He made His intentions to found a Church very clear.  Scripture itself says it is the Church which is the pillar and bullwark of Truth. So, it’s the Church, and no other,  who has the authority to correctly interpret Scripture.   

@Lisa:  “Slavish adherence to any supposed authority to anyone who says they have such authority from God borders on idolatry.”

I couldn’t agree more.  But God gave us the ability to reason, and as such, we have a duty to search for the Truth.  If God gave authority to the Church which Christ founded, (and, if one leaves their bigotry aside, they can discover this to be true), then we are obliged to listen to that Church.  Otherwise, we reject God Himself.  “Whoever listens to you listens to me; whoever rejects you rejects me; but whoever rejects me rejects him who sent me.” (Luke 10:16)

(I can quote that Gospel because I know, with infallible certainty, that Luke wrote the third gospel, that it is the inspired Word of God, and that it belongs in the 27 book NT Canon). 

Finally, this forum isn’t intended to be an apologetic against anti-catholiics who think they are smarter than faithful Catholics, and who present no rational argument for their position. It’s to discuss the article at the beginning - so, why don’t you answer my question I’ve asked four times now?

Red Beard,

I do not hate the Catholic Church. but I think it is an imperfect institution. I think that it is not particularly faithful to the Gospels, I think that it should be held accountable for its misdeeds, errors, sins. One reason the Reformation took hold was that Church refused to acknowledge that it had become corrupt.  It refused to reform itself.  That resulted in a split among Christians—perhaps a split that could have been avoided.

To be blindly uncritical of the Church is to not serve well the interests of the Church.  Jesus was very critical of the religious authorities of his time.  He held them accountable.  The promise of the Church is great and transformative.  When it fails to live up to that promise, the results are horrible.  We should work to always move the Church to its true potential to bring people to God.  That is one of the unviersal message of the Gospels and of the NT as a whole.

Catholic writer Gary Wills (former professor of Greek at Johns Hopkins University, professor emeritus of history at Northwestern University) in his What Jesus Meant writes, ” Though the Gospels make clear that riches are the enemy of the spirit, they raise an even more urgent warning agsint power, especially spiritual power.  Repeatedly Jesus rebukes the followers who jockey for power over each other and over others.  When asked who will be greater in God’s reign, he says “Whoever becomes lowly as this child here will be the geatest peron in the heavens’ reign and whoever welcoms any child like this in my name is welocming me” (Mt 18:4-5).  Again when they argued over their own precedence, he said, “Whoever would be first must become the last of all and the servant of all (Mk 9:35)  The guiding rule for a follower of Jesus is to avoid rank: “For everyone lifting himself up will be abased and anyone abasing himself will be lifted up” (lk 14:11)  There could not ve a clearer injunction against hierarchy of any kind.”

Also, Red Beard, see Mt 23: 8-10 and Mt 23:1-7, 13-16, 23-24. 

Will writes, ” It was pride and ostentation of power that Jesus rebuked in spiritual leaders.”  See Lk 18-10-14.

The existence of popes, cardinasl, bishops—a hierarchy that has for almost 2,000 yrs been very concerned with its own power, pride, ostentation, precedence over others—is not faithful tot he Gospels.

TheresaEE,

Sorry that you cannot see that the Gospels do no talk about the Roman Catholic Church.  The Gospels are silent are silent re the RCC.  They only talk about doing God’s will. 

I see no mention in the NT of popes, cardinals, bishops, kissing rings, murdering people for ther beliefs, mounting wars against people for their beliefs, allowing the sexual abuse of children, declaring that some people are heretics, mandating celibacy for anyone. 

As I mentioned to Red Beard, above, one of the reasons the Reformation took hold was the Church’s refusal to reform itself.

I do not hate the Church, but do not follow it blindly either.  Following religious leaders blindly is certainly NOT a message found in the NT—see my post to Red Beard above.

Again, God may work through the Church, but God also works outside the Church as well.

@Lisa: “...see my post to Red Beard above.”

I searched that post in vain, and still have not found an answer to my question.  What I did see is a bunch of chapter and verse numbers from a couple of books which you have no way of knowing whether they are God’s written Word or not.

@ Lisa:  “Sorry that you cannot see that the Gospels do no talk about the Roman Catholic Church.”

I’m sorry that, for someone who has degrees in both law AND theology, you have such poor reading comprehension.  I have said that “anyone even the least familiar with the logical progression of these steps would never make the silly assertion that “You make the assumption that the NT talks about the Roman Catholic Church.””

I have also stated, quite clearly, that you have no NT.  Those 27 books were defined infallibly as the inspired written Word of God by a bunch of corrupt, evil, sinful Catholic Bishops in the latter 4th and early 5th centuries.  Since these men had no authority from God to do this, then you have merely a collection of books - erroneously defined as the “New Testament.” 

@Lisa:  “Following religious leaders blindly is certainly NOT a message found in the NT….”

Clearly, in claiming you have a NT canon, you are blindly following 4th and 5th century Catholic Bishops’ decision regarding the canon of the NT, even if you won’t admit that.  You can’t have it both ways.  If they had no authority from God, then you have no NT.

Obviously, you cannot answer my question that I have posed 4 times.  I’ll give you the answer myself.  It is “Yes” - if we accept Dr. Lysaught’s conclusion that one may directly intend to terminate a pregnancy without intent to kill the fetus, then virtually any and all abortions can be “justified.” 

Bishop Olmstead was absolutely right to reject such a conclusion.

TheresaEE,

If you re-reaed my post to Red Beard, you will see quotes from the Gospels of Matthew, Mark & Luke.  And also from a a book from Catholic writer Gary Wills, called What Jesus Meant.

I am not answering your question because it is clear that your mind is made up on the subject and on a lot of others.

I have no disagreement with you re the NT. During the Council of Nicea, the canon of the NT was set.  Other writings were rejected. Sometimes winners win because they deserve to win.  The Gnostic writings were just not authenic renderings of the life & minstry of Jesus. They were rightfully rejected.

Once the Church goes beyond the spirit of the NT—that’s when it runs into problems and becomes corupt.  Again the NT does not establish the RCC, it does not establish popes, cardinals, bishops, etc.

Jesus was very critical of the religious/spiritual leaders of his time and we are right to be critical of such “leaders” in our time.

@Lisa:  “I do not think that the Pope or the cardinals or the bishops carry any authority from God.”

Once again, if these bishops, the successors to the Apostles, have no authority from God, then you have no New Testament canon.  It’s that simple.  Either they have authority from God to infallibly define matters of Faith and Morals (and certainly, which books comprise the NT canon is a matter deeply relevant to the Faith), or they don’t.

You claim they don’t.  So, you have no New Testament.  You have no basis upon which to claim that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John even wrote a Gospel, let alone that it is the inspired written Word of God.j

@Lisa: “I have no disagreement with you re the NT.”

Yes, you do, even though you won’t admit it, since you have no NT, and I do.  Obviously, you accept the God-given authority of the Popes’, and the Bishops’ in union with him,  only when it suits you, and reject it when it doesn’t suit you.

You “grant” them the authority to infallibly define the NT canon, but as to the “spirit of the NT”, you take for yourself the authority to decide who is correct and who is incorrect in their interpretation of that “spirit.” 

There are many “spirits” - but only one Holy Spirit, and it was to the Church, through the Apostles and their successors, that Christ gave the charism of the Holy Spirit’s infallibility, and the authority to interpret Scripture.

The NT, which I have and you don’t, makes clear that Christ intended to build a Church for ALL mankind (that’s universal, catholic).  An objective look at history makes clear which Church is catholic.  The 3-fold hierarchical structure in the Church is firmly established in both the OT and the NT.  The OT High Priest corresponds to the Ruler of Synagogue in 1st century Judaism, and the Bishop in Apostolic times.  The OT priests correspond to the Synagogues Board of Elders, which corresponds to the Apostolic presbyters (priests).  The OT Levites correspond to the Servants in the Synagogue, and the Deacons in Apostolic times. 

It takes a whole bunch of hubris and arrogance to claim otherwise, when you obviously don’t know how to interpret the Catholic Church’s Scriptures, and when you have no Scriptures yourself.

This hubris and arrogance is shown overtly in the following statement, where you put yourself in the place of Jesus Himself: 

@Lisa:  “Jesus was very critical of the religious/spiritual leaders of his time and we are right to be critical of such “leaders” in our time.”

Not only are you putting yourself in Jesus’ place, and claiming for yourself what is His prerogative, but once again, you seem to want it both ways.  First, you say there ARE no religious/spiritual leaders who have authority from God, THEN you say you may rightly criticize what doesn’t even exist.

I really have no more time to continue responding to your incredibly untenable, illogical, and specious statements.  I absolutely agree with you that the Church is made up of sinners, even in the hierarchy.  But the Church, like Her Divine Founder, is both human AND Divine.  The where we differ is that unlike you, I know that the human element will ALWAYS have Judases.  But the Divine element will protect and guard, even through those sinful leaders, the Truth of the Gospel, because it is Christ Himself Who is our High Priest and the Founder of the Church. 

The human element may GIVE scandal (and woe to them when they do), but, unlike you, and in keeping with Christ’s command, I don’t TAKE the scandal and allow it to make me lose my faith in Christ to keep His promises that the gates of hell will never prevail against HIS Church, no matter how much we humans may sin.  If Christ wanted only sinless leaders to lead His Church, He would have picked only Angels, not humans.

Best of luck to you, but I have spent more time on this than I should have, considering that it is you whose mind is already made up.

“”“I am not answering your question because it is clear that your mind is made up on the subject and on a lot of others.”“”

In other words, when confronted with an illustration of the evil to which your position logically and inescapably leads, it’s best to repeatedly ignore that conclusion. 

<sarcasm>After all, if @TheresaEE’s “mind is made up” that means you can just ignore your logical impasse (which she has repeatedly pointed out) without addressing it, right?  We all know “making up your mind” is a far worse sin than maintaining an irrational position.</sarcasm>

@TheresaEE, I love reading your posts!

TheresaEE,

You don’t think we should follow Jesus’s example in holding religious leaders accountable?  In what other ways should we not follow Jesus’ example?  Seems you are saying that we should do nothing as Jesus did—because the things he did were his perogative.  Let’s not be inclusive—its was only Jesus’ perogative to eat with tax collectors and sinners.  Let’s not feed the hungry—that was only Jesus’ perogative to feed the 5,000.  Wow!  Its thinking like that that led some German Catholics to embrace the Nazis.  Just follow orders, don’t expect leaders to be held accountable for their actions, just blindly follow along no matter where it leads.  Don’t take any initiative to make thing better.

Sorry your world view is isolated to the RCC.  You are missing out on the goodness and holiness that can be found outside the RCC as well as within it.

I like the old saying, ’ Jesue died to take away our sins, not our brains.”.

@Red_Beard:  ” We all know “making up your mind” is a far worse sin than maintaining an irrational position.</sarcasm>”

This wanting to have it “both ways”  is exactly what CHW apparently wants as well.  They apparently see some benefit in calling themselves “Catholic”, yet they want nothing to do with the duties and obligations that come with the name, not the least of which is repect for and adherence to the legitimate authority of the Bishop.

People who want it both ways in other areas (like we have just seen), simply can’t see that CHW’s position is untenable because they can’t see that their own position is untenable.

I love reading your posts, too.  They don’t mince words, and they call a spade a spade!

Thank you, and God Bless!

Red Beard,

Whatever “authority” the bishop has ( and I am not accepting that the NT gives any Christian any authority over another), he is clearly abusing.

He cannot serioulsy believe a hospital in the 21st cnetury in the United States of America is going to let its healthcare professionals stand around and deliberately let a patient die, who could otherwise be saved. 

Well, I suppose he could seriously think that—that is why the hospital has wisely chosen to disregard him.

Also,we here in Phoenix are very happy that the bishop has taken the action he has.  It changes nothing about how St. Joe’s will continue to deliver needed and premier medical care in the Phoenix-area.  All the bishop has done has assured that he will no longer have a voice at St. Joe’s or a voice in how it provides care.  And that will be a good thing for every person (and yes, women are persons also)who will come to St. Joe’s for medical care.

@ Lisa:  “You don’t think we should follow Jesus’s example in holding religious leaders accountable?”

Holding religious leaders accountable is not what you said, nor is that what I responded to, so putting words into my mouth only makes you lose what little credibility you have left. 

What you actually said, and what I responded to, was this:  “Jesus was very critical of the religious/spiritual leaders of his time and we are right to be critical of such “leaders” in our time.”

To be “critical” and to “hold people accountable,” are two different things.  Jesus could criticize the bad behavior of the religious leaders of His day because He knew the Truth - He IS Truth itself - and it was objectively true that their behavior WAS hypocritical and sinful. 

You, OTOH, are not Truth itself, nor do you have the charism of infallibility, so you have no right to judge Bishop Olmstead to be “wrong”, or to be engaging in the kind of egregious behavior which Jesus criticized, or to criticize Bishop Olmstead, or any other Bishop who is faithfully fulfilling his duties and obligations to both Christ’s Church, and Christ’s flock.

In addition, while Christ justly criticized the religious leaders of His day, even calling them blind guides, hypocrites and whitewashed tombs, He still BOUND the people to listen to them, for they sat on Moses’ cathedras (seat).  He told them to do what they tell you, but do as they do. “The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. ‘Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do, but do not do according to their works;”  (Mt. 23: 1-12 for fuller context). 

You seem to ignore the fact that Jesus didn’t tell the people to criticize their leaders, but He DID tell the people to listen to them.  So, I listen to Jesus.

If you think you are infallible and can in no way be wrong in your judgment of Bishop Olmstead or any other faithful Bishop, then go ahead and criticize away.  I admit that I don’t have that charism, don’t know all the facts, and therefore, don’t criticize.

Holding people “accountable” implies both wrongdoing (civilly or canonically) and competent, legitimate authority to penalize.  Neither of these apply in this case, and you are neither infallible, nor a competent, legitimate authority.  If a priest, deacon, bishop, or ANY Catholic breaks a just law, then they should be held accountable by that law, whether civil or canonical.  Similarly, if they are giving scandal by sinning publicly, they should be held accountable by their legitimate superiors.

Don’t EVEN try to accuse me of not believing this, simply because I don’t believe you have any right whatsoever to judge or criticize Bishop Olmstead.  He has broken no law, he has not sexually molested anyone, he has not mishandled sexual abuse cases as some Bishops have, he even has a SNAP member running his outreach program to those who have been sexually abused.  Therefore, neither the scandalous sinning and law-breaking by some Catholic leaders, nor the sexual abuse crisis has ANYTHING to do with the case, and your continued attempts to insert it into this matter, proves again that you have no rational basis for your argument.

ThereseEE,

As a human being and as an American I have every right to criticize and to hold accountable religious leaders.  And will do so.  We do not live in a Catholic (or in any) theocracy.

And particularly, see Mt 23 8-10.  “Do not be called rabbi since you have only one teacher and you are all brothers,  And call no one on earth your father, since you have only one Father, the one in heaven.  And do not be called leaders, since you have only one leader, the Messiah.”

Here is the complete quote from Mt 23 1-7, 13-16, 23-24:

Then Jesus told the crowds in these words:  The Scribe and Pharisees sit in the chair of Moses You should od as they tell you to do and do it scrupuloulsy [what Jesus refers to here is the Law of Moses—found in the Torah.  The Catholic hierarchy do not sit in the chair of Moses and Bishop Olmsted is not discussing the Torah w/St. Joe’s].  But do not do what they themselves do for they do not do as they say.  They strap together heavy loads, hard for carrying and place them on men’s shoulders but thye would not use a single finger to budge sucha load.  All their deeds are performed for show in men’s eyes {now that sounds like Olmsted!] They enlarge their phylacteries and lengthen their tassels.  They affect the first table at a feast the first chair at a synagogue, being slauted on the street and hailed as Rabbi

Dire is your plight Scribes and Pharisee, you pretenders, since you seal up men’s access to the heavens’ reign, neither entering your self nor letting others enter.

Dire your plight Scribes and Pharisees.  You devour the the inheritance of widos, stringoing out long prayers, which just increase your condemnation

Dire your plight Scribes and Pharisees, you pretenders who scour sea and land to acquire one adherenet athen make him twice as fit for hell as you are.  Dire your plight, blind leaders.

Dire your plight Scribes and Phariess you pretenders, who tithe for every piece of mint or dill or cumin, yet do not observe the more important aspects of the law, justice, and mercy and trust [seems like Jesus had already met Bishop Olmsted]  It is the latter you should observe without the neglecting the former.  Blind leaders, you filter out the gnat but swallow the camel whole.

Again, blindly following human beings (even those who say or think they have authority from God and want the rest of us to swallow that camel whole),  just leds to disaster and error.  Bishop Olmsted’s actions here in Phoenix are a case in point.

TheresaEE,

Even via your electronic posting on this site, I can see you foaming at the mouth!  Relax.  Or do you need a rabies shot?

@Lisa said: “”“Even via your electronic posting on this site, I can see you foaming at the mouth!  Relax.  Or do you need a rabies shot? “”“

@ThereseEE, it is always a pleasure.  I think it is valuable to correct her errors, but she’s not even pretending to be rational anymore.  She’s having far too much fun angrily lashing out.  She couldn’t answer you so she must try to marginalize you by attacking you.

@Lisa,

No matter what century it is, you can not murder an innocent person.

@Lisa: “”“I like the old saying, ’ Jesue died to take away our sins, not our brains.”.”“”

This is an awesome saying.  Would you care to follow it up by answering the question ThereseEE has asked more than 4 times?

“if we accept Dr. Lysaught’s conclusion that one may directly intend to terminate a pregnancy without intent to kill the fetus, then can’t virtually any and all abortions “justified?” 

Lisa, use your brains, not your emotions, to respond.

@ Red-Beard: “No matter what century it is, you can not murder an innocent person.”

Absolutely!  The 20th century will go down in history as one of the most barbaric centuries:  Pol Pot, Mao, Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, pale in comparison to those killed by abortion. 

Let’s pray that in the 21st century, hospitals will abandon that barbaric practice and implement the very latest technology which is available to them, and has been for decades. 

For example, see:  “The Children’s Hospital and University of Colorado Hospital Unveil New Joint Program for High-Risk Pregnant Women and Their Babies” at http://www.thechildrenshospital.org/news/pr/2010-News/Maternal-Fetal-Program-Press-Release.aspx

“The Children’s Hospital and the University of Colorado Hospital (UCH) have finalized an agreement to jointly establish a center for advanced maternal fetal medicine offering state-of-the-art care for high-risk pregnant women and their babies. The two leading academic medical centers have individually provided such services for more than three decades, and by building on already existing adult and pediatric expertise, they together will be able to provide unparalleled care and treatment for the region’s most at-risk moms and babies.”

There are dozens more examples of these advances in medical technology being implemented in our nation’s hospitals. It is becoming increasingly clear that abortion is never “necessary” to save the life of the mother. It is as archaic as putting leeches on a febrile patient and virtually bleeding them to death. 

Catholic hospitals at one time were on the forefront of the latest advances in medical technology.  By caving in to the outdated and outmoded barbaric 20th century practice of resorting to abortion to “treat” high risk pregnancies, they have lost their place as leaders in quality health care.

Some clearly would like to see Catholic hospitals stay stuck in the ancient 20th century practice of treating the unborn like a disease.  These same people have no coherent basis for their “medieval” notions, so they hurl ad hominem attacks at anyone who has the unmitigated gall to suggests there are better treatments available.  They even claim to have degrees, in order to attempt to give more “weight” to their feeble arguments, yet the logical fallacies inherent in their argumentation make it clear they must have slept all the way through class. 

When one descends into increasingly more and more irrationality, even resorting to ad hominem attacks, it’s time to simply let them pound their fists and hurl their own private interpretation of Scripture verses into cyberspace.

Once again, God bless you for your witness, and I thank you, too, for your moral support! We can only continue to pray that the Beast who has demanded so much blood in the 20th century, will be put back in his chains in the 21st century!

TheresaEE - perhaps doctors and nurses should stop interfering with God’s will and just let sick people die or have God intervene and save them.  Since they are not infallible,and all.

@Sandra: “TheresaEE - perhaps doctors and nurses should stop interfering with God’s will and just let sick people die or have God intervene and save them.  Since they are not infallible,and all.”

You might as well be responding to something Jerry Seinfeld said, because your statement has about as much relevence to anything I have written as it does to an old Seinfeld episode.

TheresaEE,

I am certainly not angrily lashing out, but you have to admit that I have been rather patient with your insulting language and assumptions.  You have not angered me, you have only tried my patience.

As with Scripture, one can interpret any theologian’s analysis and conclusions in a myriad ways.  However, Dr Lysaught’s analysis was requested by CHW as the result of one action at one place and time and so her conclusions should be narrowly construed to apply to that action,place and time. In particular because the situation and the all circumstance surrounding it was an exceedingly rare situation.  Such a situation may never again occur at St. Joesph’s or at any Catholic hospital (as St. Joe’s was in 2009).  So I think Dr. Lysaught’s analysis and conclusions should only be used applied to the situation that occured at St. Joe’s in 2009 or to a situation that mirrors it in exact detail.

And remember the USCCB’s healthcare directive “47 does permit the termination of pregnancy in some medical situations affecting a pregnant woman.  This directive too could possibly be deliberately abused by someone with ill intent (although that is NOT what happened at St. Joe’s).Remember the ethics committee At St. Joe’s indicated that they concluded that the termination of the pregnancy could be a moral procedure in accorandance with Directive #47.  Knowing Sr. Margaret and some member of the committee and truly beleive that they beleived that they were acting in accordance with the guidance provided by the USCCB.  And certainly those of us out here in the blogosphere do not know otherwise.

One’s intent with any action is a matter between the individual and God.  As with any action only the individual and God truly know what the peron’s intent was.

Lisa Said: “”“Even via your electronic posting on this site, I can see you foaming at the mouth!  Relax.  Or do you need a rabies shot?”“”

Then @Lisa Said: “”“I am certainly not angrily lashing out”“”

Wow, talking to @Lisa is an odd experience.

Red Beard,

I will say the same regarding you.

You selectively quoted me and did not reprint the entire quote.  Do you work for Fox News?

“”“Remember the ethics committee At St. Joe’s indicated that they concluded that the termination of the pregnancy could be a moral procedure in accorandance with Directive #47.  Knowing Sr. Margaret and some member of the committee and truly beleive that they beleived that they were acting in accordance with the guidance provided by the USCCB.”“”

The were wrong.  A Catholic can not murder an innocent person, even if they really really want to. (in fact, no one can)

“”“One’s intent with any action is a matter between the individual and God.  As with any action only the individual and God truly know what the peron’s intent was.”“”

Of course we don’t know the intent!  Personally, I assume that the intention was entirely noble. 

That doesn’t change the fact that the act performed was an act of murder.  The act was the willful destruction of an innocent human life.  This is the definition of murder. As such, it was an evil act.  This is directly doing evil for the good secondary effect that you hope to attain.  It is not compatible with Christian morality.

Note, I do not say that the act had a known and unwilled secondary effect of destruction of human life. You can, under certain circumstances, perform an act that is not inherently immoral (ie. give chemo) even when there is a known bad secondary effect.  This is what Directive #47 refers to.

Under certain circumstances, you can do good things that have a known evil, yet unwilled, effect.

Under no circumstances can you do an evil thing.

@Lisa, I believe we both agree to the concept that evil acts should not be performed in the Church’s (And therefore Christ’s) name.

Red Beard

Remember, the hospital was using the USCCB’s own healthcare Directive #47—under which the bishops’ have said that the termination of pregnancy is moral in some situations.  St. Joe’s position has been supported by the Catholic Hospital Association. I think and others think St. Joe’s took the correct action for the correct reason. 

So I am going with that—since neither you nor I, nor Bishop Olmsted were at St. Joe’s in November 2009 during the time the situation was occurring. 

And again, the bottom line is that nothing the bishop thinks or has done has will prevent St. Joe’s from providing stellar medical care pursuant to the prevailing standard of medical care in the US, in accordance with medical ethics and in accordance with American law.

Thankfully we do not live in a theocracy and Bishop Olmsted cannot impose potential marytrdom upon every pregnant woman who is brought to or comes into a hospital.

@Lisa said: “”“I will say the same regarding you.

You selectively quoted me and did not reprint the entire quote.  Do you work for Fox News? “”“

I can only assume you are referring to the first quote as my post was a direct reply to the post containing the second quote (and therefore not removed from the context or your statement).

For anyone wondering, here is the complete first quote:

“”“Posted by Lisa Kaiser on Wednesday, Dec 29, 2010 4:28 PM (EST):

TheresaEE,

Even via your electronic posting on this site, I can see you foaming at the mouth!  Relax.  Or do you need a rabies shot? “”“

Here’s my quotation of the preceding quote:

“”“Lisa Said: “”“Even via your electronic posting on this site, I can see you foaming at the mouth!  Relax.  Or do you need a rabies shot?”“””“”

<sarcasm>Yep, you can really tell that I’m taking Lisa’s words out of context here!  Given the full context, her meaning is totally different!</sarcasm>

Red Beard,

I think you have brought the discussion way off its original topic.

“”“Thankfully we do not live in a theocracy and Bishop Olmsted cannot impose potential marytrdom upon every pregnant woman who is brought to or comes into a hospital. “”“

Once again, rather than understand the arguments you’ve been confronted with, you are appealing to emotions and ad hominem attacks.

I guess it is far easier to attack the Church by saying it wants to “impose potential marytrdom upon every pregnant woman ...” than it is to directly answer the clear teaching that the Church lays out: “You can not murder an innocent, even if you really really want to.”

It really just comes down to this:

Lisa and consequentialists says “you can sometimes murder an innocent.”

Christ, the Church, the Bible, Plato, and any authentic Christian thinker throughout history say: “you can never murder an innocent.”

All the other details are just a smoke-screen designed to obscure this fundamental distinction.

You can’t murder an innocent even if you really really want to unless you involved in the illegal invasion of Iraq and the questionable invasion of Afhghanistan.  And you can’t murder an innocent even if you really really want to, but you can ruin their life by sexually abusing them if you really really want to.

Red Beard,

Again I would refer you to the US bishops’ healthcare directive #47—that permits Catholic hospitals to terminate a pregnancy under certain conditions.  So would you condider the bishops to be consequentialists?

Re the Church—I am just stating the facts.  Bishop Olmsted would require that the hospital not intervene to save a dying pregnant woman.  He would impose that requirement on healthcare professionals caring for Catholic AND non-Catholic women who are brought into or who come into a Catholic hopsital in the Phoenix diocese.  He would seek to impose this requirement no matter what the woman herself wants and would substitute his judgment for that of healthcare staff who are actually seeing the patient.

Those are the facts.

@Sandra

“”“You can’t murder an innocent even if you really really want to unless you involved in the illegal invasion of Iraq and the questionable invasion of Afhghanistan.  And you can’t murder an innocent even if you really really want to, but you can ruin their life by sexually abusing them if you really really want to. “”“

Nope, you can’t do those either.  One thing that sets the Catholic Church apart from all human institutions is that, although it is made up of sinners, it never changes it’s teachings to say that sin is ok.

“”“Again I would refer you to the US bishops’ healthcare directive #47—that permits Catholic hospitals to terminate a pregnancy under certain conditions.  So would you condider the bishops to be consequentialists? “”“

This has been explained several times and you have ignored each attempt. Consequentialism is the idea that “the ends justify the means.”

Here is directive #47: “”“# Operations, treatments, and medications that have as their direct purpose the cure of a proportionately serious pathological condition of a pregnant woman are permitted when they cannot be safely postponed until the unborn child is viable, even if they will result in the death of the unborn child.”“”

http://www.usccb.org/bishops/directives.shtml

This says you can sometimes do good things, like chemo, even if it has known bad consequences, like the death of the child.  It does not rationally follow that you can do bad things, like directly and intentionally kill a child in the womb.

In the first case, you are doing a good act that has good and bad consequences.  This act is not being justified by the consequences alone as the consequences do not have the ability to justify an act in themselves.

In the case of abortion, you are doing an evil act that has the same good and bad consequences.  The good consequence can not ever be enough to justify an evil or immoral means (the act itself.)

Chemo is an actual action that is a form of medical care.  Abortion is a direct murder that masquerades as medical care because there are occasionally good consequences. 

Only a consequentialist can say that murder is licit in such a circumstance.  Unfortunately, there is no act that a consequentialist can say is never licit.  If you up the ante high enough, ANY evil act can be justified by a reasonable consequentialist.

The Catholic Church’s position is clear.  The Bishops’ directives are inline with this eternal teaching.  Bishop Olmstead is in line with this teaching.  One can disagree with this position, but one can not reasonably represent it to be other than it is: “Though Shalt Not Murder.”

“”“He would seek to impose this requirement no matter what the woman herself wants and would substitute his judgment for that of healthcare staff who are actually seeing the patient.

Those are the facts. “”“

They are facts I’m grateful for!  Any place you go to to do evil, should not have the name “Catholic” associated with it.  Murdering is evil.  Murder should not occur at Catholic institutions.

Red Beard
“One thing that sets the Catholic Church apart from all human institutions is that, although it is made up of sinners, it never changes it’s teachings to say that sin is ok.”

That’s right - preach one thing and practice another. 

And by the way, why don’t you come out from behind your nick name and identify yourself.

Sandra,
I plead guilty to your charge of hypocrisy.  I long ago learned that there were only two roads in life.  Seek to conform one’s actions to one’s conscience and live with constant failure (i.e, be a member of our Church of sinners) or simply conform your conscience to your actions and yell hypocrite to all those who actually believe in a moral code that transcends their personal predilictions.
If you are looking for a Church without hypocrites, think Charles Manson.

@Mike,

That’s beautiful.  I definitely fall short of my own (and God’s) expectations all the time.  Thankfully, our loving God takes me back every time I fall short of His glory.

@Lisa:  I find it difficult if not impossible, to attempt to have a discussion with someone who constructs emotional straw men when they haven’t got any better arguments.  Accusing this good, faithful Bishop of thinking doctors should just stand around doing nothing while the gravida and fetus both die is so specious it isn’t even worth responding to.  Ditto for arguments which attempt to throw in the sexual abuse crises for good measure.  It’s illogical. So I won’t respond anymore if that is all you can offer to defend your position.

@Lisa: “And remember the USCCB’s healthcare directive “47 does permit the termination of pregnancy in some medical situations affecting a pregnant woman.”

The ERD#47 covers conditions where the Principle of Double Effect applies, and despite the hospital’s ethics committee’s most sincere belief that this particular case fell under that exception, it simply does not apply.  It’s very curious to me that they made that determination, but when asked, by the Bishop, to defend their decision, they couldn’t do it.  Had they been able to cogently explain and justify their decision, they would not have had to hire Dr. Lysaught to do this for them.

This in itself is a strike against them.  One would think that, if they made this decision in their Ethics Committee, then they would be able to explain and defend that without hiring an outside consultant!

Another strike against them is that this patient was advised to have an abortion long before she was “dying.”  Not an “intervention” which might qualify under ERD 47, but a direct abortion.  Since this patient was advised, by her physician who obviously has priveleges at St. Joe’s, to have an abortion when she was still only 7.5 weeks along, and quite ambulatory, it is perfectly clear that abortion was the ONLY treatment this woman was offered right from the get-go.  She refused the abortion at 7.5 weeks.  Was she offered any alternative treatment, such as cardiac support to counteract the additional strain on her heart, oxygen, anything?  It’s clear she was not.  She was simply sent home with one recommendation - abortion. 

So, right from the get-go, this St. Joe’s affiliated physician recommended an abortion.  Since CHW has been violating the ERDs for 26 yeras, it’s pretty obvious that this abortion recommendation was one of a LONG line of violations which clearly have become rather “routine” for CHW.  It was not made under duress for a “dying” patient, but for an ambulatory Medicaid patient who was sent home with no alternative treatment program offered.

It’s no wonder the poor woman was doing very poorly 4 weeks later, when she was admitted to the hospital.  What other treatment was offered to her at that point?  She was not in the ICU when the Ethics Committee met, she was in the maternity ward.  When the Bishop asked them to defend their attempt to justify the eventual abortion,  they couldn’t do it!!!  They had to hire an outside analysist, Dr. Lysaught.  So, if they could “justify” the abortion under ERD 47, then why didn’t they do that?  Why did they have to hire an outside analysist, Dr. Lysaught, who admitted that the abortion did NOT fall under the PDE exception. 

Once again, for the PDE to apply, the pregnancy must be in some way either abnormal, - such as ectopic - or an organ of the pregnancy must be diseased, such as a cancerous uterus.  Thus, this case does not fall under the PDE exception because the nascent child was in its natural place (the uterus), and therefore, not ectopic;  the uterus was healthy, the placenta was healthy, and all other tissues and organs of the reporductive system were perfectly normal and healthy.

Thus, the Bishop’s Medical Ethics Board, made up of medical doctors (OBGYN), theologians and ethicists;  The National Catholic Bioethics Center;  the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, AND Bishop Olmstead have rejected the hospital’s attempt to justify this abortion.

@Lisa:  “I think Dr. Lysaught’s analysis and conclusions should only be used applied to the situation that occured at St. Joe’s in 2009 or to a situation that mirrors it in exact detail.”

Dr. Lysaught’s analysis has been rejected, precisely for the reasons I have stated above.  The pregnancy was normal and functioning perfectly.  Therefore, it doesn’t fall under the PDE exception as outlined in ERD 47.  Dr. Lysaught admits this, but attempts to justify the abortion anyway by the fact that, while functioning normally, the placenta was creating a patholigical condition in the larger maternal environment. 

But that does not qualify under the PDE.  Period.  The pregnancy itself must be abnormal or diseased in order to fall under the PDE exception. This pregnancy does not fall under the PDE exception, and even Dr. Lysaught admitted this.  And, once again, if we accept that a perfectly normal pregnancy may be terminated because it is causing problems in the larger maternal system, then ANY abortion can be justified this way. 

A third strike against them is that this was not an isolated violation of the ERDs.  Had this been the ONLY violation of the ERDs, that would be one thing.  But the way it appears, violations of the ERDs have become pretty routine at CHW, and CHW has no intention of coming in line with the ERDs.  Thus, they are not a Catholic institution, and to advertise themselves as such violates every imaginable truth in advertising ethic.

@ Lisa:  You have repeatedly brought the ERD #47, without attempting to analyse precisely WHY St. Joe’s, despite it’s stated belief, violated it. 

The Bishops have explained what the ERD #47 means, and Catholic hospitals have a duty to KNOW this, otherwise, they are violating their own directives which state that they adhere to the ERD. 

Here is how the Bishop’s explain this (and hopefully, this will answer your assertion that Bishop Olmstead should explain his decision). 

“in some situations, it may be permissible to perform a medical procedure on a pregnant woman that directly treats a serious health problem but that also has a secondary effect that leads to the death of the eveloping child. ERD Directive no. 47 states: “Operations, treatments, and medications that have as their direct purpose the cure of a proportionately serious pathological condition of a pregnant woman are permitted when they cannot be safely postponed until the unborn child is viable, even if they will result in the death of the unborn child.”

The difference can be seen in two different scenarios in which the unborn child is not yet old enough to survive outside the womb.

In the first scenario, a pregnant woman is experiencing problems with one or more of her organs, apparently as a result of the added burden of pregnancy. The doctor recommends an abortion to protect the health of the woman. In the second scenario, a pregnant woman develops cancer in her uterus. The doctor recommends surgery to remove the cancerous uterus as the only way to prevent the spread of the cancer. Removing the uterus will also lead to the death of the unborn child, who cannot survive at this point outside the uterus. The first scenario describes a direct abortion. The surgery directly targets the life of the unborn child. It is the surgical instrument in the hands of the doctor that causes the child’s death. The surgery does not directly address the health problem of the woman, for example, by repairing the organ that is malfunctioning. The surgery is likely to improve the functioning of the organ or organs, but only in an indirect way, i.e., by lessening the overall demands placed upon the organ or organs, since the burden posed by the pregnancy will be removed. The abortion is the means by which a reduced strain upon the organ or organs is achieved. As the Church has said many times, direct abortion is never permissible because a good end cannot justify an evil means.

The second scenario describes a situation in which an urgently-needed medical procedure indirectly and unintentionally (although foreseeably) results in the death of an unborn child. In this case the surgery directly addresses the health problem of the woman, i.e., the organ that is malfunctioning (the cancerous uterus). The woman’s health benefits directly from the surgery, because of the removal of the cancerous organ. The surgery does not directly target the life of the unborn child. The child will not be able to live long after the uterus is removed from the
woman’s body, but the death of the child is an unintended and unavoidable side effect and not the aim of the surgery. There is nothing ntrinsically wrong with surgery to remove a malfunctioning organ. It is morally justified when the continued presence of the organ causes problems for the rest of the body. Surgery to terminate the life of an innocent person, however, is intrinsically wrong. There are no situations in which it can be justified. Pope Pius XII summed up Catholic teaching when he stated: “As long as a man is not guilty, his life is untouchable, and therefore any act directly tending to destroy it is illicit, whether such destruction is intended as an end in itself or only as a means to an end, whether it is a question of life in the embryonic stage or in a stage of fulldevelopment or already in its final stages.”

http://usccb.org/doctrine/direct-abortion-statement2010-06-23.pdf

Now, it is CLEAR that the abortion that took place at St. Joe’s falls outside the exceptional cases permitted by ERD 47.

#47: Operations, treatments, and medications that have as their direct purpose the cure of a proportionately serious pathological condition of a pregnant woman are permitted when they cannot be safely postponed until the unborn child is viable, even if they will result in the death of the unborn child.

“”“Once again, for the PDE to apply, the pregnancy must be in some way either abnormal, - such as ectopic - or an organ of the pregnancy must be diseased, such as a cancerous uterus”“”

Just as a clarification, even in these two cases, the action the Dr. takes can not be a direct abortion.  A cancerous uterous or nearly-bursting fallopian tube can be removed, even though a secondary effect is the death of the baby.  What you can’t do is directly kill the child.

A treatment that would remove the placenta and baby from the fallopian tube is an example of a closely related yet morally unacceptable procedure.  The placenta is an organ of the child.  Therefore, such a removal is a direct attack on the innocent child with the intention of causing its death. (direct abortion & murder)  The “direct purpose” in this case, is the death of the child.

Directly removing a cancerous uterus is an act that is not intrinsically immoral.  The “means” do not invalidate the morality of the act.  The bad secondary effect of the death of the child may or may not invalidate the morality of the act - hence the “proportionately serious” clause in the bishops directive.

Directly killing a child is intrinsically immoral.  The “means” is evil under any and all circumstances.  Therefore, the act is always immoral.  It is an act of murder.

This one is especially for Lisa, Sandra and Anne.

http://pblosser.blogspot.com/2011/01/sin-against-holy-spirit.html

The following is a synopsis of a bulletin insert entitled “Those Who Defend Evildoing,” by Fr. Robert D. Smith:
... It is possible to think of a sin against the Holy spirit, the sin which Christ says will never be forgiven (Matt. 12:32), as an obscure and rare sin ... But is it really so rare?

What is it? Christ identifies it quite clearly. It relates essentially to a commitment to identifying a good action as having an evil source or else evil actions as having a good source ....

... The person who defends his own sins in a public way in conversation of some kind, is often admitting not just the sin but also that he is committing a sin against the Holy Spirit. What we hear most often is not a statement such as “I arranged for an abortion. I know it is wrong, but I did it out of human weakness.” No, rather we often hear, “I arranged for an abortion and did so out of the goodness of my heart to help those close to me and to help humanity.” ...

What such a person is defending is what Christ Himself identifies as a sin against the Holy Spirit. “Adulterous conduct, fornication, stealing, false witness, blasphemy” do not come from a good heart, but “make a man impure” (Matt. 15:18-20). Such actions by no means constitute evidence of goodwill.

This is why all sin is so dangerous. And any delay of repentance leads strongly away from the initial sense of wrongdoing, into the increasing, naturally human conviction that one must, after all, still mean well even in the sin itself. The person who does not go this far and who keeps his sense of his own wrongdoing has retained a strong position from which to repent. Not so with the person who has allowed himself to slip into the kind of self-righteousness which involves calling himself good for his very evil acts themselves.

Can it be that when Christ dispatches His angels on Judgment Day to gather all evildoers to hurl them into the fiery furnace (Matt. 13:41-42), it will turn out that many if not most of these evildoers heading directly and headlong for damnation will have somehow, during life, in addition to their iniquity itself, committed themselves to some kind of sin against the Holy Spirit, become involved long-term in the defense of their evildoing as good?

Lisa writes:

“Wes, your post regarding my remarks as a Jew are totally off-base.  Someone named Greg invoked Jewish theology as a reason the Church the behaves the ways it does.  I am simply saying that, his take on this is incorrect and that Jews and Judaism have nothing to do with the way the Roman Catholic Church behaves.”

That’s a lie, Lisa.  You did more than “simply” say that.  If you had “simply” made a distinction between the Catholic Church and Judaism, I wouldn’t have cared.  But you gratuitously insulted and denigrated the Catholic Church in the process of making your distinction between Catholicism and Judaism.  That was repulsive.  And now you’ve lied by downplaying what you did.

You’ve also still failed to honestly admit the lie you propagated about the Church being “silent” about the war in Iraq. Instead, you tried to use the war in Iraq in another way for your point of view later on in your arguments.

That’s at least three lies you’ve propagated now in your interactions with me.

Wes,

I have not lied about anything.

And I have not commented at all about the war in Iraq.  A number of other folks have posted on that topic.  I have not dwscussed it all.  Please feel free to go back through my posts if you do not believe that.  I have no interest in commenting on Iraq and have not done so.

My apologies, Lisa.  I meant to write “Sandra” (Currie), not “Lisa”.

Alas, Olmstead is symbolic of much that is blatantly dysfunctional with the hierarchal structure. I am sure Olmstead feels his influence increasingly fading and, in desperation, resorts to solely enforcing punitive prohibitions.
Like many in the hierarchal structure, he is impotently shooting blanks. I have little doubt that, eventually, Olmstead will find himself defeated in his persecution and attempted abortion of Sr. McBride.
Somehow, the post Vatican II Church has redefined the meaning of Catholic universality as Catholic uniformity. Our fathers in the Church have aborted many of their children simply because their children have dared to interpret what it means to truly be Catholic in ways contrary to their parents. And what awful parents they are to insist their children must think, act, and interpret in the same fashion as their parents. What kind of parents insists that their children must think and act alike? Yet, Olmstead and others like him have done just that. They have committed genocidal abortion on fellow Catholics, casting them out, insisting that they are not part of the Church family. 
Often, they do this, in claims of a return to the early Church, but they are not seeking a return to the Church of Jesus, and the first three centuries of our egalitarian Christian forefathers as Vatican II espoused. Instead, they are seeking a return to the medieval Church of the iron first.
Who really believes that Sr. McBride is an abortion advocate? Only a Bishop, exorcizing a black and white, extremist interpretation of events, which allow no mitigating circumstances, resorts to hollow excommunication. The Church will eventually restore McBride and Olmstead will inevitably find himself and his base as obsolete, barren and impotent as many in the hierarchal structure.
Our faith has the richest mystical tradition in all of history, but our Church fathers are not espousing it, teaching it, loving it,  or giving it. As Catholics, we desperately need a mystical revival in celebration of that promise land beneath our feet right here, right now. That promise land should be our Church. Our patriarchal leaders are not representative of that mystical tradition, nor are they celebrating our universality, our egalitarianism, our seeking of the promise land fulfillment. Instead, they are abortionists, alarmingly excising their children, in an effort to maintain a hold on their positions. The laity needs and craves a real leadership and excuses of insistent patience no longer cuts it. To quote President Kennedy, “If not us, then who? If not now, then when?” One Jesus of Nazareth knew his time was in the right now.  It is unfortunate that leaders like Olmstead do not follow His example.

Just when you thought things where quieting down, someone who hasn’t read any of the original articles comes out of the woodwork.

@bluemahler, in your post that has little to no correct information, I just thought I’d answer some of the simplest of your errors. 

Bishop Olmstead did not excommunicate Sr. McBride.  She excommunicated herself by her actions.  He merely informed her of the reality of the state she has placed herself in.  Apparently, she has repented and is now back in full communion with the Church.

Just for good measure, when you are discussing objective truth - which is what the Church maintains it is doing - “egalitarianism” doesn’t factor in.  An idea is true or false.  Majority vote will not make a false idea true.

The truth is, that you can not murder an innocent person, even if you really really want to - or even if a majority of people warp their consciences to the point where they believe that murder is ok. 

The reality of the act, the direct killing of an innocent, doesn’t magically change just because it ceases to offend our modern sensibilities.  Murder is evil, no matter what the majority may say.

Red,
Actually, a poster here invited me to post and I have read those, only I am not subscribing to Olmstead’s spin-doctor tactics.
This is a blatant example of the letter of the law violating the heart of the law. No, she did not “excommunicate herself” Olmstead, in his extremist interpretation, makes that claim but it is a falsity and clearly espousing an agenda.
Besides, Olmstead’s history, long before this, repeatedly represents clericalism at its most abusive. I know a number of priests, certainly NOT abortion advocates, who believe Olmstead’s decision, in radical extremity, did not allow for mitigating circumstances and, frankly, was wrong-headed.

re:

Posted by Red_Beard - not jimmy on Thursday, Jan 6, 2011 11:15 PM (EST):Just when you thought things where quieting down, someone who hasn’t read any of the original articles comes out of the woodwork.

@bluemahler, in your post that has little to no correct information, I just thought I’d answer some of the simplest of your errors. 
Bishop Olmstead did not excommunicate Sr. McBride.  She excommunicated herself by her actions.  He merely informed her of the reality of the state she has placed herself in.  Apparently, she has repented and is now back in full communion with the Church.

Just for good measure, when you are discussing objective truth - which is what the Church maintains it is doing - “egalitarianism” doesn’t factor in.  An idea is true or false.  Majority vote will not make a false idea true.

The truth is, that you can not murder an innocent person, even if you really really want to - or even if a majority of people warp their consciences to the point where they believe that murder is ok. 

The reality of the act, the direct killing of an innocent, doesn’t magically change just because it ceases to offend our modern sensibilities.  Murder is evil, no matter what the majority may say.

@thebluemahler

“”“This is a blatant example of the letter of the law violating the heart of the law.”“”

This sounds like a concession that the Bishop is correct in his representation of the “letter of the law.”  Though I bet it’s just imprecise use of language. 

I’m not sure if you disagree with the law, or with the bishop’s interpretation (which is accurate).  I am sure that you do not understand the facts of the case, but that’s ok, many here can’t be bothered to try and understand the system they choose to attack.  Your relativistic, insulting, and downright silly use of the word “abortion” makes it really hard to take you seriously.

You don’t have to like the facts.  You don’t have to like the law.  You don’t have to like the system.  You don’t even have to like the Church Christ founded.  But, if you are to acknowledge Christ’s Supremacy and Lordship, you must acknowledge that murder is wrong. 

You can not murder an innocent person, even if you really really want to.

Would the Bishop have been satisfied with four young children attending their pregnant mothers funeral??? Yes, he would, so in my view, HE is evil. This mother of four was ELEVEN weeks pregnant AND would have DIED if this pregnancy wasn’t aborted. Who would want their 27 year old wife or daughter ( with four young children) to die this way? This is an out of touch and uncompassionate man who made this ruling. God Bless Sr. Margaret McBride!

Mary, it was not medically certain that she would have died.

As a poster pointed out, there was a doctor who has had treated over 40 of these types of cases with pregnancies, and none of the mothers nor babies died.  The doctors at this hospital took the easy, uninformed way out.

This child and woman deserved a chance.

It was medically certain that the child would die during the abortion.

liseux,
I really don’t think that is the point.  All the evidence suggests that the hospital concluded to a moral certainty that the mother would have died, and it made its decision in good faith based on that assumption.  Even assuming it was correct a direct abortion is still not permissible under Catholic teaching.  One many not directly take an innocent human life even if it is for the purpose of saving another life and even if the life to be taken is already dying and cannot be saved.  Dying people are not fair game to be deliberately killed even as a means to save others.  At least one Catholic ethicist has suggested that the removal of the placenta (an organ independent of the baby) is not a direct abortion, and that is not a trivial argument assuming that this is what was actually done.  This same ethicist has suggested that the term “abortion” from the standpoint of Catholic moral teaching does not cover medical abortions where the baby’s death is not actually desired but a mere consequence.  Other serious arguments have also been asserted.  These are worth taking seriously.  But the bishop’s reasoning can be best explained by the analogy I have offered before, wherein a home invader forces a mother to choose between him killing her husband and her daughter, or she can kill her husband in which case the invader will allow the daughter to live.  Assuming the mother has determined that the invader is not lying, can the mother kill her husband in order to save the life of the daughter.  It is important to acknowledge that the husband (like the baby at St. Joe’s) will die anyway.  Catholic moral teaching pretty plainly would not permit the mother to directly kill her husband.  Now, admittedly no analogy is perfect, and some ethicists have raised subtle but potentially important distinctions.  In any event, this we do know: it is not as simple as weighing the number of lives saved; and any characterization of Bishop Olmstead as evil can safely be regarded as both ignorant and uncharitable.

Mike,

Thanks for tenaciously providing the Church’s perspective. 

One thing I would note however, is that the placenta is an organ of the child.  This is a biological reality, not a philosophical claim.  Therefore, an act against a placenta is every bit as much an act against the child as an act against his head would be.

Red Beard What is being tenaciously provided is not the church’s perspective, but one bishop’s interpretation of the church’s prospective.

And that stuff about the placenta being an organ of the child, making stuff up is not the best way to make your case.  It is a good way to get a job on Fox news, however.

Dominating women’s bodies has been one of the most effective ways that the church has used to subject women since the 4th century.

“the placenta is an organ of the child.”

since someone’s life can be at stake here, semantics may matter.  A “Child” is generally defined as someone between the stages of birth and maturity.

Red Beard,
I am not a doctor but my research indicates that the placenta is independent of the fetus, and is an organ shared by both the fetus and mother. 

Sandra,
It is the bishop’s job to interpret Church teaching.  And you should be cautious about accusing others of making stuff up, especially given your very inaccurate understanding of Church history. 

hmmmmm,
Careful use of words is always helpful, but in this case it is you who seek obfuscate the analysis by dehumanizing the fetus.  Admit it—your point is that a human life that hasn’t been born is worth less than one that has.

I have written here before. However, this is the first time that I do so after the death of my mom. She passed away four months ago, after a brief and aggressive illness. She was only 71.

Thirty six years ago, when she was pregnant with my sister, she developed a bad condition that put her life and the baby’s in risk of death if the pregnancy continued. I was three, my brother two. My father was presented with the decision of saving his wife or his child. He choose my mom, because of us. The baby was delivered and passed away thirty minutes later.

My parents never forgot that little baby. Neither have my brother or me. But I can say with confidence that I am thankful for the hard decision my father took and for the medical help that made it possible for me to have my mom for close to forty years. I cannot imagine what would have been for me, for my brother or for my father to have been deprived of her so early. Even now, when I am far older that she was when the situation happened, I have trouble coping with her absence and mourn her every day.

I am a Catholic, have a child and another to come soon. I pray I never be faced with a similar choice. But I know the answer that was given so many years ago was right and in no way against the true law of God.

@Sarah

I am sorry for your loss, both then and now.  All Christians rejoice in all good that God brings, even if He brings it out of evil.  The difference is, as you point out, we also mourn the evil.

You can not murder an innocent even if you really really want to.

@Hmmmmmm
“”“since someone’s life can be at stake here, semantics may matter.  A
“Child” is generally defined as someone between the stages of birth and maturity.”“”

I will not limit myself to current medical rhetoric.  It is entirely clear, based on the context, that the child I’m referring to has not yet been born. “Fetus” just means “little child” “little man” or “little one” in Latin.  The direct translation would be “baby.”

Re: Placenta:

This is a matter of science, not of faith so let’s dig in, shall we?

On fertilization (“conception” before the books got rewritten for political reasons) you have a 1 cell living human being (child - or baby for @Hmmm) and a multi-cell living human being (Mother). 

The Placenta must grow from one or the other.  It grows from the child.  My wife can tell you at precisely how many cell divisions the cells that will become the placenta differentiate from the cells that will form the rest of the child’s body.  I have to google it.  According to the first site I hit, it is the “Blastocyst” stage.

Here’s my source:

http://www.merckmanuals.com/home/sec22/ch257/ch257c.html

Therefore, the cells that form the placenta are cells that come from the fertilized ovum (i.e. - the child’s body) 

1. They are the child’s cells. 

2. They are living cells that make up a living organ.

3. Therefore, that organ is part of the child.

To maintain a “shared organ” idea, you would have to maintain that there are two different kinds of living human beings.  One would be “man” and the other would be “placenta.” This is not a philosophically or scientifically tenable idea.

The simplest proof is that if you took a dna sample of the placenta, you would see that it is the child’s dna and not the mother’s.

Scientifically speaking, the placenta is an organ of the child.  This fact leads us to the logical conclusion that an act against this part of a child is an act against the child just as an act against the child’s heart or brain is an act against the child.  This logical conclusion leads us inescapably to the moral conclusion that such acts are not acceptable under the principle of double effect.

Thanks, Red Beard for that clarification.  It is inconsistent with what I had read, which was apparantly wrong.

Sarah, I pass no judgment on your father’s decision as I do not have enough facts to evaluate it.  But it is important to understand that you are making the moral evaluation simply by examining outcomes.  This a Catholic can not do unless he first determines that the act under consideration is not intrinsically evil.  The deliberate murder of an innocent is always evil, even if it saves lives.  This does not mean that such decisions are not difficult as a practical matter, and I would never ever judge to soul of your father or Sister MM.  I have committed many sins in my life, and actually hope that most were at least mitigated by good intentions and the desire for better outcomes; but even in these cases I cannot deny that they were sins. 
I’d be lying to deny my content with Truman’s decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  That decision almost certainly saved more innocent lives than it cost, and also probably saved the life of my two uncles.  But these happy and admittedly desirable consequences do not change the fact that the decisions were morally infirm to the extent they intentionally targeted innocent civilians, not as unavoidable collateral damage but as the precise moral objects sacrificed for superior consequences.  This does not make Truman evil.  I’m the first to admit I do not know what I would have done under the circumstances he confronted, just as I have no confidence that I would have had the moral courage to act any differently than your father or Sister MM.  But Red Beard is right—it is *never* permissible to murder an innocent even if you really want to and even if your desire is grounded in nothing but the desire for the best outcomes.  If the Bishop is wrong here, no one has been able to explain why.  But if he is, it is nonetheless clear that his acts are informed only by his understanding of God’s natural moral law as embraced by His holy Church, and not by any hatred of women or other such nonsense suggested by Sandra and others.

Red Beard,
If you would be kind enough to post a link supporting the assertion that the placenta has the child’s dna and not the mother’s I would be most grateful.  I have looked for that precise information and cannot find it.  I have made that very assertion in the past and was corrected by a medical doctor.  I am very prepared to believe that he was wrong.

Mike, I think you’ve missed the point that life is precious, even when it is in danger, and it’s easier to kill it than pick up a phone and contact a doctor with noted world-wide success with just this condition.

How can this not be the “point”: A doctor pointed out by Diane earlier has a 100% success rate with these cases.

Why aren’t Catholic hospitals networking with this doctor?  If I had what my area doctors call an “inoperable” brain tumor, but a doctor across the country has helped 40 patients like me AND their baby live, it is worth the baby’s life to try.

“DOCTOR GIVES HOPE TO PREGNANT WOMEN WITH HEART CONDITION”

“The choice for Rodgers was at times too hard to bear.

“It was kind of a toss up because I was like, ‘I have other kids. What am I going to do if I’m not there for them?’ So it was a really hard decision to just decide to go through with the pregnancy,” Rodgers said.

Her decision became easier after meeting cardiologist Dr. Dianne Zwicke.

“She was like, ‘You don’t have to terminate this pregnancy,’” Rodgers said. “She kind of told me that we would be best friends through this pregnancy, that she would get me through this.”

Zwicke is the director of the pulmonary hypertension clinic at Aurora St. Luke’s Medical Center and has developed a recipe of sorts for helping a mother with pulmonary hypertension survive after childbirth.

While the top medical centers in the country have a 50 percent to 60 percent death rate, Zwicke has a 100 percent success rate. She has helped 40 women worldwide.
http://www.wisn.com/health/17994163/detail.html

Thanks Red Beard for your insistence that we cannot murder an innocent person even if we want to. That tenet came to my mind this weekend as I talked to some pro-abortion people….. and I used your words.

As you state, the key word often is “innocent.”

liseux,
No one can argue against the assertion that all reasonable and moral efforts should be undertaken to save a life.  It may well be that the hospital should have consulted with Dr. Zwicke, but it’s hardly likely that its failure to do so was the result of it not understanding that the baby’s life is precious.  Even assuming you are correct about the medical facts, it is far more likely that the hospital was simply ignorant or mistaken regarding those facts and the options you mention.  We can all agree that any such ignorance should be cured, but it does not address at all the morality of the hospital’s decision unless one assumes that the hospital knew of Dr. Zwicke, understood and agreed her assertions regarding medical efficacy, and chose to not consult with her because they regarded the baby as insufficiently “precious.”  There is simply no evidence to support this assumption.  Moreover, focusing on it detracts from the real moral issue, which is whether it is acceptable to intentionally take an innocent human life if you believe that life is dying anyway and that such an action would save the life of another.  While presumably unintended, some people with infer from your assertions that the hospital did wrong not because it intentionally took an innocent human life, but only because it didn’t have to take that life.  It may be that it didn’t have to take the baby’s life in order to abort the baby in order to save the mother, but I’m not prepared to believe that it knew that.  Instead, if there was such a mistake, its nature is tragedy rather than sin.
Finally, there are very serious moral arguments that have been asserted in defense of the hospital, most especially by Dr. Therese Lysaught of Marquette.  In her analysis Dr. L relies greatly on the work of two of Catholic moral thinking’s leading figures, Fr. Martin Rhonheimer and Germain Grisez, both of whom are generally regarded as quite orthodox (Fr. R being incardinated in the Prelature of the holy Cross and Opus Dei).  Her analysis is easily found online, and I encourage all to read it—but be prepared for some heavy duty intellectual sledding.  FWIW I have not yet found Dr. L’s defense convincing, but am still working it through.  That said, even if she is correct there is absolutely no defense for the terrible mean-spirited libels that have directed toward Bishop O.  None.

Should have typed “It may be that it didn’t have to abort the baby in order to save the mother, ...”
And I hope I did not suggest in any way that liseux directed any libels toward Bishop O (or anyone else).  But others have said some absolutely horrible and indefensible things.  And I would note that I have not read defenders of the Bishop say anything remotely comparable about Sister MM.  They have simply explained why they think what she did was morally wrong and why excommunication resulted, and many of these defenders have expressed appropriate sympathy for her as a person dealing with exceedingly difficult circumstances.

How many babies has Dr. Lysaught saved whose mothers had this condition?

Mike, I think you are rationalizing much in this situation.

Here’s a tip for hospitals and doctors that really want to save babies and mothers: put Dr. Zwicke’s phone number on a stickie note in your ER, and call her when you have problems…..

Then you can say that you’ve done as much as possible to help the baby and mom.

She has worked world-wide, but only with those who WANT to know about cutting edge procedures to save both mother and baby.

Also, you can find a “serious moral argument” to back up almost anyone, starting with Judas Iscariot.

@Mike

I’m afraid I’m on secondary sources with these claims.  The DNA claim is obvious when you consider that all cells of a body have the same DNA and that the cells that become the placenta come from the cells of the child’s body.  Here are my wife’s human embryology notes on the topic, though again, it is not a primary source:

“”“On days 4-6 cells rearrange into 2 regions.  The blastocyst will develop into the person. The trophoblast will develop into the fetal placenta.  The trophoblast is directed by the genes from the father.”“”

There are various DNA tests during pregnancy.  One is chorionic villi sampling which takes a DNA sample from the placenta which is the child’s DNA. This test would not work if it was not the child’s DNA in the placenta.

There is a clear line at the placental barrier.  Everything up to the placenta is the mother.  Everything beyond the placenta is the child.  Even blood does not actually mingle or cross the barrier. (white blood cells are the notable exception as they can cross the barrier)

@Mike & @Liseux

You both have good points and I don’t want to disrupt your conversation. 

@Mike is pointing out that the moral question can be answered in the abstract: You can not murder an innocent child, even if known bad results will occur because of your inaction.

@Liseux is pointing out the concrete: In this case, it was not certain that bad results would occur. Or rather: A particular moral action may have prevented the for-seen bad results altogether.

The danger is that someone may be swayed by @Liseux’s argument in this case and then not be able to make the right decision in the next harder case that comes along.  Which is why we also need to hold on to @Mike’s point.  Both are very valuable.

It is a great pleasure to be able to speak with both of you on these issues, and I hold you both in very high esteem.

Red Beard - I get it - you are innocent until you are born and then you get the original sin thing and you’re not innocent anymore so what happens to you isn’t as important as when you were innocent. 

I never suggested that fetus was unimportant, I’m just challenging the great concern for fetuses and a seeming much less concern for the born.  The same people who are militant anti choice are often militaristic,against social programs that save lives, against universal health care, against providing contraceptives so that children are not born with aids, etc, etc, etc.  Children who die from poverty, war, and abuse seem less important than fetuses.  I don’t get it. 

I know that I’ll get the response - but we do care.  Then why aren’t the people who picket women’s health clinics and their supporters out picketing in support of life saving programs?

I could not get one so call pro lifer to be a foster parent in the very large metropolis I live in.  What’s up with that? 

And Red Beard - identify yourself.

Olmstead interpreted the church’s teaching one way and another bishop would interpret it another.  Guess it’s just the luck of the draw whether a mother gets to live or not.

@Sandra

“”“you are innocent until you are born and then you get the original sin thing and you’re not innocent anymore so what happens to you isn’t as important as when you were innocent.”“”

At the very least, you don’t understand the term “innocent” and the term “original sin.”

Hundreds of posts ago, we got our only working definition of innocent:

“”“Innocent to me is one who is not actively attacking or threatening another.  There is a little more nuance to this, but I think this will suffice for the conversation at hand.”“”

You are the one presenting the false idea that inside vs. outside of the womb matters. It doesn’t.

The Catholic Church is the largest charity on the planet.  We have helped more people than any other institution in history.  If you think we don’t care, you are fooling yourself.

Red Beard,
Thanks, I think that is pretty much right.  I do not dismiss at all the importance of every hospital, especially a Catholic hospital, to use all reasonable efforts to save both the mother and baby.  I am prepared to believe that hospitals should be better informed regarding the options mentioned by liseux.  But it is highly doubtful that the Bishop’s actions regarding Sister MM and the hospital are grounded in that concern.  Instead, in all likelihood the Bishop assumed that the hospital subjectively believed in good faith that its options were to save the mother by aborting the baby or lose both.  From all accounts it is that calculus that disturbed the bishop.
And thanks for the additional medical information.  No need for additional research or heroic efforts, but I do think that the DNA quality of the placenta has the potential to be critically relevant to the moral analysis.

Sandra, he’s the guy with the red beard…..! ;-}

“”“And Red Beard - identify yourself.”“”

Why?  Does an argument stand based on who makes it or based on its truth?

I’m not hiding, I’m just unknown.  Without my identity, you have no option other than to judge my arguments by their merit.

@Mike

“””  From all accounts it is that calculus that disturbed the bishop.”“”

I absolutely agree.

“”“No need for additional research or heroic efforts, but I do think that the DNA quality of the placenta has the potential to be critically relevant to the moral analysis. “”“

Again, I totally agree.

I googled “chorionic villi sampling” and the first site that came up was: http://www.webmd.com/baby/chorionic-villus-sampling-cvs

It states: “”“Chorionic villi are tiny finger-shaped growths found in the placenta. The genetic material in chorionic villus cells is the same as that in the baby’s cells”“”

Not exactly scholarly, but it proves my claim and should be an adequate starting point if you choose to dig deeper.

When I ask men I know what their position on abortion is they say things like
“it’s none of my business”
Of course I do associate with men who see women as equals, despite the fact that society and most of the major religions do not.

Just interested in the militant anti-choice people not identifying themselves. 

The men I know think that abortion is none of their business.  Of course, I associate with men who see women as equals, unlike most of society and most major religions.

@Sandra,

You are amusing.

So the murder of a child is not my business?  Is the rape of a woman none of my business? 

These are very silly ideas.

I see men and women as equal.  I don’t want either sex to be murdered, raped, or in other ways mistreated.  I also don’t want either sex to commit murder, rape, etc.

You apparently see them as unequal.  You think women should be allowed to murder. 

“militant” now apparently means “willing to rationally defend a position.  I like it. 

I must admit that I enjoy being called names, it usually is the last effort of an emotional person who can’t use reason to defend their position.

As for “anti-choice,” this is also funny.  Do you think I should have the “choice” to rape a woman?  What about the choice to kill my annoying co-workers?  No one is “pro-choice” in an unlimited sense.  I am “anti-murder” and “anti-abortion”, if you like, but I am no more “anti-choice” than you are. 

Weren’t you the one who was pretending that words matter earlier today?  Do they only matter when you are attempting to hide the fact that a fetus is a child? 

You are just falling into the rhetoric, and it is rather silly.

Sandra, do you respect a man more if he says abortion is none of his business?

liseux,
Of course I do, because it isin’t any of his business.

  If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament.

Sandra, I do believe that you are doing a bit of disingenuous mental gymnastics.

If you truly mean that you respect a man more who says that abortion is none of his business, then you have no respect for Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun who made abortion his business and WROTE Roe v. Wade.

According to your point of view, Blackmun had no business sticking his nose into abortion, which is only women’s business.

Thus, you do not respect him…..

Do I follow you correctly?

Liseux,

Now there’s some mental gynmastics if I’ve ever seen one.  Men have no business making laws over our bodies.  So, if we had control over the use of our bodies, it wouldn’t get to supreme court, now would it.  Right not, we have a real potential for men to decide to ditch Roe v Wade.  Therefore, once again, men who have no business doing so, will be making decisions over women’s bodies.  Get it?

Oh Red Beard - your remarks are silly - and emotional.  Isn’t calling a woman emotional the classic way for men to put women down?  You are a classic.

Having positions based on myths written by men for men is not exactly strong arguments.

“”“Oh Red Beard - your remarks are silly - and emotional.  Isn’t calling a woman emotional the classic way for men to put women down?  You are a classic.

Having positions based on myths written by men for men is not exactly strong arguments. “”“

Would you care to address a single one of the arguments put forward here rationally?

Again, evasion and emotional attacks rather than rational responses doesn’t really build much of a case.

@Sandra merely maintains that a woman killing a child is no concern of a man. It is “disrespectful” for the man to interfere because, as she says, “”“it isin’t any of his business”“”

A logical corolary would be that it is no concern of a man if another man rapes a woman.  It is the private business of the rapist and it is disrespectful for the first man to try and interfere because again, “”“it isin’t any of his business”“”

This is not a line of moral reasoning that I am comfortable with.  If I see an attempted murder or an attempted rape, I shall attempt to interfere, even if it disappoints @Sandra.

I value a child.  Therefore, I will not allow someone else to murder a child.

I value a woman.  Therefore, I will not allow someone else to murder a woman.

I value a man.  Therefore, I will not allow someone else to murder a man.

There is your equality.

“”“If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament.”“”

It already is, you are just looking at the wrong religion. Where children used to be murdered on the alters of Baal, now they are murdered on the alter of radical feminism.

I will stand with Christ and repeat his simple law: Though Shalt Not Murder.

@Red Beard:  “There are various DNA tests during pregnancy.  One is chorionic villi sampling which takes a DNA sample from the placenta which is the child’s DNA. This test would not work if it was not the child’s DNA in the placenta.”

The placenta truly IS a “shared” organ, between the mother and child (or, the gravida and fetus if one insists on Latin medical terms to describe a particular stage of human life). 

The placenta is composed of tissues from both mother and child - e.g., it has a fetal portion, and a maternal portion.

The fetal portion has a slightly grayish, shiny appearance, and is formed by a coming together of the chorionic villi in which the umbilical vein and arteries intertwine, forming the umbilical cord.

The maternal portion develops from the portion of the uterus known as the decidual basilis, and is redish in color and rather “beefy” in appearance. 

Being composed of tissues from both mother and child, it will also contain DNA of both - depending upon where the sample is collected.  If from the maternal tissue, it will have maternal DNA. If from the fetal portion (like the chorionic villi), it will have fetal DNA. 

It also contains both maternal and fetal blood vessels, and while these vessels are separate (they don’t mix), each would contain the DNA of the person whose blood runs in those vessels.

I would be very interested in Mike P.‘s moral analysis of this, since it is this portion of Dr. Lysaught’s analysis which has perplexed me (from a medical perspective). One cannot “separate” the fetus from the placenta in the very stark manner in which Dr. Lysaught appears to do in her analysis. 

I would be interested in hearing a theologian’s perspective.

“Decidual basilis” should read: “decidua basalis”.  As I get older, my spelling gets worse, and my typos more numerous.

But, for anyone who wants to look it up….

I’ll look up more details.  The short of it is that there is an organ of the mother and an organ of the child that work together but are not one organ.  My wife describes it as the two sides of a piece of velcro. 

Morally, tissue that has the mother’s dna is the mother’s body.  Tissue that has the child’s dna is the child’s body.  There is no tissue that has both.

TheresaEE,
Many thanks for that clarification.  Though I am struggling with several parts of Dr. L’s analysis, I am committed to getting through it.  My only interest is the truth, and I’m sure that is true of Red Beard as well.  While I am convinced that the accusations launched against Bishop O are wholly unfair, I am nonetheless quite open to the possiblity that he was in error, either because the removal of the placenta is suffiently (even if imperfectly) analogous to the removal of the uterus to not constitute a direct abortion or because of a proper understanding of “moral object.”  At this point I remain unconvinced by Dr. L, but I intend to turn back to her analysis when I have time.

@Mike

“””  My only interest is the truth, and I’m sure that is true of Red Beard as well.”“”

Which makes it much more pleasant to discuss these issues with you.

“”“While I am convinced that the accusations launched against Bishop O are wholly unfair, I am nonetheless quite open to the possiblity that he was in error”“”

A direct abortion is never acceptable.  There may be actions that look similar to direct abortion at first glance that qualify under the principle of double effect.  As far as we know, this was not one of those actions.  Also, a “placentectomy” or the direct act of destroying or removing the child from the womb doesn’t qualify precisely because the act is an act against the child’s organ and therefore the child.  It is an act with the known and intended consequence of the death of the child.

Please note, that the bishop’s directives aren’t saying you can murder a child as long as you kill a couple of the mother’s cells first.  They are very clear that the action you take must be an authentic medical treatment and that the death of the child must be unintended.

Similarly, you can’t cut out a healthy uterus just to kill the child as a “treatment” for high blood pressure. Removing a uterus is not a treatment for high blood pressure.  You are directly intending the death of the child and disguising it as a “medical treatment.”  You would be acting directly against the mother and only indirectly against the child, but you are still actively murdering the child. 

Contrast this to chemo, which is an authentic medical treatment for cancer.  The death of the child in this latter case would be a tragic, and yet authentically undesired side effect.

Sandra, your language reveals the lies you hide behind.

Sandra says she respects a man more if he says abortion is none of his business. When MEN wrote Roe v. Wade and made abortion legal in all 50 states, all of a sudden the “disrespect” aspect disappears.

What Sandra really does is respect only those who agree with her, men or women. Men who say abortion is okay can say all they want. Men who disagree with her on abortion are told to be quiet.

Also, Sandra hides behind the lie: “Men have no business making laws over our bodies.  So, if we had control over the use of our bodies, it wouldn’t get to supreme court, now would it.”

It’s lie that it’s just your body.

If I recall correctly, you said you raised five children. If one of those was a boy, did your body all of a sudden develop an attached penis when you were pregnant? Or was that penis in your womb the penis of your son?

That male child you and I carried, or that female child you and I carried are not OUR bodies, but have separate bodies with their own unique DNA from conception.

Even the language you speak can’t cover up the lies because nature speaks the truth.

Red,
I agree with all you say, but the words “direct” and “abortion” have substantive meanings within Catholic moral theology that are worth unpacking.  Dr. L’s analysis does that and concludes that what St. Joe’s did was not a direct abortion under Catholic moral teaching.  I am not yet convinced she is correct, but to be fair I have not yet mastered her analysis.  I do intend to do so, but just don’t know when.  As in all things, I will approach it with an open mind.

@Mike,

“”“am not yet convinced she is correct, but to be fair I have not yet mastered her analysis.  I do intend to do so, but just don’t know when.  As in all things, I will approach it with an open mind.”“”

Fair enough.  Could you provide a link to her analysis?  My wife is interested and couldn’t find a copy.

Liseux,
You are to be commended for your patient exchange with Sandra.  I’m afraid I’m just not that patient.  Sandra sees the world through the lens of a radical feminism that allows her the rather intoxicating luxury of victim status.  This pathology does not allow her to see others as potential victims, especially if those others could in any way trump her own perceived victim status.  Her views are not grounded in reason, which is why the language of reason cannot overcome them.  Prayer may be more effective.

Red,
Much to my surprise I cannot locate an online copy either—just references to it.  If you send an email to mike.petrik@alston.com, I will email you a pdf copy early next week. 
Best,
        Mike

I’ll wear that, Mike!  I’m not often called patient, but I’ll dress myself in the mantle of patience today! Thanks.

It’s amazing to me how history demonstrates that the “victims” often become the predators, and that’s what has happened to the so-called women’s movement.

Now, like a snake eating its tail, the women’s movement is consuming itself. In particular, in the way they are silent in the massive abortion of baby girls who through a sonogram are targeted throughout the world, just for being girls.

If they can’t speak out for the baby girls because ABORTION is untouchable, they have no credibility.

That the women’s movmt. isn’t us in arms tells you they are a movement based on death and selfishness.

Have a blessed day.

liseux,
If you have not read it already, I commend to you the following book:

http://www.amazon.com/Who-Stole-Feminism-Women-Betrayed/dp/0684801566

I think you will enjoy it. 
Cheers,
    Mike

Dr. Lysaught’s analysis an be read here:

http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/St.-Josephs-Hospital-Analysis.pdf

@Mike:  “While I am convinced that the accusations launched against Bishop O are wholly unfair, I am nonetheless quite open to the possiblity that he was in error, either because the removal of the placenta is suffiently (even if imperfectly) analogous to the removal of the uterus to not constitute a direct abortion or because of a proper understanding of “moral object.”

A placentectomy would be VERY imperfectly analogous to hysterectomy, or salpingectomy. Those latter two organs are entirely maternal organs, not dependent upon a pregnancy ocurring.  The placenta, while shared between mother and child, is wholly dependent upon pregnancy for its existence. 

That being said, I was disappointed by the NCBC’s response to Dr. Lysaught - I feel they only partially engaged her position from a medical perspective. 

OTOH, I’ve already posted (above, around Dec. 27th), some of my own concerns over Dr. Lysaught’s rather “novel” medical assertions - such as, that the “pregnancy” may continue weeks to months after the fetus dies.  I have never seen this language in any of the medical literature I’ve ever read.  Hormone levels may remain high for a time after fetal death, but this is never described as “the pregnancy continues.”

I think this is important because Dr. Lysaught spends a great deal of time attempting to draw a very stark distinction between “the pregnancy” and “the fetus” - thus, one may “terminate a pregnancy” even after fetal death occurs!  Her conclusion DEPENDS upon this stark distinction:

“....the phrase “termination of pregnancy” is an accurate medical
description of what the intervention was trying to achieve (to terminate the burden of the pregnancy not to kill the child);...”

Another concern is that she SEEMS to be saying that the baby was going to die anyway, was practically dead anyway, so our “intervention” didn’t do anything that wasn’t going to happen anyway. 

Another concern is when she says this:

“The NCBC claims that in discussions with physicians, no physicians
believe it is practically possible to perform a D&C without
dismemberment. However, this fact is clinically disputed.”

Some footnotes to the literature which disputes this would have been nice.

In short, since fetal death and pregnancy termination are simultaneous events, (i.e., pregnancies don’t continue AFTER fetal death), the language of “intending” to terminate a pregnancy while not “intending” the death of the unborn child really bothers me!  This is NOT the same as intending to remove a cancerous uterus.

Thanks, TheresaEE.
I too am troubled by Dr. L’s analysis, at least initially.  First, whether a placentectomy can be justified under the principle of double effect depends in part on how the question is framed.  If one understands Catholic doctrine to say that it is acceptable for a mother’s pathological organ to be removed even if the second effect is the death of the baby, then one might be led to believe that the placentectomy would be morally acceptable because it is the organ of the mother.  But because it is also the organ of the baby, then removing that organ would appear to be an impermissible direct attack on the baby as well.  I would think that the governing principle has to be that one can never directly kill the baby, and that is true even if the same action is simultaneously treating a pathology of the mother. 
Further, I share your concern that Dr L seems to be saying that it is permissible to directly kill the baby if it is dying anyway, and this strikes me as indefensible.  Yet, I do want to more fully understand her argumentation and reliance on Thomas et al. 
Finally, her understanding of moral object seems dangerously close to allowing any act as long as the intention is good.  But I do worry that I misunderstand her, which is why I want to read very carefully.  In this connection I am open to the possiblity that many modern Catholic ethicists are misreading both the principle of double effect as developed by Thomas aligning it to closely to the physical act rather than the moral objective.  Perhaps.  While not convinced yet, I intend to make as careful analysis as this non-theologian (just a corporate tax lawyer) can make.
Many thanks for the medical information regarding the placenta.  It is very helpful.

Thanks for the book suggestion, Mike. Cheers to you as well.