Im wondering when Sr. Keenan is going to be relieved of her duties?  Is she under the authority of Bishop Olmsted?  She needs a quite kneeler in her convent where she cant do anymore harm or perpetuate any more scandel.

Hooray for Bishop Olmsted!
Fr Michael

It should be noted that the Chairman of Catholic Health Association’s board is Catholic Healthcare West’s CEO, Lloyd Dean.  You can see for yourself here, on page 7:

http://www.chausa.org/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id&ItemID=4436

Our duty as Christians is to follow our well-informed consciences (CCC 1783) above all else (CCC 1800). Nothing in the Catechism says “unless a bishop tells you otherwise.” Blindly following anyone simply because they declare they are the decision-makers can lead one to sin if the leader is wrong and the follower knows the leader is wrong. Genuine ignorance may be defensible, but to deliberately ignore your well-informed conscience is not.

This bishop got it wrong. Moral theologian Germain Grisez (famously conservative and loyal to the Church) has proposed a scenario where what happened in the Phoenix hospital can indeed be defended as morally licit. It’s a sad case all the way around, but the right and truly Christian decision was made.

Moral Theologian Germain Grisez has an outstanding credibility among conservative groups. Here is his reasoning for those rare cases where
“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 a pregnant woman and her child, (ii) it is not safe to wait or waiting surely will 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.”
From his book LIVING A CHRISTIAN LIFE, Chapter 8:?Life, Health, and Bodily Inviolability, Question D:?Is Abortion Always the Wrongful Killing of a Person?

SteveH, can you provide us a link to Grisez’s proposed scenario in which the hospital’s actions can be defended as morally licit?  Thanks.

Grisez link: http://www.twotlj.org/G-2-8-D.html

Thanks for the quote, SteveH.  I believe it was condition (iv) which the hospital failed to meet. My understanding is that in this case, the ‘operation’ which saved the mother’s life was a direct abortion.  It was not, for example, an operation to remove the placenta from the womb, thereby delivering the baby alive.  The medical procedure which was utilized had as its direct intent and action, the killing of the fetus. 
I know we all probably do, but let us continue to pray for all involved.

CCC 1789:

“One may never do evil so that good may result from it”

http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt3sect1chpt1art6.shtml#1789

Yes, Karen, I know that condition IV is the one folks are hung up on, but Grisez continues (beyond what I cited above) with this: “The proposal can be simply to alter the child’s physical dimensions and remove him or her, because, as a physical object, this body cannot remain where it is without ending in both the baby’s and the mother’s deaths. To understand this proposal, it helps to notice that the baby’s death contributes nothing to the objective sought; indeed, the procedure is exactly the same if the baby has already died. In adopting this proposal, the baby’s death need only be accepted as a side effect. Therefore, according to the analysis of action employed in this book, even craniotomy (and, a fortiori, other operations meeting the four stated conditions) need not be direct killing, and so, provided the death of the baby is not intended (which is possible but unnecessary), any operation in a situation meeting the four conditions could be morally acceptable.”

He’s saying it is licit according to the standards of double-effect. The baby’s death wasn’t sought, but its removal was. No different from how they justify ending ectopic pregnancies.

To StevenH:  It is never moral to take God’s authority into your own hands and determine that waiting will end both the mother and child’s lives.  How would Grisez know if waiting would end their lives?  Where is the faith in God’s providence?  A doctor according to the hippocratic oath is to do everything in his power to save all the endangered lives.  Giving up on either the mother or child is not moral.  A doctor should do everything possible to save both lives, up until God takes the souls of either party.  It is not up to us to end any innocent life in order to save an innocent life.  The keyword here is “INNOCENT.”  If caring for an elderly person is endangering my well being potentially causing me so much hardship my life is becoming endangered, should I kill the elderly person?

Yes, Harvey, you are right. And I am grateful that didn’t happen in Phoenix.

CCC 1792

“[R]ejection of the Church’s authority and her teaching…: these can be at the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct.”

http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt3sect1chpt1art6.shtml#1792

To StevenH:  Germain Grisez said,“Sometimes the baby’s death may be accepted to save the mother.”  There is a big difference between accepting and causing a death of an innocent person.

Steve H:

Why is the Bishop wrong?  Based on abstract philosophical reasoning?  The facts as reported show that the woman’s unborn child was dismembered.  The bottom line is that this was a direct abortion plain and simple.  There is no justification for a direct abortion in this case.

Dominic, I think you need to read up on the medical facts of this case. Even the ERDs appeal to medical professionals to guide us in much of our moral reasoning. God is indeed provident, but He also gave us doctors.

Whatever credibility he has as a fine moral theologian, Grisez is not the Bishop of Phoenix. He might be right, he might be wrong, but he has no authority in this situation. Hospitals don’t have consciences, let alone the ability to make them well formed. Bishop Olmstead, in his authority as the ordinary of the diocese of Phoenix, is the “conscience” of the diocese and has the duty to make informed determinations on the morality of the actions of public Catholic institutions.  Besides, as Bp. Olmstead has made clear, the direct abortion was just one in a series of moral lapses that have regularly occurred at St. Joseph’s and throughout CHW.

Dominic, you also need a primer on how to read moral theology.

Patrick, you said Olmsted is “the ‘conscience’ of the diocese.” You can’t just make stuff up and try to pass it off as Church teaching. Where did you ever get that silly idea?

Grisez is simply wrong on this one.  He’s defending abortion simply by changing its description as a proposal of practical reason.  “I’m just resizing the head of the child so that it can pass through the cervix”.  This ignores causal factors at work in the real world and is a verbal formula that serves to distract us from the fact that the child’s head is being resized precisely by means of harming the child.  It is morally impermissible to harm an innocent human being.

No one’s rejecting church teaching or the institution’s authority, Harvy, just a bishop’s erroneous ideas.

SteveH, I think your simplification of Grisez’s proposal misses the mark, as simplifications often do.  You write ‘He’s saying…the baby’s death wasn’t sought’.  But he didn’t say that.  Grisez used the word ‘intended’.  So condition (iv) isn’t really a hang-up, SteveH.  In this case, it’s the hinge which determines whether the scenario will result in a morally licit action, or a morally illicit one.

Chas, can you provide a link to evidence that show the child was dismembered?  I keep seeing people state that the child was dismembered.  Doe we have any evidence of this?

OK, Karen, change my “sought” to “intended.” Still means the same thing.

StevenH:  I am humble enough to admit that I am not a theologian or a doctor, but I am also not stupid enough to defend the outright killing of a child to save anyone. May God grant all involved pardon and peace.

Don’t give up, Dominic. God gave you a brain. Fill it with knowledge.

Let’s keep it civil, Rob.

No, SteveH, it doesn’t mean the same thing.  ‘Seek’ and ‘Intend’ are not interchangeable.  Not even in secular, non-philosophical dictionaries.  I believe you are over-reaching in your reading of Grisez.

OK, Karen, then going forward we’ll just stick with “intend.” I shouldn’t have strayed from the expert’s word in the first place. The Phoenix team didn’t intend the death of the baby, that was secondary (double-effect). They intended the health of the mother.

Look at Grisez’s last line again, from what I cited above: “...provided the death of the baby is not intended (which is possible but unnecessary), any operation in a situation meeting the four conditions could be morally acceptable.”

Yes, everyone knows the baby is going to die, just as when doctors intervene in an ectopic pregnancy (when they remove the part of the falopian tube where the baby has attached itself). But it’s not necessary that the baby, in any of these cases dies, and that’s what makes it a secondary event, hence, the morally accepted double-effect.

If the doctor said “my ultimate goal here is to end this pre-term baby’s life,” then we have a direct abortion. The abortion was the culmination of everything the doctor was doing. But in this case, the culmination is the restoration of the mother’s health from an irretrievably grave condition.

Perhaps those using Germain’s words to defend this situation should actually read what they say. SteveH quoted above “The proposal can be simply to alter the child’s physical dimensions and remove him or her, because, as a physical object, this body cannot remain where it is without ending in both the baby’s and the mother’s deaths.”  The baby’s placement is not what caused the condition, and the baby’s ‘removal’ is not what is argued to correct the condition.  Nevertheless St Josephs did not ‘remove’ a dead child. They did not (as far as I can tell)remove the placenta which in turn resulted in the death of the child which they then removed, they did not ‘remove’ a living child who then died because he/she could not survive outside the womb.  No, they killed the child, dismembered it, removed what what was left all as a means to go after what they claimed was the pathology in this situaltion, the placenta.  This (it seems to me) is where the issue is. The direct killing of the child. The direct advocation, and cooperation with an intrinsically evil act.

That’s wrong, Aussie. Read what I posted right above your post here. We must’ve hit the submit button at the same time.

Going home now. Ofc closed tomorrow and Friday. Nice chatting with all of you. Merry Christmas.

Hi SteveH.  I think I understand what you’re saying here.  You believe the words ‘intend’, ‘intent’, ‘intention’ (and so on) all refer to what folks have in their minds and hearts for the ultimate outcome of the situation.  But that’s not the case.  In moral theology (or any moral reasoning), ‘intent’ refers to the direct purpose of an action. Or in medical terms, the direct purpose of a particular procedure.
In this case, the particular procedure the medical staff used had as its purpose (or intent) the termination of the fetus’s life.  That’s the direct action.  What happened next was the indirect outcome:  the mother’s life was saved.  That is how condition (iv) was not met.
When we talk about intentions here, we’re not talking about hopes, dreams or desires.  We’re talking about the specific design or purpose of an action.

Bye Steve. You’ve probably had a long day doing abortions.

Why are so many lost in the trigger incident? It matters to be sure, but it is not the only reason for the Bishop’s action. And if we have been reading Jimmy’s columns we know that: from contraceptive counseling to other abortions to sterilization. I am amazed at those who declare the bishop flat wrong. They might, at least, engage his reasoning. Instead, they just cite other authorities. It’s as if the bishop is required to seek a way out of following the Church’s teaching rather than working to understand it and evangelize.

RX,

Why not be civil?

Peace,
CKH

Cue Anne Rice filibuster in 3…2…1…

“If the doctor said “my ultimate goal here is to end this pre-term baby’s life,” then we have a direct abortion.”

I am not a moral theologian, but I know murder does not have to be anyone’s “ultimate” goal for a murder to be one’s intention. I can’t say “I intend ‘A’ to happen, so if I have to do ‘B’ for ‘A’ to happen, well, I only intend ‘A’.” No. If ‘A’ results from the occurrence of ‘B’ and ‘B’ is morally illicit, then I can’t do it.

“If the doctor said “my ultimate goal here is to end this pre-term baby’s life,” then we have a direct abortion.”

SteveH, you have certainly demonstrated that you are not a moral theologian.  You might be wise to listen to and reflect on the bishop’s arguments here.

What do you think the actual intention of the abortion was?  An abortion is a procedure with a direct intention to kill an unborn child.  One does actively seek to kill a baby with intention of not killing a baby. As others have pointed out, this child did not die as a result of some other operation in which the child’s death was an untended but accepted effect.  No, an abortion was done with the direct intention of ending the child’s life.  Even if there was an “ultimate” intention that was good, that is not enough to justify an evil act.  That is the point I believe you are missing.

Bishop Olmsted’s reasoning and decision are both appalling and an affront to anyone who believes in the sanctity of life, Catholic or non-Catholic.

The decision to save the mother’s life or let both mother and unborn die is the only ethical decision that could be made.

One can hope the Bishop will see the error of his ways and prevent a climate of fear in other Catholic-affiliated hospitals nationwide faced with a similar decision.

“The abortion was the culmination of everything the doctor was doing.”

That’s like saying “The killing of my family with a shotgun was the culmination of my intention to save the world from too much greenhouse gas”.  The ultimate goal may be good, but one may never use evil to accomplish good.  If, however, my family were to perish in my attempts to save the world through some unintended effect, that would be differently.  This is not what an abortion is.

“The decision to save the mother’s life or let both mother and unborn die is the only ethical decision that could be made.”

Have you no sense of objectivity that will allow you to see all sides of the argument here? Especially when it was not certain that “both mother and unborn” would die?

For those who say the bishop is mistaken. Okay, then why isn’t the hospital making recourse to Rome? This decree is an administrative act. There is a process that can be used to make recourse. I am sure they have consulted a canonist. So why don’t they do it? Let’s be honest. They are probably relieved that there are no more restrictions on their full participation in the culture of death. This way they are free to abort children and they can blame the mean bishop. They will not make recourse because they know they were morally and canonically wrong in the first place.

MP,

You missed that the hospital’s Ethics Consult team had approved the decision to go ahead with the abortion. Apart from that, you are disallowing that uncertainty can exist and apparently would gamble on allowing a mother to die if such uncertainty did exist.

No, Bishop Olmsted erred and should understand the unethical nature of his decision.

Fr.J., you’re using an awful lot of common sense here!  After all, the hospital isn’t shut down, it’s just not suppose to consider itself Catholic nor call itself Catholic.  If it’s not in line with Catholic moral teaching, and, what’s more, doesn’t have any intention of bringing itself in line with Catholic moral teaching, and has told the bishop that it won’t bring itself to be in line with it, then, well, it’s perfectly reasonable the bishop should tell the world that it’s not a Catholic hospital.  Both believers and non-believers who go to a Catholic hospital should know they are receiving care from an institution that will at least try to uphold Catholic moral teaching.

Exactly Cathy. The bishop isn’t acting soley on this scandal, but rather a whole string of activities against Church teaching. Clearly, the hospital doesn’t want to be bound by these things, so why the fuss?

This entire issue, as sad as it is, shows the split within Holy Mother Church in the U.S. Liberal cafeteria catholics that are either lacking in proper catechesis or have “chosen” to forget their catechism are more than willing to defend the modernist wing in the Church. The “I’m ok, you’re ok” side will use relativism and deceptive theology to justify whatever idea is currently pleasing to them. Faithful Catholics must stand firm in the teachings and Traditions of the Church. I personally would rather be thought an old fashioned fool than to burn in hell for ever. Please remember + Bishop Olmsted in your prayers, and pray for more solid Bishops like him.

CathyLouise,

While that is correct on the face of it, the decision seriously calls into question whether Catholic moral teaching is, in fact, “moral.”

I think it will have a chilling effect on other Catholic-affiliated hospitals and put doctors and hospital administrations in an ethical dilemma when faced with similar situations. It can result in perceived pressure to force doctors to adhere to the “party line” in conflict with their own oath to “do no harm.”

Under the circumstances, it is good for the hospital that it is now no longer associated with the Catholic Church. I won’t be surprised if other hospitals voluntarily give up their associations with the Catholic Church on ethical principles.

some of you on this forum, if you don’t want to obey the Church and what it teaches, why don’t you just leave and become E-piss-coples.  Their mission statement seems to be “Anything goes!”

Glenn,

That does not sound very Christian of you.

Hi Steve,

You ended the quote with the title of question “D” which actually begins 12 pages earlier. This may create the impression the quote is the direct answer to this question.

You could have quoted from the next page where is says “Sometimes the baby’s life should be given priority.”

Also, while Grisez is generally well regarded.  Most Moral Theologians, that are faithful to the magisterium, do not find him accurate without exception.  One may need to speak to several MT in a particularly difficult case.  I’d like to know what Janet Smith, Bill May or Fr. Donald Haggerty have to say.  If they looked at the case and said the bishop is wrong, then I would weigh that much more heavily than GG’s hypothetical.

I have not studied the details of this case (I guess I need to now), but my first question is; was there no way to save the child? (point (iii) from GG’s quote.

I’ll borrow from the NFL. This is the bishop’s call and one needs “clear and convincing evidence” to overturn the call.

Best,
Fred

I don’t see that it’s very Christian to take a little innocent human life and chop it to smithereens! and then have the gall to call that a “medical procedure”

bjedwards:  I suspect you are correct.  More Catholic hospitals will either walk away from their Catholic identity or will have it stripped from them.  I am saddened by this, but I realize that it will probably happen.  The same thing will also probably happen to “Catholic” Universities, eventually.

Steve H and others who are second-guessing Bishop Olmstead:  How arrogant of you to decide that the “Bishop erred.”  What facts do you have at your disposal that the bishop didn’t have?!?
As a result of my 25 years as a high risk labor and delivery nurse, I have strong reason to believe that the bishop made the correct evaluation of the situation.  It is EXTREMELY unlikely that an 11-week fetus would place a fatal strain on the mother.  It is highly likely that she could have been treated for her symptoms until the baby was viable - 23-24 weeks, delivered and had the baby go to the special care nursery.  My guess is the cost was too high for that conservative management to be acceptable.

Just jumping in here after lightly skimming:

“If the doctor said ‘my ultimate goal here is to end this pre-term baby’s life,’ then we have a direct abortion. The abortion was the culmination of everything the doctor was doing. But in this case, the culmination is the restoration of the mother’s health from an irretrievably grave condition.”

Steve, you confuse the intention with the object of the act. The act was to remove a baby directly. That is what makes it an abortion, for whatever reason it is done. It is morally inexcusable. The ends cannot justify the means.

@Steve:
“The proposal can be simply to alter the child’s physical dimensions and remove him or her, because, as a physical object, this body cannot remain where it is without ending in both the baby’s and the mother’s deaths…”

The Principle of Double Effect doesn’t work that way. It must respect the objective truth of the situation. Trying to use generic language to describe the situation is nothing short of verbal engineering. Try as I might, saying, “I’m just slicing this material object open with a knife,” doesn’t excuse the fact that what I’m doing is stabbing someone in the chest. The above quote tries to refer to the child as a mere physical object. It’s avoiding the truth of the situation. The physical object you’re removing is a human person. The object of the act is to remove a physical object…which is a baby. Stating that the intention is to save the mother’s life by removing an object doesn’t work when that object is a human person. The final intention may indeed be noble, but the immediate intention is to perform a surgery that is, objectively, murder. The act itself, no matter how it is described, is murder. You might try to compare this to ectopic pregnancy. You might say that in that case, the intention is the same, to save the mother’s life by removing an object, but the object of the act is different. In ectopic pregnancy, the object of the act is to remove an inflamed organ (or inflamed section of an organ). The inflammation happens to be caused by a baby, but the object is to remove the organ and the intention is to save the mother’s life. In an abortion of an ectopic pregnancy, the object is to remove the cause of the inflammation, but that cause is a child. That’s why it’s called direct abortion: it removes the cause of the problems directly, directly killing the child. Indirect abortion would remove the organ, indirectly killing the child. Only with an indirect abortion could the death of the child be an unintended effect of the act. In an abortion, the murder of the child is the object of the act, although not necessarily the intention.

“It can result in perceived pressure to force doctors to adhere to the “party line” in conflict with their own oath to “do no harm.”

“Do no harm” would include not directly killing the unborn child. The “party line” which insists upon this would be the Catholic Church’s ethical directives, according to bjedwards?

THERESE60640,

Since abortion was recommended by the woman’s physician when she was only 7.5 weeks (and obviously ambulatory), it’s pretty clear, at least to me, that abortion was the ONLY option provided this woman.

She declined, and the next we hear, 4 weeks later, she is in the ER. Obviously, her doc never gave her an alternative treatment plan to send her home with. 

I think you are right.  Not only was abortion the cheapest and easiest, (she was, after all, a Medicaid patient, not a “paying” customer), but she already had 4 children - way over her quota.  So, abortion was the ONLY treatment offered this poor woman.

Unfortunately,  women sometimes die during childbirth.  If the option is present to save both “patients”, doctors obviously choose that option.  Sometimes, however, only one “patient” can be saved in some situations.  I would prefer that the decisions in critical situations be left to my physician (who has medical schooling) rather than a priest (who has a no medical schooling whatsoever).  Leave medicine to the professionals.  Leave Christianity to those who live life believing in fairy tales and mysticism.

“I would prefer that the decisions in critical situations be left to my physician (who has medical schooling) rather than a priest (who has a no medical schooling whatsoever).  Leave medicine to the professionals.  Leave Christianity to those who live life believing in fairy tales and mysticism.”

Medicine is a science, but science has no ability to guide itself ethically. The rules of ethics are not a matter for empirical science but for philosophy and theology. I’ll leave medicine to the professionals if they’ll leave ethics to the professionals.

Tim,
With all my belief in fairy tales and mysticism, I can still, would you believe it, distinguish between a question of medical technique and ethics. What has been being discussed here is the latter, which is not for the medical doctor, but for the moral philosopher. Sure, the doctor can tell me all about the proper technique whereby a patient can be saved, or the likelihood of survival as the result of some procedure. However, as soon as the word “ought” enters the picture in a moral sense, the medical doctor as medical doctor must defer to the moral philosopher.

I don’t know about you Tim, but I trust the priest who has received years of education in philosophy over the medical doctor who may have received a single medical ethics course when it comes to “oughts.” Of course, for us mouth-breathing Christians, we also have the guidance of the Holy Spirit through our Church to rely on. But I suppose the sheer “absoluteness” of that all positively scares the hell out of most of those who have been so enlightened as to absolutely deny that anything is absolute.

I think far too many folks are wrapped up in the ethical and moral debate here.  I think that Bishop Olmstead far overstepped is bounds in making a moral catholic statement on this issue.  This issue is for God to sort out.  Catholic Priests and Bishops are here to provide guidance and healing for the souls of people devoted to Christ.  Doctor’s are here as an instrument of God’s will to heal the body’s of human beings.  The Doctors and Hospital in this case are not evil and are not going against God’s will.  They help thousands upon thousands of people a year in their efforts to get heal, give birth, and recieve treatments for life ending conditions.  This one incident was deemed by the doctors and hospital to be of critical issue to the mother and child’s life.  These doctors are better trained at identifying life and death issues than any Catholic or Philosiphor will ever be.  If they say that both lifes were in mortal danger, then they need to act on their training and God’s will for their understanding of the issues before them.  If there is a conflict with what God intedended, then God will sort it out.  Not some power tripping Bishop.  The Bishop should work to heal the soul’s of those conflicted and not understanding of the physical and medical issues at work.  Not pass judgement on what he doesn’t understand and is not trained to understand as part of his mission in life.

Earlier it was stated that Lloyd H. Dean - President and CEO of Catholic Healthcare West (CHW) is the Chairman of the Board of Catholic Health Association (CHA).

.
Nota Bene: 

.
He WAS the Chairman of the Board of Trustees in 2008. http://www.fiercehealthcare.com/press-releases/chw-president-ceo-lloyd-dean-receives-health-care-leadership-honor

.
He is NOW a member of the Executive Committee: http://www.chausa.org/Pages/About_CHA/Governance/CHA_Board_and_Committees/Executive/

.
Nice! (sarcasm intended)

Et Al.,

Why don’t we try to unpack exactly what His Excellency said, “When I met with officials of the hospital to learn more of the details of what had occurred, it became clear that, in the decision to abort, the equal dignity of mother and her baby were not both upheld; but that the baby was directly killed, which is a clear violation of ERD #45. It also was clear that the exceptional cases, mentioned in ERD #47, were not met, that is, that there was not a cancerous uterus or other grave malady that might justify an indirect and unintended termination of the life of the baby to treat the grave illness. In this case, the baby was healthy and there were no problems with the pregnancy; rather, the mother had a disease that needed to be treated.”

Friends, that is extremely clear.  It is consistent with Catholic teaching and it left no other recourse for H.E. Bishop Olmsted.  That being said, he looked for many alternatives and he attempted teach that this was inconsistent and sinful.  CHW and St. Joseph’s Hospital did not adhere.  He was left with no choice, except to strip the hospital of it’s Catholic identity until such time as it conforms to Catholic principles and doctrine.

Bishop Olmsted says, “In light of all these failures to comply with the Ethical and Religious Directives of the Church, it is my duty to decree that, in the Diocese of Phoenix, at St. Joseph’s Hospital, CHW is not committed to following the teaching of the Catholic Church and therefore this hospital cannot be considered Catholic.”

That is completely within his privy.  He does, in fact, have a duty to defend all that is Catholic within his diocese.  He is the principal pastor.  He is the shepherd.  While some or even many may not like that, that is irrelevant.  He is acting in accord with Catholic teaching and he is clear in his statements.

Finally, His Excellency says, “For seven years now, I have tried to work with CHW and St. Joseph’s, and I have hoped and prayed that this day would not come, that this decree would not be needed; however, the faithful of the Diocese have a right to know whether institutions of this importance are indeed Catholic in identity and practice.”

7 YEARS!!!!  Under no circumstances can anyone state that he was being unreasonable.  He did everything he could in that time to make sure that the hospital and CHW would comply.  They chose not to and therefore, they ceased to be a Catholic institution by formally cooperating in the murder of an unborn child (ie. abortion).

All things being equal, all things being said, moral theology and ethics applied, Bishop Olmsted was put into a position by which he had no other choice.  He had to remove St. Joseph’s Hospital from the roster of Catholic institutions.  According to the Q and A afterward, it is his prayer that they comply to Catholic teachings and be returned to the Catholic roster of institutions.

As an aside, he said that Catholics may still go to the hospital and that the hospital still has the ability to function, but that it will not function as a Catholic hospital.

Keith, you’ve got it backwards. It is precisely the bishop’s job to make a moral Catholic statement on the actions of a Catholic institution. It isn’t his job to tell the doctors *how* to perform a given procedure, but it is his job to tell the doctors in a Catholic hospital if a given procedure is morally permissible or not. In the case of saving this woman’s life, it appears that the procedure was done backwards: they dismembered the fetus, and then (of course) removed the placenta. If it was absolutely necessary and sufficient to disconnect or remove the placenta to save the woman’s life (as I’m assuming to be the case), why did they not do that first, with the death of the baby being (except for a miracle) an inevitable but unintended effect?

And if the guiding rationalization was “what’s the difference?”, then there’s the problem. The people who decided on that basis were indifferent to the morality of one over the other approach.

Perhaps there is a deeper problem that the bishop saw here, based on the decision that the doctors took. It is perhaps a symptom of how the hospital has been acting contrary or in apathy to Catholic moral guidelines for the last few years.

@ Keith,

You state, “I think that Bishop Olmstead far overstepped is bounds in making a moral catholic statement on this issue.”

How, exactly?  You never clearly state that.  You do say that Catholic Priests and Bishops are here to provide guidance and healing for the souls of people devoted to Christ.  That is exactly what His Excellency was doing.  How is his position any different from what you stated as his role?

You go on to say, “The Doctors and Hospital in this case are not evil and are not going against God’s will.”  I disagree.  They are going against God’s will.  There are aspects of God’s will that we can know and this is one of them.  As for the person being evil, I cannot say, but I can with all certainty say that they were engaging in an evil act.  The Church says as much.

The Catholic Church teaches, “Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:

You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.

God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.” (CCC 2271)

and

“Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. “A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae,” “by the very commission of the offense,” and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law. The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.” (CCC 2272)

Clearly Keith, you are incorrect about the doctors and the hospital.  They were participating in a grave offense.  They were doing evil things.

What do I think? Gee. How about this: Find out what diocese Carol Keegan is subject to, and then the Ordinary of that diocese can excommunicate her. The reason; she has publicly denied the Church’s teaching on abortion, and has been directly complicit in at least one abortion. Not vengeance here. This just might do her soul some good.

micah wrote,

“Medicine is a science, but science has no ability to guide itself ethically. The rules of ethics are not a matter for empirical science but for philosophy and theology. I’ll leave medicine to the professionals if they’ll leave ethics to the professionals.”

That’s entirely incorrect.

Medical ethics is a huge discipline in itself and it is arrogant to state that it is “not a matter for empirical science but for philosophy and theology.”

Ethics deals not only with issues of “right versus wrong”, but with serious moral dilemmas of “right versus right.” This is indeed, what St. Joseph’s hospital dealt with in arriving at it’s decision. And it’s decision was both sound and ethical and in keeping with the great tradition of medical ethics.

Again, Bishop Olmsted erred in deeming himself the sole arbiter, after the fact, of an ethically correct decision to save the mother’s life, a decision that went through the approved, established process of the hospital.

I find it sad that many support Bishop Olmsted’s decision to hold church doctrine above human life on the basis that “an abortion is an abortion no matter the intent, end of subject.” That is the complete opposite of any ethical teaching that one could or should rationally adhere to.

Bishop Olmsted needs to understand the gross error he made or risk marginalizing the Catholic Church even more than it already has. I agree entirely with the hospital’s statement as a standard of high ethical principle: “Morally, ethically, and legally we simply cannot stand by and let someone die whose life we might be able to save.”

In case you thought St Joseph’s hospital only disagreed with Bishop Olmstead, St Joseph’s facebook page now has a link to a ‘thank you’ letter, hosted by Catholics for Choice.

http://org2.democracyinaction.org/o/5132/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=5037

Harvey,

It appears you either misunderstand the letter, or you have a difficult time expressing yourself.

St. Joseph’s hospital does only disagree with Bishop Olmsted.

The “Thank you” letter from the pro-abortion group Catholics for Choice is not to the Bishop, but to the hospital for “courageously standing up” to being told that they need to provide healthcare that conforms to Catholic Ethical and Religious directives if they want to be allowed to continue to claim to be a Catholic institution.

@andy
Then your statement below make the Church nothing more than self contradictory.

God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.” (CCC 2271).
The mother’s life is every bit as important as the infant’s and the doctors need to make the judgement.  Abortion is an abominable crime but killing is a commandment, and in the judgement of these doctors, they would be killing the mother and child without the sacrifice of the child.  They have the knowledge and skill to save the mother and are ethically making that decision.    The church is now making superlative judgements on which life is more important, and whether the doctor’s have the power to save a life or allow two to end.  Also by extension this mother is responsible for her 4 other children, and as such the Bishop is devaluing her value as a person if he ties her fate to the fate of one of many children.  If the Catholic Church is going to make decisions such as these, then the Catholic Church needs to back out of all Medical Facilities that have to make judgements that need to be weighed with more medical and social weight than the Canons of the Church can truly grasp. 
In this case I see no way that the Church can fault the facility or doctors for actions that only God can truly judge.

I have trouble with facebook’s new format, apparently. I thought St Joseph’s posted it on their page, but they were just tagged on Catholics for a Free Choice’s post. Where’s the undo button?

@ Keith,

You say, “The mother’s life is every bit as important as the infant’s and the doctors need to make the judgement.  Abortion is an abominable crime but killing is a commandment, and in the judgement of these doctors, they would be killing the mother and child without the sacrifice of the child.”

I don’t disagree that the mother’s life is as every bit important as the infant’s.  That has never been the issue.  We also agree that abortion is an abominable crime.  However, your last part is what is incorrect.  Look to what His Excellency said.  He made it clear that this was not the case.  That the taking of the child was not justified.  Nor is it ever.  I would strongly suggest that you look to Catholic moral teaching on abortion.

You then say, “They have the knowledge and skill to save the mother and are ethically making that decision.”

How is killing the baby, when the mother’s life was not in jeopardy an ethical decision?  How is killing the baby EVER justified?  The short answer is, it is not.  Again,  I would strongly suggest that you look to Catholic moral teaching on abortion.

After that, you continue to opine, “The church is now making superlative judgements on which life is more important, and whether the doctor’s have the power to save a life or allow two to end.  Also by extension this mother is responsible for her 4 other children, and as such the Bishop is devaluing her value as a person if he ties her fate to the fate of one of many children.”

That is pure opinion on your part and that opinion is inconsistent with Catholic moral teaching.  Please show me where that is the case in Moral Theology?  I’ve done my fair share of formal theological study (I have an M.A. in Systematic Theology) and I have never run across a viewpoint which supports your position.

Finally, you say, “If the Catholic Church is going to make decisions such as these, then the Catholic Church needs to back out of all Medical Facilities that have to make judgements that need to be weighed with more medical and social weight than the Canons of the Church can truly grasp.”

That statement is just nonsensical.  It is precisely society that the Church must weigh in on.  As for weighing in on medical issues, perhaps you are correct.  Perhaps (former) Sr. Margaret and Sr. Carol should get out of the medical field.  It is clear that they cannot and do not support the Catholic idiom when it comes to healthcare.  As for Bishop Olmsted, he has made a clear and concise statement on the Catholic position regarding medical healthcare in Phoenix, AZ.

Since StephenH hs retired from this site, rationality has largely disappeared and chaos one more reigns. That being the case, perhaps this succinct summary from a writer to the Arizona Republic might be apropos: “St Joseph’s Hospital lost it’s Catholic status. Four children will have their mother tuck them in this Christmas eve. Good trade.”

@ Richard,

You say, “That being the case, perhaps this succinct summary from a writer to the Arizona Republic might be apropos: “St Joseph’s Hospital lost it’s Catholic status. Four children will have their mother tuck them in this Christmas eve. Good trade.””

But you left out the most important part of your summation….“Four children will have their mother tuck them in this Christmas eve, TELLING THEM HOW THEY LOST THEIR YOUNGEST SIBLING.  Good trade?”  Me thinks not!

How do you justify the killing of the baby.

The hospital admitted “it terminated the pregnancy” in order to save the mother’s life.  Read it here:

http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/hospital-stripped-of-catholic-seal/

You’ll find the following in the above link:

““But this was not what St. Joseph’s said at the time. “They freely acknowledged that they terminated a pregnancy. They would say, ‘We had to terminate the pregnancy to save the life of the mother.’”

The moral analysis they provided afterwards was purposely created to justify what they had done.  They’ve pulled a public relations snow job on MANY Catholics who are questioning this Bishop.  We don’t know the COMPLETE record of this patient because it’s protected by medical privacy laws.  And the hospital has provided what is only CONVENIENT for its position.  It’s defending itself by trying to make the Bishop look bad and not accept the reality that they’ve been in collusion with doing MANY other things that go against Catholic directives.  All this moral argumentation is really going no where because we DON’T have all the facts because this person’s medical chart is NOT known.  We’re arguing with a limited set of facts and the hospital KNOWS this.  Was it truly an emergency that needed to occur at that instance?  If the fetus was dying, why didn’t they let the natural process go through especially if the mother wasn’t immediately threatened?  There are many unanswered questions that nobody can begin to answer because the hospital IS NOT going to tell us what truly was the condition at the specific moment.  They’re only going to release facts that support their position because their business is to defend themselves and not what really happened (see above link for what they told church officials). It’s to their advantage that it remain as such because you’re never going to get consensus regarding this matter because you’re going to have two sides passionately arguing their sides.  This is truly lamentable but I’m not surprised.  Many “Catholic” hospitals have been doing this type of stuff for years and I say this because I have siblings who are physicians that could tell you stories of the duplicity and cover ups that are done in these institutions.  The only difference this time with St. Joseph is that they were caught and Bishop Olmsted didn’t stay silent about it.  May God forgive us of all.

@Richard

How many children would have been orphaned by this mother’s death has nothing to do with this case.

Lest we forget Evangelium vitae 62: “Therefore, by the authority which Christ conferred upon Peter and his Successors, in communion with the Bishops-who on various occasions have condemned abortion and who in the aforementioned consultation, albeit dispersed throughout the world, have shown unanimous agreement concerning this doctrine-I declare that direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, always constitutes a grave moral disorder, since it is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being.”

Regardless what Germain Grisez says, regardless what the hospital parrots as their line, they performed a direct abortion with the sole intent of killing an innocent human being, and admitted it.  “Always constitutes a grave moral disorder.”  You can’t justify direct abortion, no matter how you cut it…

@ Aaron,

As a means of clarification:  “Regardless what Germain Grisez says, regardless what the hospital parrots as their line, they performed a direct abortion with the sole intent of killing an innocent human being, and admitted it.  “Always constitutes a grave moral disorder.”  You can’t justify direct abortion, no matter how you cut it…”

SteveH was taking Dr. Grisez out of context.  He was applying his own view to a general teaching that Dr. Grisez put forth.  I was a student of Dr. Grisez in the late 1990’s and early 2000’s.  There is no way that this instance would correlate with what Dr. Grisez is putting forth in his work which was cited.

No harm, no foul, but Dr. Grisez was not condoning this action.  The citation was from a work copyrighted in 2008.  SteveH was misguided in his assertation that Dr. Grisez would support a direct abortion.  I can assure you, he would not.

According to a radio interview with Bp. Olmsted and his judicial vicar,(www.arizonacatholic.org) they were told by the hospital at the time that the mother was not even in the ICU when the ethics board met to approve the abortion. She was still in the maternity ward. So it seems very unlikely that she was actually dying at that time, though this is what the hospital and its defenders are trying to put forward. I’m quite sure the hospital is only giving its own side of the story.

I agree with AnalysisThruTheLensOfBias; the hospital and CHW have everything to gain by spinning the thing as they have. They are crucifying the bishop in the press, though he is only acting as a pastor should.

Steve is supporting the hospital because he agrees with Grisez’s position.
However, Grisez is proposing a theory, and other orthodox Catholic moral theologians disagree with his theory (for example, Dr William May in his book on Catholic Bioethics—can be found is you google “craniotomy” in Google Books with May’s name). It seems to me that Grisez’s justification of craniotomy is outside of acceptable Catholic moral theology.

Regardless of the theories of different theologians, it is the bishop who has the say on what Catholic hospitals in his diocese do. Bishop Olmstead has made his judgment, and the hospital needs to follow it. If it doesn’t, then the bishop has every right to take the action he did.

Can you see the founders of the Daughters of Charity “rolling over in their graves”? I don’t understand how nuns of this ilk are not yanked back home and tossed out. I mark this order along with the Maryknoll nuns who have a nun who assists mothers at abortion sites (not dissuading but facilitating the abortion). Severe problems in both orders.

>“Morally, ethically, and legally we simply cannot stand by and let someone die whose life we might be able to save.”

Except if you’re unborn, then you’re just dehumanized out of existence.

This hospital hates babies and deserves to have its Catholic label stripped with extreme prejudice.

Is someone going to remove the last post?

BeeKay,

A fetus is not a baby. Get a grip.

Again, is there no one who can remove the vulgar last post?

“A fetus is not a baby. Get a grip. “

Ironic you say this on the birthday of the child whose humanity was recognized six months prior by his mother’s cousin. Was the unborn Jesus a baby? The Church celebrates the Incarnation nine months prior to Christmas: it does not say that Jesus became a man on December 25th. Don’t lecture others on a subject where your own ignorance is on display.

As I am informed, these are the facts:  We have a woman who was 11-weeks pregnant, and who was diagnosed as having pulmonary hypertension.  It was determined, by competent medical authority, that she was virtually 100% certain to die if the pregnancy continued, and to my knowledge, Bishop Olmstead does not deny that.  An 11-week old fetus is not viable, and we cannot wait until the fetus becomes viable, because the mother will be dead by then.  Thus, there is no way to save the fetus, because if the mother dies, the fetus will die too.  Are we permitted to take action that will save the one life that we can save, or are we morally required to watch both of them die?

The Roman Catholic Diocese of Phoenix distributes a sample medical directive form that contains the following under “If I am Pregnant”:

If I am pregnant, and I am not in the final stage of a terminal condition as defined above, medical procedures required to prevent my death are authorized even if they result in the death of my unborn child provided every possible effort is made to preserve both my life and the life of my unborn child.”

Under the facts as related to me, I think the foregoing can be plausibly read as justifying the hospital’s decision.  If the fetus is only 11-weeks old, and the mother’s death is 100% certain to occur if the pregnancy continues, there is no possible effort that can save the life of the unborn child.  Our only choice, at that point, is to save the one life we can save, or watch both of them die.

The Bishop of Phoenix has no credibility when lecturing others on moral issues.  Bishop Olmstead’s immediate predecessor in office (Thomas O’Brien) is a convicted felon who was involved in a hit-and-run accident that resulted in death.  O’Brien resisted efforts of the Phoenix Police to contact him regarding the accident, but was busy making arrangements to have his windshield repaired.  O’Brien, with Olmstead’s consent, lives rent free in the Bishop’s residence.  There are Roman Catholic priests, incardinated in Phoenix, who are fugitives from justice in child molestation cases, and Olmstead has not excommunicated them.  Yet, he tells us that we are morally prohibited from saving the one life that can be saved, and that we stand by and watch both mother and child die.

Bishop Olmstead has prohibited the saying of Mass on hospital grounds, and has stated that the Holy Eucharist may not be reserved there overnight in a tabernacle.  Why is Bishop Olmstead punishing suffering patients who may desire the comfort of the Mass?  What did they do to deserve the effects of this modern-day interdict?  Of course, he thinks that we are prohibited from saving the one life we can save, and that we must watch mother and child die, so denying the Mass to suffering patients is right up his alley, I guess.

@ John,

“It was determined, by competent medical authority, that she was virtually 100% certain to die if the pregnancy continued, and to my knowledge, Bishop Olmstead does not deny that.”

You then go on to say, “If the fetus is only 11-weeks old, and the mother’s death is 100% certain to occur if the pregnancy continues, there is no possible effort that can save the life of the unborn child.  Our only choice, at that point, is to save the one life we can save, or watch both of them die.”

Sir, VIRTUALLY certain and CERTAIN are not the same thing.  If there is ANY chance that the mother can survive, then the procedure is an abortion.  Your own words betray you.  You have no leg to stand on.

You then say, “The Bishop of Phoenix has no credibility when lecturing others on moral issues.  Bishop Olmstead’s immediate predecessor in office (Thomas O’Brien) is a convicted felon who was involved in a hit-and-run accident that resulted in death.”

Sir, your logic is flawed.  One person cannot be culpable for the actions of another.  Because Bishop O’Brien was involved in an action has no bearing on the governance of Bishop Olmsted.  Unless, of course you think that President Obama cannot be a credible President based upon the actions of President Clinton, who was the last Democratic President and is impeached.

You then ask, “Why is Bishop Olmstead punishing suffering patients who may desire the comfort of the Mass?” Bishop Olmsted is not punishing anyone.  The adminstrators have chosen to act in a way that is not Catholic and persist in that action.  Therefore, the Blessed Sacrament cannot be reserved in a place that is non-Catholic.  If those patients want to ameliorate in a Catholic institution, they should ask for a transfer to a Catholic hospital.

You go on to ask, “What did they do to deserve the effects of this modern-day interdict?”  Formally cooperated in an abortion.

Your statements are full of apples and oranges sir, the problem is not that you have them, but that you are comparing the apples to the oranges.  When you start comparing the apples to apples and the oranges to oranges, then a meaningful conversation can be had.  Until then, your arguments hold as much water as a sunken ship.  Merry Christmas.

Andy Milam:  I included “virtually” because no one can predict the future.  But ethically, in the face of such a medical judgment, why is one person required to risk her life, while the other person is not?  I thought all lives were equal.  Do her four other children, who have been deprived of a mother, have any voice in this discussion?  Also, assume that it is certain that the woman will die before the fetus reaches viability.  What is your answer then?  Also, I said that Bishop Olmstead is punishing the other patients, by depriving them of the Mass.  I am not morally responsible for a hospital’s actions merely by being admitted as a patient.

Andy Milam:  Let’s see if I have this right.  Bishop Olmstead has no responsibility for his ex-felon predecessor, despite letting him live in his house at the expense of hardworking Catholics who contribute to the church, and has no responsibility to demand that fugitive priests incardinated to him return to the United States to stand trial, but a person who checks into a hospital, and who desires to have a priest come say Mass in his hospital room, is morally culpable for medical decisions made by the hospital?  Is that what you are saying?

Andy,

I think it is odd that the bishop will not offer mass at this hospital considering that mass is offered at the airport. However, I have no problem with the bishop housing an ex-felon bishop. Should we put him out on the street? The Church is a family and families should forgive each other and take family members in when they are brought low, especially, when they are brought low by their own sins.

It seems to me that everybody wants someone to be tough on some other group. Some Catholics want us to be tough on dissenters, others on bishops. I think this is wrong headed. There are a few times, in the case of repeated and unrepented egregious offenses, where you have to be tough, but generally we should opt for being softies. How many times should you forgive? 70 X 70. That includes forgiving clerics.

Peace in Christ,
CKH
carolynhyppolite.blogspot.com

@John

As I understand it, it is not the intention of the medical guidelines that the pregnant woman be left to her own devices. A similar case is that of ectopic pregnancies, where the treatment would be removing (part of) the woman’s organ where the danger is directly presenting itself. She is thus saved, while her child, of course, does not survive the procedure, but is not itself directly destroyed. In the case of St. Joseph’s, a more proper procedure may have been to remove the placenta if the grave danger was directly coursing through the link between the placenta and the woman. This saves the woman’s life, but the side effect is that her child does not survive. What they did was to destroy her child before removing the placenta (which of course would have been necessary anyway).

Can you see a difference? Does the second procedure entail risking the woman’s life?

Furthermore, pulmonary hypertension is no longer a certain death sentence. Someone in these posts had previously mentioned a Dr. Zwicke who, since 2008, has been able to help more than 40 woman get through PH all the way up to delivering their children, including repeat pregnancies.

Regarding depriving St. Joseph’s of the Mass, this is actually quite revealing in two ways: (1) this will keep Catholics *away* from receiving advice and the practices of St. Joseph’s that are contrary to the guidelines established by the bishops for medical care in a Catholic hospital, and (2) the whole point is to get Catholics out of that hospital to avoid the dangers of morally illicit advice and procedures. You see the bishop’s act as that of punishing the hospital, but it is, in fact, a protective act. This is consistent with the bishop’s duty to protect his flock.

Finally, stick to the actual subject matter. The bishop’s actions on St. Joseph’s status as a Catholic hospital is based on the latter’s disregard of their contract, as it were, with the Catholic Church, stretching back eight years or so. It goes far beyond this one case.

Likewise, assuming that you are correct about the bishop letting his predecessor continue to live within episcopal property, that again has no bearing on this particular topic, and I certainly don’t know all the details as to why he allows it. But consider too that taxpayers of the United States actually support the upkeep of murderers, rapists and other criminals.

As for the bishop not demanding that fugitive priests return to the US for trial: where do you get your inside information from? I’m not saying that you are incorrect, but I’m just curious how you know all this. He should, of course, but I wonder how much power an American bishop actually has to force fugitives out of hiding in some foreign nation if American law enforcement agencies are unable to do so.

@C____POPE_Blah_Blah

Grow up. If you want to be taken seriously, then you ought to engage the topic at hand. Otherwise, you’re just embarrassing yourself.

The topic is St. Joseph’s losing its status as a Catholic hospital. If you’re not interested in the topic, then what on earth are you doing in these comment boxes?

@ John,

You state, “I included “virtually” because no one can predict the future.”  Exactly right.  An abortion is never justified.  EVER!

You state,“But ethically, in the face of such a medical judgment, why is one person required to risk her life, while the other person is not?  I thought all lives were equal.  Do her four other children, who have been deprived of a mother, have any voice in this discussion?”  Because the mother has the duty to protect the child.  All lives are equal, but the mother has the ability to choose to not allow a medical procedure to murder another person.  The child in the womb does not.

You ask, “Do her four other children, who have been deprived of a mother, have any voice in this discussion?” Quite simply put, no they do not.  This issue has nothing to do with the children who are living, from a medical or ethical point of view.

You say, “Also, I said that Bishop Olmstead is punishing the other patients, by depriving them of the Mass.  I am not morally responsible for a hospital’s actions merely by being admitted as a patient.”  You’re right, you are not.  However, Bishop Olmsted is.  It is his responsiblity to pastor his flock in a way that is consistent with Catholic morals and ethics.  Once the hospital administration separated themselves from being consistent with Catholic moral and ethical teaching, then they ceased to be Catholic.  Notice that Bishop Olmsted didn’t try to shut down the hospital nor did he forbid Catholics from seeking medical care there.  Catholics still have the option to go to that hospital if they so choose.

You ask, “Bishop Olmstead has no responsibility for his ex-felon predecessor, despite letting him live in his house…”  That is a personal choice that he has made.  I believe that he does it out of Christian charity and nothing more.  Regardless of where Bishop O’Brien would choose to live, he would still be paid a salary by the Church, so that doesn’t matter.

You ask, “...and [Bishop Olmsted] has no responsibility to demand that fugitive priests incardinated to him return to the United States to stand trial.”  How do you know that His Excellency hasn’t asked for them to return?  Noone can force someone to return to the USA.  The cases are not such that extradition is warranted.  I have faith that Bishop Olmsted has made the proper demands.  However, I suspect that no matter how much evidence I show you, you’ll still damn him for the indiscretions of another.  Witch hunts went out of vogue in the 17th century.

You then go on, “...but a person who checks into a hospital, and who desires to have a priest come say Mass in his hospital room, is morally culpable for medical decisions made by the hospital?  Is that what you are saying?”  No, of course not, but then again, I understand that Catholics have a duty to be obedient to the Ordinary of the diocese in which they live.  If the Ordinary chooses to disallow a Mass to be said in a certain place, then the Catholics of that diocese must be obedient to the position of the bishop.  That is simple.  Also, one may still obtain the graces of a Mass celebrated for them at the parish church, even if not present.  So, to have a Mass said for “patient X” at the nearest parish would be laudable and just as effective.  That is what I am saying.

@ John,

You raise a question that I will deal with in a separate post.  You ask, “Also, assume that it is certain that the woman will die before the fetus reaches viability.  What is your answer then?”

My answer is this.  It is unacceptable, based upon your criteria.  The reason is that the potential for the unborn child to reach viability still exists.  Therefore, in the case that you present, it would still be a direct abortion, regardless of danger to the mother’s life.  My reasoning, in the case that you bring forth, we must assume that the uterus is not diseased, but that it is some other part of the woman (that is consisitent with the actual case at hand) such as her lungs.  With that being the case, removing the uterus and the child will not change her condition, therefore it is not acceptable to abort the child.

@ Carolyn,

You state, “I think it is odd that the bishop will not offer mass at this hospital considering that mass is offered at the airport.”  I don’t.  The airport has done nothing that is incompatible with Catholic morality or ethics.

David B. wrote,

“Don’t lecture others on a subject where your own ignorance is on display.”

“Fetus: The unborn offspring from the end of the 8th week after conception (when the major structures have formed) until birth. Up until the eighth week, the developing offspring is called an embryo.”

I live in the real world, David. A fetus is not a baby. It is irrelevant what you believe or what the Catholic Church celebrates. I suggest you not embarrass yourself any further.

@bjedwards, your terminology is problematic concerning the distinction between a baby and the fetus. The term “baby” is broadly used, so that we even use that on our children way past their adulthood, when we simply mean child or offspring. The fetus, as you define it technically, is exactly that, the parent’s offspring, in the fetal stage of development. The point of the matter is not whether you call it a baby or a fetus, but the intrinsic sacredness of human life at any stage.

@C____POPE_Blah_Blah,

In case you haven’t read the reports, based on the actual numbers of sexual abuse cases known, Catholic priests in the United States are by far innocent of wrongdoing and have not even been reported. The 5% of actual offenders cannot make for a majority across the entire population of priests—although even a single priest-offender is one too many, of course. But the fact that you generalize from such a small fraction of offenders is illogical, and points to bigotry, plain and simple.

If you want to discuss homosexual issues and DADT, this is not the forum for it. Please find a more appropriate one, e.g., Catholic Answers forums.

I find it funny that CPNR will only use some swear words, like it is somehow noble of him to exclude one, but not others…it’s kinda comical (if not vulgar) to read the logical fallacy and utter misinformation that is being spewed.  I guess that the idea that Roman Catholicism is the last acceptable discrimination is really true.

Thanks for being a stereotype, CPNR, you’re proving a point….and it isn’t flattering.

@C____POPE_Blah_Blah

Yes, the state should prosecute and punish the guilty. But please do not take it out on the innocent. With your line of thinking, if any group includes even a small fraction of brazenly criminal elements, then the whole group should stand guilty and be punished. I’m guessing that the country you’re from has got its own share of criminals. Should you also be held accountable for their crimes and be punished as well?

And please, tone down your language and show some decency—something which earlier you were celebrating but you’re certainly not practicing in your verbal abuse. You’re not winning any points and you’re digging yourself into incoherency.

“Bishop Olmstead has prohibited the saying of Mass on hospital grounds, and has stated that the Holy Eucharist may not be reserved there overnight in a tabernacle.  Why is Bishop Olmstead punishing suffering patients who may desire the comfort of the Mass?”

Because the anti-catholics in charge at the hospital are holding them hostage and are too proud to stop or admit they treaded all over Church teaching. Thank God for the Bishop.

Andy Milam,

My point about the airport was that saying mass somewhere is not some indication that the insitution is compatible with the Catholic faith. You offer mass to offer prayers and bring grace, not to indicate that the insitution is “Catholic” since airporta are obviously not Catholic.

@ Carolyn,

You state, “My point about the airport was that saying mass somewhere is not some indication that the insitution is compatible with the Catholic faith. You offer mass to offer prayers and bring grace, not to indicate that the insitution is “Catholic” since airporta are obviously not Catholic.”

But Bishop Olmsted has said that the celebration of Mass at St. Jospeph’s Hospital is incompatible with the Catholic Faith in the Diocese of Phoenix, until the hospital administration alters their view.

I don’t offer Mass anywhere, I am a layman.  I worship at Mass.  It is through my worship and placing prayers at the altar then the priest/celebrant offers those prayers on my behalf.  The grace is given to me, I don’t bring it upon myself.  This is the proper understanding of the laity’s role at Holy Mass.

Also as a rule, Mass can only be celebrated on consecrated ground and on a consecrated altar, unless the Ordinary gives permission.  Obviously, the bishop has given permission for Holy Mass to be celebrated at the airport.

Andy,

I didn’t mean “you” offer mass; I probably should have said one.

I really don’t think not offering mass there will have great moral impact; it is more likely to breed resentment. I am also a little frustrated by everyone reminding everybody else of what the bishop said in these conversations. I am aware of what the bishop said. I have read all the statements, saw the press conference, and listened to a radio interview of the bishop. I am still not convinced that much good is accomplished by removing the blessed sacrament from the hospital. I think thre gospels tell us that Jesus did not go to the consecrated places but to where the sinners are so if the hospital is as bad as the bishop thinks, that is all the more reason to have the grace of the sacrament pleasant.

Peace in Christ,
CKH

@ Carolyn,

“I really don’t think not offering mass there will have great moral impact; it is more likely to breed resentment.”  I disagree with that completely.  If a Sacrament is a sign instituted by Christ to bring about grace and that Sacrament is confected by the Holy Mass, then I do believe that it will have a great moral impact.  There is no greater display of Christian morality than the Mass.

“I am also a little frustrated by everyone reminding everybody else of what the bishop said in these conversations.”  The assumption has to be on a public forum that the latest post is the only post read, so there needs to be clarification of the point.  It also lends to credibility.

“I am still not convinced that much good is accomplished by removing the blessed sacrament from the hospital.”  The removal of the Blessed Sacrament is a sad thing, to be sure, but it is also a necessary thing.  The bishop has explained as much.  It is the bishop’s duty to safeguard the Blessed Sacrament from profanation.  To allow it to remain in the hospital in it’s current state is a profanation.  He will allow the Blessed Sacrament back just as soon as the hospital administration comes in line with the Catholic Church.

“I think thre gospels tell us that Jesus did not go to the consecrated places but to where the sinners are so if the hospital is as bad as the bishop thinks, that is all the more reason to have the grace of the sacrament pleasant.”  I completely disagree.  Jesus most certainly went to the Temple.  He also went to synagogues.  Yes, He ministered to the lowly and the sinners, but He also rehabilitated them.  Let’s not forget that is part of what Bishop Olmsted is doing.  What did Christ say to the apostles’ when they entered a town that is obstinant?  He told them to shake the dust from their feet and move on.  Bishop Olmsted has been working with this group for 7 years.  At some point he must, as an apostle shake the dust.  That doesn’t mean that he won’t revisit the hospital, but it does mean that there has to be a meeting place.  The hospital must conform to Catholic moral teaching and doctrine, if it wishes to be called Catholic.  That is what is underlying in all of this.

On a personal note, I don’t think that we are that far off in our two views.  I honestly believe that we’re simply talking past one another.

Andy,

Only time will tell what the impact of the bishop’s action will be. As for whether we are talking past each other, I think my main reason for commenting was to say that I thought it was great that bishop olmsted was housing the ex-felon bishop:).

Peace,
CKH

bjedwards,

Thanks for the advice.             
A fetus is human; it is living. It is a human being. This is the case from the moment of conception, and it is anti-intellectual to pretend that science does not support the contention that human life begins at conception. The Church affirms that each human life is sacred from conception to natural death and that the intentional destruction of innocent human life is always a grave evil. I was hoping you wouldn’t resort to semantic lecturing but rather address the denial of the rights of unborn humans. Too bad.         
P.S. If you do not care about the beliefs of the Church, why are you on a Catholic blog discussing internal disciplines?

@Nazi Ratso Guy,

Are you aware that 85% of the “Child Abusers” were done on male teens?  This means they were homosexual.  So homosexuals raped children.  The problem is “Homosexuals”.  The church is currently purging the clergy of them.

Good Luck

Praises and “gold medal” to a brave bishop. We need more of them in all dioceses. There is NEVER SCANDAL in defending the Church.

@andy

“Clearly Keith, you are incorrect about the doctors and the hospital.  They were participating in a grave offense.  They were doing evil things.”

No it is only a grave offense to those that value a poorly formed moral theology over sound medical practices and a moral fiber to defend and continue life.

The Church pulling the sacrement only further sidelines it’s own objectives of growning and embracing the community.  It has also put some of it’s strongest advocates in a place where they probably are loosing more and more faith in the Church and like so many others will walk away to forumulate their own relationship with God, that is not so constrained by years of misguided theological reasoning.

@ Keith,

“No it is only a grave offense to those that value a poorly formed moral theology over sound medical practices and a moral fiber to defend and continue life.”  How is protecting the life of an innocent child poor moral theology?  And how is abortion sound medical practice?

“The Church pulling the sacrement only further sidelines it’s own objectives of growning and embracing the community.”  You are incorrect.  The Church has to pull the Sacrament in order to further it’s growth and to show proper embrace of the Catholic community.  When a place ceases to be Catholic, it is the responsiblity of the Church to remove itself to a Catholic place.  So, by removal of the Blessed Sacrament to the nearest Catholic Church, it hasn’t lessened it’s Catholic presence, but rather it has solidified it’s position that the Blessed Sacrament and the Catholicity of the area will not be compromised and lessened by actions that are contrary to orthodox Catholic teaching.  When we speak of community, we are not simply speaking of community from a wide socio-economic view, but also from a Catholic-centered view.  If a place ceases to be Catholic, then the Church must remove itself in order to protect itself until such time as it can re-establish itself.  His Excellency has not ruled out a return to the hospital, as a matter of fact, it is his prayer, but in order for that to happen the administration of the hospital must conform to Catholic moral teaching.

From what it sounds like, Keith, the issue is with your refusal to accept the fact that Bishop Olmsted followed Catholic moral teaching, as opposed to your own opinion of what medical ethics should be.

I stated, “From what it sounds like, Keith, the issue is with your refusal to accept the fact that Bishop Olmsted followed Catholic moral teaching, as opposed to your own opinion of what medical ethics should be.”

It should read, from what it sounds like Keith, the issue is with your refusal to accept the fact that Bishop Olmsted followed Catholic moral teaching, as well as your own opinion of what medical ethics should be.

Unfortunately, there are those who never have and will never accept Catholic moral teaching and those who defend it. Having a discussion with them is fruitless, because their hatred for the Church is evident, and entrenced deep in their pride. State the Truth to them once, and should they refuse to listen, then shake the dust from your feet as you walk away from them and dont look back to their yelling - you have done your duty.

Definition of the word “catholic” (adjective):

1. Of broad or liberal scope; comprehensive

2. Including or concerning all humankind; universal

3. catholic:

a. Of or involving the Roman Catholic Church.
b. Of or relating to the universal Christian church.
c. Of or relating to the ancient undivided Christian church.
d. Of or relating to those churches that have claimed to be representatives of the ancient undivided church.

We have been over this before in a very interesting dispute relative to the use of the word “catholic” between churches in the northwestern part of the City of Philadelphia some time ago. Need we remind Bishop Olmsted that the Roman Catholic Church does not have exclusive rights to the use of the word “catholic”.

Hurry up, contact legal counsel at the USCCB, hire a patent attorney, and let’s get working on this very important matter with parishioners’ contributions, of course.

@ Michael Skiendzielwski,

“Need we remind Bishop Olmsted that the Roman Catholic Church does not have exclusive rights to the use of the word “catholic”.”

You’re right of course, but Bishop Olmstead does have exclusive rights to the proper noun “Catholic,” with reference to the particular Church in which he is the principal pastor.  He need not use the qualifier “Roman,” as he is pastor to all sui juris Catholics as well, who may or may not adhere to the Latin Rite.

You’re grasping at straws.  Have a nice day.

Andy Milan:

You’re right of course, but Bishop Olmstead does have exclusive rights to the proper noun “Catholic,” with reference to the particular Church in which he is the principal pastor.

Mr. Milan, not grasping at straws, just trying to utilize the grammar and syntax understanding that was provided during my wonderful catholic (small “c”, adjective) education.  You know the definition of “catholic” as universal, comprehensive.

Now, I know one thing…...the word “straw” is a NOUN.  Common noun, at that.
When I see the agency “Catholic Healthcare West”, I see Catholic (with a large “C”) as an adjective, modifying “Healthcare West.”

@ Michael S.,

“When I see the agency “Catholic Healthcare West”, I see Catholic (with a large “C”) as an adjective, modifying “Healthcare West.””  Let’s try this…

Catholic = noun; a member of a Catholic church, esp. of the Roman Catholic Church.

Healthcare = adjective; of, pertaining to, or involved in healthcare: healthcare workers; a healthcare center.

West = noun; a cardinal point of the compass, 90° to the left when facing north, corresponding to the point where the sun is seen to set.

You’re still grasping at straws.  I know English, as well.

Let’s try to move on, Andy.

If I moved out to Phoenix and opened a medical services facility, naming it ‘Medical Catholic Services’, would the Bishop be able to issue a similar decree against my agency, if I should engage in practices contrary to the religious, moral, and/or ethical principles he professes and enforces as Bishop of Phoenix?

By the way, do you know your analysis of “Catholic Healthcare West” produced two nouns and one adjective?  I believe that your analysis of that particular phrase, CHW, is incorrect.  I will check with an assistant professor in English at a local university here in Philadelphia and let you know what I find out.

@ Michael,

It seems as if I am not the one who is having trouble moving on….by the way, do you know that you’re engaging in a fallacy called “poisioning the well?”

Have a nice day.

@andy,

“If a place ceases to be Catholic, then the Church must remove itself in order to protect itself until such time as it can re-establish itself”

Then the Chuch will continue to be removed from all public places in the United States.  Secular laws will not change, and hospitals and Universities will continue to become more and more “Non-Catholic”  The Church is creating a retreat that will take it to within the walls of it’s churches and the vatican city and not be a public undertaker of humanitary issues, which is also at the core of the teachings. 

“How is protecting the life of an innocent child poor moral theology?  And how is abortion sound medical practice?
” How is killing a mother of 4 sound moral theology within the Catholic Church?  Abortion is a sound medical practice.  It has accepted and safe means of being accomplished.  Whether it is moral or not depends on the circumstances.  And in the case of this mother, and based on my understandings of morality, the circumstances supported it.

@ Keith,

“Then the Chuch will continue to be removed from all public places in the United States.  Secular laws will not change, and hospitals and Universities will continue to become more and more “Non-Catholic”  The Church is creating a retreat that will take it to within the walls of it’s churches and the vatican city and not be a public undertaker of humanitary issues, which is also at the core of the teachings.”  I disagree completely.  There are many secular laws that are in complete agreement with the Catholic understanding of justice.

“How is killing a mother of 4 sound moral theology within the Catholic Church?  Abortion is a sound medical practice.  It has accepted and safe means of being accomplished.  Whether it is moral or not depends on the circumstances.  And in the case of this mother, and based on my understandings of morality, the circumstances supported it.”  If a mother dies because she will not take the life of her child, then she dies a natural death.  That death is within the bounds of Catholic morality.  However, if the mother formally participates in the murder of her unborn child, then she is guilty of breaking a Commandment, which is immoral.  Abortion is never a sound medical practice.  There is no support for the murder/killing of an unborn child.  EVER!

I will point you to;  http://www.ncbcenter.org/NetCommunity/Page.aspx?pid=1038

This article contains the following, “More than 28 different studies over a period of 45 years have shown abortion to be a significant risk factor for breast cancer.”

I will also point you to;  http://www.verumserum.com/?p=205

This article contains the following, “The findings tipped the balance of scientific evidence towards the conclusion that abortion increased psychological distress rather than alleviating it…”

There are many more, but I assure you, that not only is there physical distress and danger from abortion, but also psychological and emotional.  Abortion is not a sound medical practice, on any level.

I am the first to admit that I do not know what I would have done if I had faced the decision Sister McBride faced.  Few of us have had to face such a difficult choice.  Perhaps a soldier confronting a comrade dying in agony begging to be killed.  Certainly Truman when he launched an atomic bomb at thousands of innocent civilians in order to avoid the death of potentially millions.  It is certainly not for us to judge their souls, but we can judge, dispassionately and objectively, the morality of such actions.  And in each case they can be justified only if one disagrees with Church teaching regarding the direct intentional killing of innocents and instead holds that such killings can be morally justified by reference to evaluating outcomes.  This is what the hospital apparently did.  It decided simply that better for one to die than two, and that justified the abortion.

Ponder this hypothetical:  Gunman breaks into a home and tells a mother that he will murder her husband and daughter unless mother murders her daughter, in which case he will allow her husband to live.  May the mother murder her daughter?  Catholic teaching says no even though it would yield a preferable outcome (one dead instead of two).

The hospital’s situation must be distinguished from the situation involvint the principle of double effect.  Catholic teaching does permit a mother’s pathology to be treated even if that pathology has the effect of harming or even killing the baby; but Catholic teaching does not allow that baby to be treated as the pathology itself and directly killed.  There is a difference between deliberately bombing military targets in order to bring a just war to a just conclusion knowing that civilians will be unintentionally killed as a consequence versus deliberately bombing civilians in order to bring a just war to a just conclusion.  The latter is always morally illicit while the former can be morally justified under Catholic moral teaching grounded in natural law and Scripture.

We have no reason to believe that Bishop Olmstead was being narrow-minded or mean here.  I have no doubt he was sympathetic to the horrible circumstances with which Sister McBride was forced to contend.  But it is a fairly straightforward application of Catholic moral theology to a very difficult set of facts.  It is very understandable for human beings to conflate good outcomes with good reasons, and certainly it is forgivable.  But that is ultimately the point—something is forgivable only of there is something to forgive.  It appears there was in this case, and it appears that Sister McBride (whose excommunication was reportedly lifted) agrees.  Apparently the hospitals trustees do not, but if so then their disagreement is with Catholic teaching, not the Bishop.
Finally, I am not aware of anyone suggesting that Sister McBride is a bad or evil person; just that she committed a serious moral error.  Many of us do so all too often.  But it is one thing to commit a sin, but quite another to disagree that it is a sin.  This appears to be the hospital’s position and as such it should not pretend to be Catholic in any serious or canonical sense.  To do so would be intellectually dishonest.

I think that one of the very interesting things that is showing itself is that we are referring to Sr. Margaret Mary, RSM as “Sr. McBride,” as if she were a priest.  This is yet another move away from traditional understanding of roles within the Church.

Sr. Margaret Mary, whose excommunication has not been lifted, is a religious.  While she may keep her surname, when she takes vows it becomes much less important than her Christian name.  I know that it may be picking nits, but I think that it important to understand that Sr. Margaret Mary is first a religious and that her role isn’t that of a singular person acting of her own volition.  So, to refer to her as “Sr. McBride” is intellectually and religiously dishonest and doesn’t do her state in life any justice.

To use the surname assumes that she has the freedom to keep her individuality, when in fact, she is bound by vows.  These vows are poverty, chastity and obedience and service.  Obedience is not merely to her superiors, but also to the Ordinary in whose diocese she serves.

I also agree that Sr. Margaret Mary is not an evil person, but she has separated herself from the Sacraments until such time as she reconciles through proper channels with the Bishop.  This also doesn’t make her non-Catholic.  She is still Catholic and she still should be fulfilling her Sunday obligation and she should still be following the precepts as much as she can, considering she is under excommunication.  Excommunication doesn’t mean that she is expelled from the Church, but simply that she is banned from receiving the Sacraments until she is reconciled.

Again, while this may seem to be picking nits, it is an important distinction to bring into the conversation, so that we may understand that what Sr. Margaret Mary did is not necessarily a singular thing and that by calling her Sr. McBride does in fact singularize her from the Order in which she still belongs.

I know that it may be picking nits, but I think that it important to understand that Sr. Margaret Mary is first a religious and that her role isn’t that of a singular person acting of her own volition.  So, to refer to her as “Sr. McBride” is intellectually and religiously dishonest and doesn’t do her state in life any justice.

Mr. Milam, what are your qualifications and training that enable you to render this professional interpretation of the person of Sr. Margaret Mary?

“Mr. Milam, what are your qualifications and training that enable you to render this professional interpretation of the person of Sr. Margaret Mary?”

Qualifications are not needed to understand how one should be addressed.  I don’t require specific training to understand this.  But since you ask, I do have an adavanced degree in Theology.

And to be completely honest, I was supporting her position as a religious.  I think that it important to understand that titles do mean something and when one is a religious, we should show him the proper respect.  To include a surname is simply tacky.  But it is also telling in the attempted lessening of the importance of the Religious in today’s society.

Mr. Milam, do you think there is any distinction in terms of moral evil, violation of Church law, and gravity of the offense, between abortion and the sexual abuse of children by certain ordained religious?

@ Michael,

The sex abuse scandal has no bearing on this conversation, so I will refrain from commenting on that particular issue here.  Thank you though.

Mr. Milam, I was not speaking about any scandal.  I was speaking about the particular act of sexual abuse by a single clergy member and how it compares to the current conversation relating to the moral, ethical, theological ramifications of the act of abortion approved by a single woman religious.

The theological ramifications which Sr. Margaret Mary subjected herself to are clearly defined within the Church on both a moral and ethical front.

If we are speaking about “the particular act of sexual abuse by a single clergy member,” you failed to mention that clergy member’s name, so that a proper comparison can be drawn.

I cannot apply a universal to a particular.  That is illogical.

Andy,
My apologies for referring to Sister Margaret Mary as Sister McBride.  I stand corrected, though I do not understand how this misnomer in any way serves to “singularize her from the Order in which she still belongs.” 
As for the status of her excommunication I have read unofficial reports of it being lifted, but no reports otherwise (which is why I deliberately qualified my statement with “appears”).  Can you please explain how you come to know its current status with such perfect confidence?
And thank you for your unnecessary pedantry regarding the meaning of excommunication.

If we are speaking about “the particular act of sexual abuse by a single clergy member,” you failed to mention that clergy member’s name, so that a proper comparison can be drawn.

I cannot apply a universal to a particular.  That is illogical.

Mr. Milam, your objection is disingenuous at best.  Since you need an offender’s name, maybe you can help me out with this.  Go to bishopaccountability.org and I’m sure you can find one (or two) convicted clergy so that, in your words, ” a proper comparison can be drawn .”

I am looking forward to your subsequent proper, logical comparison of abortion vs. pedophilia relative to moral evil, church law and excommunication.

Michael,
Both abortion and pedophilia are objectively mortal sins.  I doubt it is productive to compare them beyond that.  The subjective culpability of any immoral act is always subject to facts and circumstances, so if your point is that Sister Margeret Mary’s culpability should be reduced given the terrible pressure she was under you are almost certainly correct.  Of course the culpability of a molestor acting under a cumpulsion would also be reduced.  These things are for God to judge, not us.  What we can judge is an acts objective morality.  Perhaps you are suggesting that somehow the Church is hypocritical for imposing excommunication on one and not the other.  If so, I suggest that you research a bit more the meaning and purpose of excommunication (especially the spiritual protection of the faithful), and further consider the societal difference between the two acts—one being (still) widely understood to be immoral and the other widely understood to be morally acceptable.

@ Mike,

“Can you please explain how you come to know its current status with such perfect confidence?”  Since her excommunication is published, it must be rescinded in the same manner.  The reason being, since she is banned from the Sacraments (minus Penance), if she were to receive publicly it would be scandal and sacrilege.  So, once she has satisfied His Excellency, Bishop Olmsted, she may be admitted back to the Sacraments.  As you know, she is still obliged to attend Mass and any other obligation that is wholly Catholic, outside the Sacraments.

“And thank you for your unnecessary pedantry regarding the meaning of excommunication.”  I believe it to be neither unecessary or pedantic.  One must assume that those reading are starting at the point in which one posts last.  I wished to make it perfectly clear what I was doing, ie. defining terms, so there could be no misunderstanding.

@ Michael,

“Mr. Milam, your objection is disingenuous at best.  Since you need an offender’s name, maybe you can help me out with this.”  I prefer not to.  This was your analogy, so if you would like me to draw a comparison, then I would suggest you provide me with the appropriate clergy member and the facts.  I would then ask for your email address, since I have said that I don’t find that particular segue to be germaine to this thread and have no desire to discuss it on this thread.

Andy,
As you must know, Bishop Olmstead did not excommunicate Sister MM.  She excommunicated herself—latae sententiae.  All the good bishop did was advise her of that fact.  Such excommunications happen all the time (indeed, every time a Catholic has an abortion) and no public announcement of recission is ever made.  The only reason this was even made public was because the Arizona Republic got wind of the story and posted questions to the Diocese.  There is no canonical requirement that such rescissions (or the confirmation of excommunication) be made public.  You assumption is simply surmise—nothing more.  The bottom line is we don’t know.

@ Mike,

You have not been following my postings, hence the reasoning for making unecessary and pedantic clarifications.  I am well aware and have spoken previously about this.

Notice, I said that the good bishop published the excommunication.  I am very well aware of what latae sententiae is and how it works.  Since it is now made manifest, much like the bishops of the SSPX, it must be published that it is lifted.  This is done so that there can be no scandal of the faithful.  I’d have you look to Can. 1361 pp. 2.

“further consider the societal difference between the two acts—one being (still) widely understood to be immoral and the other widely understood to be morally acceptable.”

What does this statement mean?  Are you referring to abortion? pedophilia?

Regarding a particular name, I offer the case of Rev. Richard J. Poster, Davenport, Iowa.

And, by the way, my e-mail is skiadvocat@aol.com.  I will be glad to receive any correspondence/analysis you wish to send.

David B.,

Thanks for your interpretation of “human being”. One could hope you would also include the mother as a “human being” as well.

Fortunately, at least outside the Catholic Church, ethics has to deal with issues of right versus right that are not determined by a definition determined a priori to cover situations and dilemmas for which it’s application, in conditions of uncertainty, can be arbitrary and capricious.

Such is the position of the Catholic Church by applying it’s definition of abortion in a situation in which the doctor is the one who is required to make a decision, not the Bishop after the fact.

We see now that the hospital has no problem and never did. It is far better off no longer being associated with the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church has a problem with ethics, a serious problem, that serves to further marginalize the Church and continues to diminish its credibility as a moral authority in a world in which education and skepticism increasing rejects religious dogma and 2,000 year old myths as valid.

Of course, the Catholic Church has every right to end it’s association with the hospital. As I think you can now see, it is not just an internal matter of the Church, but an ethical issue for non-Catholics as well. Perhaps it will lead hospitals nationwide to severe their association with the Catholic Churchbon their own, and rightfully and ethically so.

When is the church going to stop this hypocrisy.  It already allows abortion for ectopic pregnancies.  It pretends the intent of the operation is to remove only the diseased tube, but this is just playing at words and ignores all those that occur outside the tube.  I cannot see where the teachings of God or Jesus would support a doctor standing by and allowing 2 deaths when he could save one of them.  To not do so is surely against the commandment that we should not kill.  To allow both to die when one might have lived is killing now matter how you butter it up with cute language.
Most people realise this, many of us with medical training understand that not everything is black and white and we often have to do the best we can under terrible situations.  But always putting the life of both first is paramount, but when this is impossible it is sinful to allow both to die just to try and pretend at ‘goodness’.
But sadly I have found myself more and more listening to my concience and less and less to the Bishops my whole life.  I find that I can no longer accept many of the teachings of the church as moral, this is just one such example where I see the moral answer as being totaly opposite to that of the Bishop.  I beleive the medically trained staff of the hospital felt the same, what medical training has the Bishop to know the position they were in?

@Alan,

Interestingly enough, I think the Church’s guidelines on this case would be very much in line with the case of ectopic pregnancies that you cite. The procedure (1) goes after the cause of grave danger to the mother, (2) allowing for the great possibility of the embryo or fetus dying. This precedence is quite crucial. The principle that it doesn’t matter which goes first is the same principle that allows for euthanizing a terminally ill person. Think about it.

Second, the guidelines would not have allowed the mother to die, only that the procedure, as with ectopic pregnancies, does not include any act that is in itself immoral.

So, you’re correct that it is sinful to simply allow both to die, but that is not what the guidelines for Catholic hospitals is about.

@ Jeff,

I don’t believe that is the case.  This is completely different.  The removal of the child would not have had any more impact on saving the woman.  The child was not the disease.  While pulmonary hypertension can have a fatal consequence to a pregnant woman, there are medical means by which it can be treated.  Again, the child was not the disease.  Regardless of how this case presented, there were other options to treat the disease.

At anyrate, pulmonary hypertension is not the same thing as an ectopic pregnancy, where the diseased organ is removed there by causing an unintended death to the unborn child.

From the Pulmonary Hypertension Association, “A review of reports published between 1978 and 1996 that looked at maternal deaths within 35 days of delivery, found that the death rate for patients with PH ranged from 30 to 56 percent.”

Notice it talks abut being within 35 days of delivery, not at 11 weeks of pregnancy.  Also, notice that even after 20 years of study the mortality rate barely reached over 50% at the high end.  This would lend one to believe that there are medical ways of treating the woman during the pregnancy and that the treatment is by and large successful.  Again, and I cannot stress enough, the child is not the disease and should not be treated as the cure, by it’s intentional killing.

Andy,
I do not have time to research the canon you cite, but my distinct recollection of these cases is that the lifting of excommunications are not normally publicized unless the bishop or his delegate determines there is good reason.  In this case there may well be such good reason, but that is the bishop’s prudential judgment, not mine or yours.  It is presumptuous to assume that the bishop would share your judgment (or mine).  Moreover, this assumes that these standards are intended to apply to latae sententiae excommunications, which I simply do not recall.  The bottom line is that we do not know whether Sister MM’s excommunication is currently still in effect; we can only speculate with charity and hope.

Allow me to offer you some advice.  You would do well to concentrate on convincing your opponents that Catholic teaching regarding abortion is correct as is the bishop’s application of that teaching rather than pick fights with those who agree with you over how to address the sister in question or things that neither of us can know.

Alan,
Like many other commenters you throw around the word “hypocrisy” easily and without a modicum of fairness.  The Church in fact is very consistent in its application and understanding of both the intrinsically immoral nature of the intentional direct killing of innocents and the application of the principle of double effect.  The fact that you disagree with one or both principles is certainly your privilege; many thoughtful ethicists do, and in large part because they are discomforted by the seemingly splitting of hairs resulting in undesireable outcomes.  But the charge of hypocrisy is simply rank nonsense.

@ Mike,

First, I wasn’t picking a fight with you, I was simply making an observation, as you were not the only one who was referring to her as Sr. McBride.  Second, I have been providing sound Catholic theology the whole way, so I would say that I am doing all I can to convince those who oppose the Church’s position that Holy Mother Church is correct. 

Third, http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P51.HTM

Finally, I am not passing judgment on Sr. Margaret Mary.  I am simply stating how the Church will most likely proceed.  There is precedence and there is no reason to believe that this won’t be the case.  It really didn’t take that much time to research.

Andy,
I never suggested that you were “passing judgment” on Sister MM.  What I stated is that neither of us knows the current status of her excommunication.  You may well be right as to “how the Church would most likely proceed,” but that is not the same thing as being able to make the unqualifed assertion that Sister MM’s “excommunication has not been lifted.”  At most you can only offer intelligent speculation.

For Andy Milam:

“further consider the societal difference between the two acts—one being (still) widely understood to be immoral and the other widely understood to be morally acceptable.”

What does this statement mean?  Are you referring to abortion? pedophilia?

Regarding a particular name, I offer the case of Rev. Richard J. Poster, Davenport, Iowa.

And, by the way, my e-mail is skiadvocat@aol.com.  I will be glad to receive any correspondence/analysis you wish to send

Andy Milam wrote,

“I don’t believe that is the case.  This is completely different.  The removal of the child would not have had any more impact on saving the woman.  The child was not the disease.”

You are just illustrating the problem with the whole matter. It is neither up to you nor the Bishop to decide the course of action the doctor decides must be taken, much less presume to override the doctor’s decision after the fact. The doctor is the sole judge of what medical action must be taken in any circumstance with the best information he has at the time he decides.

No amount of justification for your position can overturn that fact.

@ bjedwards,

Have you never heard of reason?  While it may not be up to me as to the course of action the doctor takes, I can state what proper Catholic ethics are in a Catholic institution.  The Bishop can state what proper Catholic ethics are in a Catholic institution.  With that statement, I am creating a lobby.  It is by my lobbying that doctor can be swayed into understanding proper Catholic ethics and applying them in a Catholic institution.  With that statement, the Bishop, who is supreme legislator of his Diocese when it comes to moral and ethical behavior, is compelled to act, just as His Excellency did in this case.

I don’t have to justify anything.  What I have to do is to continue to state what proper Catholic ethics are and lobby for said ethics to be adopted by the physicians in said Catholic insitution.  If they do not, I presume that the Ordinary will act in a proper manner to support proper Catholic ethics.

You’re right on one count, I cannot presume to ovveride the doctor’s decision after the fact.  But I can make it known that by Catholic standards, it was the incorrect decision.  I can ask the Ordinary to investigate and I can ask the Ordinary to judge in accordance with Canon Law, where appropriate.  THAT is what happens.  THAT is what happened.

Like Bishop Olmsted, my prayer is that Sr. Margaret Mary and all those involved will ammend their lives and return to the Church.  I also pray that the administration and physicians of St. Joseph’s and CHW will ammend their practices and be counted among the Catholic institutions of Phoenix.  Until such time, I will continue to speak out about the grave injustice done to the mother, the family and the unborn child, at the hands of a poorly made decision, based upon faulty ethics and poor moral judgment.

Andy Milam,

Don’t preume that you understand reason. I would be happy to instruct you on reason that escapes you entirely, including that your religion is quite contrary to reason by any rational standard.

But the matter at hand is that reason dictates the doctor is in all cases the final arbiter of the decision he makes in the best interest of the patient to whom his care is entrusted, NOT the Bishop nor the Catholic Church, at the time the decision is made, no matter what dictate the Church has made that cannot, a priori, anticipate every situation under uncertainty.

Since the doctor and hospital made the decision under established ethical procedures in the best interest of all concerned, it is entirely improper to penalize the doctor and hospital. The Church may say, “look, we do not support the decision you made and in the future we think you should consider….” But to go on, as you do, and make a medical determination after the fact as the only decision that can confirm to a rigid definition is both arrogant and ethically improper.

You and the Bishop should look into the mirror very carefully.

@ bjedwards,

I don’t have to presume, I know that I understand reason.  I do not need any instruction from you on reason, unless it is to enlighten accpeted Catholic ethics.

I can presume that based upon the statement, “...including that your religion is quite contrary to reason by any rational standard.”  That you are not Catholic.  If you are, then you should know that we are to assent our wills to the Catholic Church.  This includes all of her teachings on Faith and Morals.  This particular case falls into morality.

When the doctor is employed by a Catholic institution, he must adhere to the Ethical and Religious Directives.  This states that not only will he follow the Hippocratic Oath, but also that he will never violate human dignity through surgically mutilating procedures or through the direct killing of the unborn or the elderly.  So, I can honestly tell you that you are incorrect on this issue.  The doctors are accountable for their actions.  And it is clear based upon ERD that the doctor and hospital did NOT make the decision under established ethical procedures in the best interest of all concerned.

The great thing is that when I do look in the mirror, I feel very comfortable that I am adhering to Catholic morality.  I am sure that His Excellency feels the same.

http://www.ncbcenter.org/NetCommunity/Document.Doc?id=171

http://www.usccb.org/bishops/directives.shtml

Please refer to the above links for support of my position and refutation of your last post.  Doctors who are employed by a Catholic institution must follow the ERD.

Mr. Milam:

Would you please tell me the source or reason for the following statement of yours made in the previous post:

If you are, then you should know that we are to assent our wills to the Catholic Church.

Where has Jesus Christ proclaimed that we must “assent our wills to the Catholic Church”?

@ Michael,

I would point you to CIC 750 §1 and to the Catechism of the Catholic Church 143.  If that is all too new for you, I would have you look to Vatican Council II, Dei Verbum 5.  And if that is too new for you, I would have you look to Vatican Council I, Dogmatic Consitution on the Catholic Faith, Ch. 3 §1, On Faith.

DCCF Ch. 3:1 Vatican Council I—Since human beings are totally dependent on God as their creator and lord, and created reason is completely subject to uncreated truth, we are obliged to yield to God the revealer full submission of intellect and will by faith.

DV 5 Vatican Council II—“The obedience of faith” (Rom. 13:26; see 1:5; 2 Cor 10:5-6) “is to be given to God who reveals, an obedience by which man commits his whole self freely to God, offering the full submission of intellect and will to God who reveals,” (4) and freely assenting to the truth revealed by Him. To make this act of faith, the grace of God and the interior help of the Holy Spirit must precede and assist, moving the heart and turning it to God, opening the eyes of the mind and giving “joy and ease to everyone in assenting to the truth and believing it.” (5) To bring about an ever deeper understanding of revelation the same Holy Spirit constantly brings faith to completion by His gifts.

CCC 143—By faith, man completely submits his intellect and his will to God. With his whole being man gives his assent to God the revealer. Sacred Scripture calls this human response to God, the author of revelation, “the obedience of faith”.

CIC 750 §1—A person must believe with divine and Catholic faith all those things contained in the word of God, written or handed on, that is, in the one deposit of faith entrusted to the Church, and at the same time proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn magisterium of the Church or by its ordinary and universal magisterium which is manifested by the common adherence of the Christian faithful under the leadership of the sacred magisterium; therefore all are bound to avoid any doctrines whatsoever contrary to them.

That pretty much sums it up.  If you would like a good summary of this in literary form, I would gladly suggest that you read, An Essay in Aid of a Grammar of Assent, by John Henry Cardinal Newman.  His explanation of the subject is bar none the best ever written.

Thank you very much for your explanation, Mr. Milam

@ Michael,

You’re welcome.

Andy Milam,

“Reason” is an entirely different concept that Catholic “reasoning.” This is not rocket science, after all. You have an ethical conflict of right versus right but a religious dictum that allows no possibility of dealing with making decisions under uncertainty.

I have already made clear that the Catholic Church has every right to withdraw its affiliation with the hospital but that does not change the fact that by every rational standard of “reason”, the Church’s reasoning and “ethics” is in conflict with those of the doctor and hospital in the ethical practice of medicine. The Catholic Church’s ethical standards forced you against the wall, imposing a mandate that forces the doctor and hospital to chose between its mission and a mandate.

Clearly, the hospital made the decision on grounds both medically and ethically, of clear conscious, which violated the Church’s mandate. That mandate is inflexible. You had no choice but to withdraw but your post hoc defense and reasoning above clearly demonstrates that “reason” has nothing to do with the decision.

Just remember that when you look in the mirror and ...“feel very comfortable that [you are] adhering to Catholic morality,” that you are operating under Catholic “reasoning”, not objective reason.

@ bjedwards,

Your view of reason is askew.  I am not applying simply a Catholic principle, but rather I am applying a principle that the Catholic Church agrees with.  Unjust killing is wrong, regardless of means by which it happens.  Abortion is unjust in every circumstance.  This isn’t just a religious principle, but rather it is a normative action in all of society, unless of course one is an anarchist.  Because a judgment from a court disagrees, doesn’t make it ethical or justifiable.

Just because you view the Church’s view of reason as being flawed doesn’t mean that it is so.  You have given absolutely no support for your views.  You have simply said that you disagree with the Church’s point of view and then railed on the Church.

You are correct that the Church’s view of ethics is in conflict with the doctor who performed the abortion, but where your argument falls off the track is that the doctor was employed by the hospital and the doctor had to ascribe to ERD of the USCCB.  The link for that is listed in a previous post.  The hospital was also expected to do so.  When it was determined that they didn’t, they were then deemed to have not acted in an ethical manner.  Remember, the hospital and the doctor were bound by Catholic principles, not vice versa.  The Church is not bound by the doctor’s and hospital’s principles.

You have a very subjective view of philosphy and that is not something that is readily defendable.  The reason of one, does not trump the reason of many or all.  Ultimately, your logic will fall apart. 

Objective reason is one that is not that reason based upon the person, but that the person applies the reason himself.  This is what the Church ascribes to from a philosophical point of view.  You are an advocate of the opposite and as such, you will be at odds with the Catholic view of reason.  If you are interested in learning about how Catholic reason works, I would suggest that you read Veritatis Splendor and Fides et Ratio.

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_06081993_veritatis-splendor_en.html

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_15101998_fides-et-ratio_en.html

Andy Milam,

I don’t think you are aware that you are illustrating my points for me.

First, your statement, “Abortion is unjust in every circumstance.  This isn’t just a religious principle, but rather it is a normative action in all of society…, is quite clearly not true. It is true only in the dictate of the Catholic Church, under Directive 45 of the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services, Fifth Edition, and in other religions various interpretations.

In the world of ethics involves dilemmas. Abortion involves a mother and a fetus. Clearly, in a medical situation, ethical dilemmas can and do exist. In a situation in which the doctor makes a medical decision that unless an abortion takes place, the mother would die, the doctor has to make a *choice*. In this case, the doctor chose to save the live of a living human being, the mother, and abort a 11-week old fetus that would be *non-viable on its own*.

If you don’t understand the existence of ethical dilemmas outside of the dictates of the Catholic Church, you cannot claim to understand “reason.” The point keeps coming back to that the Catholic Church is forcing reality to conform to Directive 45. As I made quite clear, and which you missed, the Bishop has every right to assert his authority, but, in the real world, the ultimate consequences fall on the Catholic Church, NOT on the hospital.

You state: “Just because you view the Church’s view of reason as being flawed doesn’t mean that it is so.  You have given absolutely no support for your views.”

I’ll leave out the fact that, ultimately, the Catholic Church exists on “belief”, not reason. That the Church believes in a “God” for which no empirical evidence exists, and relies on the human-written Bible as the “authority” of “God’s Word”, is sufficient to demonstrate that reason does not apply.

In this case, ethical reasoning as declared in Directive 45, is sufficient for the Catholic Church, but not based on “reason” but on conformity to a concept which leaves the Church and the hospital no room to maneuver when ethical dilemmas present themselves.

The Bishop’s decision affects the hospital only in withdrawing the Church’s sanction. I would think it will give pause to the hundreds of other hospitals nationwide when faced with similar ethical dilemmas. I would hope and expect that when faced with similar situations as in Phoenix, those hospitals would choose life over dictates.

So, I hope you are beginning to understand why your concept of ethics *outside the Catholic Church* is skewed and ethically untenable and why reason is not the guiding light of your religion.

Happy New Year.

Patrick’s answer to Steve (12/22 4:41) was right on and to the point. Unfortunately, Steve focused on a figure of speech Patrick used in the posting to distract from the posting’s main points while never addressing them.

It’s unfortunate when theologians think they can usurp the authority that is clearly not theirs. Dueling theologians are going to be around in almost every situation, so if the duly authorized action of a bishop can be dismissed because there’s a theolgian who doesn’t agree with him, the church has no foundation on which to stand. The authority of the church gives us security because it is founded on Christ and guided by the Holy Spirit. It’s no accident that even holy theologians like St. Thomas Aquinas assented in obedience once the proper church authority issued a decree on something previously debated.

The church is built on a rock, not on sand—which would be the case if everyone’s opinions or “Conscience” carried equal weight.

Hi I’m sharing this article from Az Rep: It recognized ten inspiring women of 2010.

Showing grace under fire from her church “Everyone I know considers Sister Margaret to be the moral conscience of the hospital.”

Few people even knew the name when she hit the news in mid-May.

Sister Margaret McBride, an administrator at St. Joseph’s Hospital and Medical Center, had in late 2009 given her approval to a procedure to save the life of a critically ill pregnant woman. She had been called in because of the unusual nature of the case. In order to save the woman, her pregnancy had to be terminated.

When Bishop Thomas Olmsted announced McBride’s excommunication last year for direct participation in an abortion, a worldwide outcry ensued.

Thousands of people rallied to McBride’s support, even though she remained silent throughout the ordeal. As a result, she has become an icon of courage and grace, especially for numerous Catholics.

“She is a wonderful person,” said Mary Jo McDonald, a longtime Phoenix resident who now lives in Sedona. “She’s highly intelligent, very religious, compassionate and caring.” ....

Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/arizonaliving/articles/2011/01/02/20110102inspire0102.html#ixzz19wOqKtbl

Mike Petrik:

Regarding “latae sententiae”, I have found, in addition to others, the following two instances that apply for excommunication:

(1) a priest who uses confession as a pretext to solicit the confessor to break the commandment against adultery;

(2) a confessor who directly violates the sacramental seal of confession

Comparing these situtations with that of the abortion performed at the hospital and the excommunication of the religious sister, how is the faithful to know when and if either of the two situations from above occur?  Is the confessor/priest obligated by Canon Law to report such conduct to his superiors?  If not, then what prevents an excommunicated priest/religious, who has violated provisions 1 or 2 above, from continuing in his ministry/priesthood administering the sacraments and offering the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass?

How does the continued performance of the priestly duties of an excommunicated priest affect the laity attending/receiving his services?

“In this case, the doctor chose to save the live of a living human being, the mother, and abort a 11-week old fetus that would be *non-viable on its own*.”

Humans are “non-viable” on their own beyond birth. There is no scientific justification for denying the humanity and rights of the fetus. For all your argumentation, you did not deny that a fetus *is* human. You instead argue for situational ethics which allows for the destruction of innocent life, the ends justifying the means, and moral relativism. Call that what you will, be ‘scientific’ and ‘reasonable’ it is not.

P.S. If the Church were concerned about winning a popularity contest, it like some many powers whose birth it has witnessed, would eventually collapse in ruin and dismissal. Right and wrong are determined neither by popular vote, nor by personal, arbitrary fiat.

“Humans are “non-viable” on their own beyond birth.”

As an example, any child under the age of five.

David B.,

You’re very confused. An eleven-week old fetus cannot *live* outside the womb. It cannot be a viable human being.

You deny ethics and morality by denying the existence of ethical dilemmas. It is fatuously immoral for anyone to let a mother die based on a religious dictate - arbitrary, illogical and inconsistent with reality - that an eleven-week old fetus that cannot survive should not be aborted.

The Bishop’s actions are an attack on the very concept of morality and ethics and should be condemned by all Catholics.

“You deny ethics and morality by denying the existence of ethical dilemmas. “

No, you deny moral truths by thinking that the fact of ethical dilemmas allows for virtually any response. Recognizing ethical dilemmas does not equal being open to any solution. “Thou shalt not kill” is a precept of natural law, written in the hearts of men, not invented by the Church. A fetus is a human being, with the same rights as you and I. The hospital denied this truth, and pitted the unborn baby against its mother. That is nothing short of diabolical. 

Gerard Nadal has some enlightening information about this case, though he won’t change a mind already in support of abortion. ** http://gerardnadal.com/2010/12/28/catholic-bishop-right-to-push-back-against-culture-of-death/ **

This is not a case of the Church callously condemning a woman for wanting to live. This is a case of radical pro-abortionists taking the irresponsible, amoral, and lazy way out. This should be condemned by all people, regardless of political or religious principles.

bjedwards,

“An eleven-week old fetus cannot *live* outside the womb. It cannot be a viable human being.”

You are confused. I didn’t say it could. But for that matter, young children are in need intense care and attention in order to be ‘viable’.
P.S. You still don’t deny that the ‘non-viable fetus’ is human. Very telling.

Even if the nun/others were wrong, were they necessarily morally culpable?

This is a matter on which even expert moral theologians, with and without medical training, disagree, and that’s with a much longer timeframe within which to do their analysis than was present in the instant case. My recollection from stories at the time is that it was thought to be a legitimate “double effect” type of situation under church teaching (as they honestly saw it).

That may have been wrong, but if it was an honestly-held belief based on the information and time that was available - what the people involved genuinely thought was morally correct - then even if they were wrong, what was their sin?

I was taught there is a difference between objective and subjective morality; the former being what is actually (in God’s eyes) the right decision, and the latter what we think is (in God’s eyes) the right decision. So long as we make efforts to have an informed conscience etc. we may be wrong objectively, but not culpably because we have honestly and diligently tried to make the right decision given the limited time and information we have.

David’s point is an important one.  One can commit an act that is objectively sinful but with greatly diminished culpability (or even no culpability) depending on state of mind, etc.  We cannot and should not judge the state of Sister MM’s soul.  For this reason some Catholic commentators have speculated that Bishop Olmsted’s action may have been inappropriate, even if an immoral abortion was approved and did occur. 

One cannot dismiss such speculation out-of-hand, but one should not assume it to be true either.  It seems unlikely that after meeting with Sister MM and hospital officials, the Bishop would not have confirmed the state of excommunication latae sententiae if they had responded with a remorseful “oops, we made a horribly erroneous decision.”  More likely they apparently responded with some variant of “direct abortions can be morally permissible in appropriate circumstances.”  Indeed, the hospital’s public statements to the media actually confirm this.  These officials, including Sister MM, may well honestly believe such an assertion to be true, but if so they cannot not know that such a belief is incompatable with Church teaching in which case the excommunication is quite appropriate.

David B. wrote,

“No, you deny moral truths by thinking that the fact of ethical dilemmas allows for virtually any response. Recognizing ethical dilemmas does not equal being open to any solution.”

Your confusion has not diminished. You do not understand the nature of ethical dilemmas I have already discussed, that the most difficult ethical dilemmas involve issues of right versus right. This is totally contrary to your claim above.

We can claim it is neither right to let the mother die nor let a fetus expire. The issue becomes clear when in order for the mother to live AND the fetus to continue to develop into a viable human being, one should do everything humanly possible to save both, as any doctor would do. But it is entirely incorrect, illogical, and unethical to ever face a situation where the mother will die and, by consequence, the fetus will expire and claim that *the doctor should not make every attempt to save the mother’s life* knowing full well that the fetus will have to be aborted and would not survive if the mother died.

This is elementary ethics - at least outside of the convoluted ethics of the Catholic Church you are promoting. It is quite clear an eleven-week old fetus cannot *survive* outside of the mother’s womb no matter what anyone can do and you should top evading that fact.

Your claim that, “This is a case of radical pro-abortionists taking the irresponsible, amoral, and lazy way out,” is a strawman argument designed to evade the fact that the doctor and hospital were faced with an ethical decision and that they arrived at the correct decision, no matter what the Catholic Church says.

I’m not sure what is meant by the term “ethical dilemma.”  It is certainly true that facts and circumstances can present situations where it is difficult to know what the right thing to do is.  That said, this case did not present an ethical dilemma in the sense that either course of action was justifiable, unless one subscribes to one or both of the following: (i) it is morally acceptable to directly and intentionally kill an innocent human life if you have a good enough reason; (ii) the fetus is not a human life and therefore can be killed.

A basic traditional moral tenet is that one may never commit an intrinsically evil act.  Perhaps the fundamental example of this tenet is absolute prohibition against the intentional and direct taking of an innocent human life.  As a byproduct of utilitarianism, consequentialism has emerged as an alternative framework for addressing moral questions.  Basically consequentialism evaluates moral questions by examining outcomes.  A consequentialist would say that it is moral to murder a single innocent in order save two lives, for instance.  And it is moral to abort a fetus if it will soon die anyway if it can save the life of the mother. 

We all practice consequentialism in part.  When confronted with two (for instance) alternative course of action, neither of which is intrinsically evil, it is appropriate to consider the outcomes when choosing.  Indeed, it would be immoral to choose the act intending to cause the more harmful outcome even if the act itself is not intrinsically immoral.  These types of assessments are necessarily prudential in nature, which is why people may disagree in good faith.  And in some cases the outcomes are both undesirable.  In such cases we choose the act that leads to the least undesirable outcome—i.e., we choose the lesser of two evils.  But unless one is a consequentialist there is a critical difference between choosing the least evil outcome, which is desirable and permissible, versus choosing an intrinsically evil act, which is not permissible even if it results in a less evil outcome. 

Traditional morality recognizes that not all acts are morally neutral.  Some are intrinsically evil and cannot be justified by their ends.  Consequentialism rejects this, and perhaps bjedwards observes a dilemma in this case because, as a consequentialist, he sees no reasont to evaluate the act independent of the outcome.  Accordingly, he is able to jump directly to choosing the lesser of two evil outcomes, which is a prudential decision that can fairly be described as a dilemma.

Is sex with children an “instrinsically evil act”?

The following is excerpted from the Pope’s address to the Curia on December 20, 2010:

In order to resist these forces, we must turn our attention to their ideological foundations. In the 1970s, paedophilia was theorized as something fully in conformity with man and even with children. This, however, was part of a fundamental perversion of the concept of ethos. It was maintained – even within the realm of Catholic theology – that there is no such thing as evil in itself or good in itself. There is only a “better than” and a “worse than”. Nothing is good or bad in itself. Everything depends on the circumstances and on the end in view. Anything can be good or also bad, depending upon purposes and circumstances. Morality is replaced by a calculus of consequences, and in the process it ceases to exist. The effects of such theories are evident today. Against them, Pope John Paul II, in his 1993 Encyclical Letter Veritatis Splendor, indicated with prophetic force in the great rational tradition of Christian ethos the essential and permanent foundations of moral action. Today, attention must be focussed anew on this text as a path in the formation of conscience. It is our responsibility to make these criteria audible and intelligible once more for people today as paths of true humanity, in the context of our paramount concern for mankind.

What is the Pope saying about “pedophilia” and its evil nature?

It seems reasonably clear to me that the Holy Father is saying that sex with children is indeed an intrinsically evil act, and further he is lamenting the fact that during the 1970s some people suggested otherwise and they were given implicit support by some Catholic theologians who asserted that no act was intrinsically evil but instead its morality is a function of circumstances and outcomes.  He then admonished his audience that this way of thinking was very damaging and they must do a better job a properly articulating Catholic moral theology which does indeed presuppose the existence of intrinsically evil acts.

bjedwards,

“It is quite clear an eleven-week old fetus cannot *survive* outside of the mother’s womb no matter what anyone can do and you should top evading that fact.”

The straw-man over my shoulder is evading it, not I.
You have repeatedly built straw-men rather than engaging me or answering my points.
The question of a fetus’s viability doesn’t relate to the rightness or wrongness of the direct and intended destruction of that life. And since you clearly didn’t read the link, may I make clear that the doctors apparently did not try other treatments on the mother before coming to the conclusion that a direct abortion was ‘required’. And so doctors acted irresponsibly, as difficult as that is to comprehend for those who have so much faith in their wisdom.
Thus, defending this action means defending the belief that abortion can be the acceptable first medical treatment for such situations. How open-minded, or scientific, or pro-woman, is that?
Anyway, as I think this topic has worn out any potential for fruitful discussion, I intend to move on. I am once again thankful for Bishop Olmsted, for being a shepherd to his flock in a backward world.

David B.,

Your evasion of *viable* was quite clear in multiple responses, e.g., “Humans are “non-viable” on their own beyond birth.” As an example, any child under the age of five.” Obvious to everyone, a five-year old can survive, an eleven-week old fetus cannot.

You wrote: “The question of a fetus’s viability doesn’t relate to the rightness or wrongness of the direct and intended destruction of that life.”

Only to a *dictum* by the Catholic Church that forces behavior to conform to the definition of Directive 45. Is that dictum ethical? Quite clearly, outside of the Catholic Church, it neither is nor can be. As we see, there is an ethical dilemma faced by the doctor and the hospital, the decision on which *directly* affects the life of the mother.

You link to: http://gerardnadal.com/2010/12/28/catholic-bishop-right-to-push-back-against-culture-of-death/. Dr. Gerard M. Nadal’s justifications are specious at best. Nadal states, “While the assessment on the part of physicians was dire, no treatment of the disease was even attempted. There are several medications that can be employed to attempt a reduction in the severity of the disease, none of which appear to have been dispensed in this case.” Again, this is post-hoc criticism that has nothing to do with fact that the doctor and hospital are the sole decision makers at the time the decision is made, not the Bishop after the fact. Medicine does not and cannot be practiced on the basis of post-hoc reasoning when an ethical and medical decisions have to be made on a timely basis.

Nadal further states, “There are several hospitals within a three-mile radius of Saint Joseph’s, some mere blocks away, where this woman’s husband could have taken her for the recommended abortion. They were no more than ten minutes from any number of facilities that would have performed the abortion, if that was what the couple wanted.” This statement is no more than hypocrisy and an indictment of Catholic reasoning. While the Catholic Church and you all are making claims like, “Unjust killing is wrong, regardless of means by which it happens.  Abortion is unjust in every circumstance,” it is now suddenly ethical for the doctor and hospital to send them to a location where abortions are performed? That is a total violation of Catholic principle.

Ethics exists independent of religious doctrine, Catholic or otherwise. Ethical reasoning must be rational, not superseded by religious fiat as is the case with Directive 45. The hospital, doctor, and Sister Margaret McBride faced an ethical dilemma and recognized that fact. Their choice was based on sound ethical principles that forced the Catholic Church into a corner of the Church’s own making, demonstrating that no matter what action the hospital, Doctor, and Sister McBride took, it would have violated Catholic principles.

Rather than blame bogeymen with “abortion agendas”, it would be far more productive for the Catholic Church to look inward and examine it’s own doctrines rationally. The issue only highlights the problem the Catholic Church and the Bishop have in the real world and internally. Such doctrines as Directive 45 and the Bishop’s decision will only further marginalize the Church and leave it increasingly irrelevant as a moral authority.

bjedwards:
There is no reason for your silly bromides.  You simply believe that it is morally acceptable for a fetus to be intentionally and directly killed as long as it is not viable.  You are probably a consequentialist to boot, but your posts are too disordered for me to quite tease that out. I predicted so much in my January 4 comment which you probably did not read, but likely would not understand anyway.  In any case we get it.  Somehow viability is the critical determinant for membership in the human race, and there is no reason to explain why this is so.  It is res ipso loquitur for you, and anyone who disagrees is irrationally hypocritical and simply relying on religious dicta.  Bla bla bla.  Yawn.

“Obvious to everyone, a five-year old can survive, an eleven-week old fetus cannot.”

  Sigh. The point being that being unable to survive on one’s own does not equal it’s okay to kill them. That was all. You however, appear to be okay with the fact that a fetus, which is a living, unique human being, was purposely destroyed in this case of two lives being falsely pitted against each other.
The hospital took actions opposed to ethical behavior. They did not seek to “do no harm,” but allowed the mother to worsen, and then killed her child as a last desperate measure.

  The Church survived Nero, Luther and Henry VIII. It will survive the moral relativists and Meg Sanger apologists as well.

I do not think it is helpful to speculate regarding whether the hospital’s efforts to treat the mother short of aborting the fetus were sufficient.  Such speculation dilutes the salient point, which is even assuming that the hospital did every ethical thing within its power to save the mother it could not ethically perform an abortion as a matter of last resort.  The principle stands:  one may not directly and intentionally kill an innocent human life.  Whether the hospital otherwise expended all best medical efforts is not relavent.  The only way around the salient point is to either take issue with the principle or assert that the fetus that was aborted was not a human life.

Mike,

“I do not think it is helpful to speculate regarding whether the hospital’s efforts to treat the mother short of aborting the fetus were sufficient.”

Yes, you are right. However, it is important to mention it in light of the fact that the hospital’s defenders argue that all that could be done to help was done, when it appears it wasn’t. This then is a case of abortion as a first method of treatment, not one of people supposedly ‘doing all they could’ to save both lives. But of course abortion is never an acceptable ‘treatment.’

Mike Petrik,

It’s a shame that you find fundamental ethical concepts too difficult to comprehend. It was evident when you wrote earlier that you were “not sure what was meant by the term ‘ethical dilemma.’” Now you are demonstrating how deeply ignorant of ethics you are.

What is clear is that according to Catholic Church doctrine ethical dilemmas do not exist. Perhaps that is why it’s a foreign concept to you. You all are content to accept Directive 45 as a black-and-white concept. But the real world of ethics is quite different as the doctor, hospital, and Sister McBride understood.

It was too bad that I heard from you and David B. no condemnation of the Catholic defense that the hospital could have sent the mother to another hospital to have an abortion. The utter hypocrisy of that suggestion should have hit you between the eyes with full force. “Sorry, madam, abortions are murder, no exception, and we can’t help you here, but we’re happy to get you to the hospital down the street so you can have your fetus murdered. And there’s no charge for the service.”

The point is quite clear. The Catholic Church will die of its own doing if it continues down this path. You will have to pardon the real world for finding its actions unethical and offensive. Shame on Bishop Olmsted.

David B.,

A little help for you:

“The Generalized Structure of Moral/Ethical Dilemmas”

http://www.friesian.com/dilemma.htm

bj
I am aware that some Catholics have noted that the hospital could have sent the mother elsewhere, but I am not aware of that being “the Catholic defense.”  In any case there is a big difference between allowing the mother to go elsewhere for an abortion as opposed to encouraging her to do so, the latter appearing to be the material cooperation with evil. 
It is clear that you are willfully ignorant and more interested in scoring rather incomprehensible debating points than learning or searching for truth.  In any case, if you have the courage to debate me in person you can find me easily via an Internet search.  It would be a waste of time for me, but I am willing to be charitable for your benefit.  Trust me.  You don’t know nearly as much about moral theory as you think you do.

Mike Petrik wrote,

“In any case there is a big difference between allowing the mother to go elsewhere for an abortion as opposed to encouraging her to do so, the latter appearing to be the material cooperation with evil.”

It’s clear that you do not understand the subject matter of ethics outside the dictates of the Catholic Church as your statement above indicates and that you intend to remain willfully ignorant. It is also clear that from your perspective there is nothing to debate.

Perhaps you will chose to take off your blinders. Perhaps not.

“Perhaps you will chose to take off your blinders.”

Oh, the irony.

David B.,

It applies to you even more than to Mike Petrik. It’s sad, really.

bjedwards,

You condescension is much appreciated as always.

David B.,

Look in the mirror and appreciate the arrogance of religious dogma and hypocrisy.

bjedwards,

Your style of debate is to insult your opponent, and if your opponent calls you on it, insult him again. repeatedly, you have resorted to insults about how stupid and backward both I and Catholics of like mind are. You seem less interested in convincing others than in demeaning the intelligence of those with whom you disagree. Well, fine. But I will not continue to participate, and I regret having engaged you, knowing now that you are not interested in equal conversation, but rather in telling your opponents of your wisdom and their stupidity. Fare you well.

David B.,

In the future, it would do you well not to insult people’s intelligence to begin with. In that way, you are more likely to get a measure of respect. You chose not to debate but to demean those who made a careful, considered, and justified ethical decision on saving a human life.

It is not rocket science. If you are confused, carefully review your comments.

“In the future, it would do you well not to insult people’s intelligence to begin with. “

Read: “You’re so stupid you don’t deserve respect.”

“You chose not to debate but to demean those who made a careful, considered, and justified ethical decision on saving a human life.”

Read: “How dare you point out the basic truths and natural laws that these doctors ignored? Religious people have no right to speak about such things.”

“It is not rocket science. If you are confused, carefully review your comments. “

Read: “In case you didn’t understand: I think you’re stupid. All those who disagree with me and believe abortion is murder are blinded by religious myth. I am trying to explain away physician-sanctioned murder, and you are silly to complicate it.”

The defense rests, your honor.

David B.,

So much for your promise not “to continue to participate.”

This is what you wrote. Read Carefully:

- In response to “A fetus is not a baby”, you wrote: “Don’t lecture others on a subject where your own ignorance is on display.” Objective reality: a fetus is not a baby.

- You stated: “..it is anti-intellectual to pretend that science does not support the contention that human life begins at conception.” Objective reality: science recognizes no such thing. Science only recognizes from the moment of conception a “potential” for a human being.

- In response to: “In this case, the doctor chose to save the live of a living human being, the mother, and abort a 11-week old fetus that would be *non-viable on its own*.”, you wrote: “Humans are “non-viable” on their own beyond birth.” Objective reality: an eleven-week old fetus is NOT viable on it’s own.

Shall I go on?

Your religious beliefs do not trump objective reality. Your misrepresentations do not trump science. Don’t insult *anyone’s* intelligence by presuming otherwise.

I already clarified the first quote for you with the 2nd. I was merely pointing out the fact that a fetus is a human being, by objective logical standards. Your denial is beyond incredible. Not a ‘potential’ human, but a living being with all the elements necessary for growth into adulthood. The fetus is a unique life in it’s mother’s womb, composed of the genetic material of it’s parents. If it is not a human being, pray-tell what creature it is.
  I also restated my comments on viability. If being viable, as in being able to live entirely on one’s own strengths, were the criteria for humanity, both young children and the elderly would not be considered human, as many of them rely constantly in the support of others. As you have shown, you did not or will not listen to me. The confusion is yours.

P.S. For future reference, avoid ad hominem attacks.
Ad hominem “is an attempt to link the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise.”
Wikipedia.org
Rings a bell, no?

David B.,

You are only repeating your fallacious reasoning which I already showed was completely untenable in the real and logical world *outside of the Catholic Church.*

When you state, “...but a living being with all the elements necessary for growth into adulthood,” you are completely wrong logically and scientifically. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to understand that a fertilized egg, a zygote, is NOT a human being; neither a zygote nor an eleven-week old embryo is capable of living on its own as a “human being.” It is, always has been, and always will be, *dependent* on being in the womb of the mother. It is fallacious to claim that a zygote or, an embryo at 11 weeks, possesses bones, blood, a brain, and so on. An embryo *cannot survive* outside of its mother’s womb. Period.

You are entitle to your *religious beliefs* but you are not entitled to your own facts.

Remember, you are a part of a religion that relies on “faith” for its existence, as ALL religions do. Faith has nothing to do with reality, nor with science, nor with medicine, nor with ethical standards outside of the religion on which it is based. You are entitled to practice your faith in any way you wish - in your own church - and where you have contracted to do so, as in the Phoenix hospital. The Bishop is *entitled* to enforce it’s Directives; he is *entitled* to remove the Catholic Church’s sanction of the hospital.

You are entitled to remain ignorant of ethics outside of the Catholic Church and you are entitled to your belief in Catholic dogma, but don’t go around insulting people’s intelligence with the demonstrably fallacious claims that you make.

And remember, those of us who find the Catholic Church’s and the Bishop’s actions abhorrent do so on *ethical* grounds.

BJEdwards wrote: “It is fallacious to claim that a zygote or, an embryo at 11 weeks, possesses bones, blood, a brain, and so on.”

Um.

No, it’s not. It’s not fallacious at all to claim those things.

Because they’re all true.

As a matter of fact, it is fallacious to claim that a baby at 11 weeks of gestation does *not* possess bones, blood, a brain, and so on.

That’s what is fallacious.

And it is scientifically incorrect, by the way, to refer to an embryo as a zygote. The newly formed person is called a “zygote” for the first two weeks of its existence. After two weeks, it is called an embryo.

And that’s according to the United States National Institutes of Health National Library of Medicine website.

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002398.htm

And I quote:

“The following list describes specific changes that occur in the womb:

  * Week 3 of gestation (embryo development); week 5 of pregnancy
      o The brain, spinal cord, and heart begin to develop.
      o The gastrointestinal tract begins to develop.
  * Weeks 4 to 5 of gestation; week 6 - 7 of pregnancy
      o Arm and leg buds become visible.
      o The brain develops into five areas and some cranial nerves are visible.
      o The eyes and ear structures begin to form.
      o Tissue forms that develops into the vertebra and some other bones.
      o The heart continues to develop and now beats at a regular rhythm.
      o Rudimentary blood moves through the main vessels.
  * Week 6 of gestation; week 8 of pregnancy
      o The arms and legs have grown longer, and foot and hand areas can be distinguished.
      o The hands and feet have fingers and toes (digits), but may still be webbed.
      o The brain continues to form.
      o The lungs begin to form.
  * Week 7 of gestation; week 9 of pregnancy
      o Nipples and hair follicles form.
      o Elbows and toes are visible.
      o All essential organs have begun to form.
  * Week 8 of gestation; week 10 of pregnancy
      o The eyelids are more developed.
      o External features of the ear begin to take their final shape.
      o Facial features continue to develop.
      o The intestines rotate.

The end of the eighth week marks the end of the “embryonic period” and the beginning of the “fetal period.”

  * Weeks 9 to 12 of gestation; weeks 11 to 14 of pregnancy
      o Eyelids close and will not reopen until about the 28th week.
      o The face is well formed.
      o Limbs are long and thin.
      o Genitals appear well differentiated.
      o Red blood cells are produced in the liver.
      o The head makes up nearly half of the baby’s size.
      o The baby can make a fist with its fingers.
      o Tooth buds appear for the baby teeth.”

So by 11 weeks of gestation, we have a being with a full complement of human DNA - all 46 chromosome - with all biological features and systems in place, and up and running, just in need of time and energy to develop into the fully-formed, independent neonatal human infant.

———————————————————————-

BJEdwards wrote: “It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to understand that a fertilized egg, a zygote, is NOT a human being; neither a zygote nor an eleven-week old embryo is capable of living on its own as a ‘human being.’ It is, always has been, and always will be, *dependent* on being in the womb of the mother.”

The Catholic Church defines a living being with a full complement of DNA as a “human being” of dignity, of worth, worthy of protection and nurturing from the moment it comes into existence until natural death.

In weighing whether to judge whether any given being is to be viewed as “human”, transitory states through which the being passes are not viewed as integral to the essence of its being. The properties such as growing, feeding, developing, possessing human DNA are permanent features all of us share all our lives - and are evidence of human life. The property of being temporarily dependent on the mother is a transitory state, a stage through which all mammals pass, and therefore is not viewed as solid evidence of one particular classification of life or another.

Your philosophical and ethical system appears to be quite different. Your philosophical and ethical system categorizes things, not according to scientific properties that are permanent and unchanging, but according to scientific properties that are transitory.

Interesting. None of the major philosophical systems on the planet has ever done that. Plato, Aristotle, the Chinese, the ancient Romans, medieval scientists, the scientists of the Enlightenment, all classed living entities according to their permanent, not transitory, qualities.

The caterpillar was not thought to be a separate species from a butterfly. These entities are one: they are two stages of a single creature’s life-cycle. Evidently your philosophical system would define a caterpillar and a butterfly as two distinct creatures.

Recently the Periodic Table of the Elements was revised because it was discovered that isotopes of some of the radioactive elements can feature a range of different atomic weights, but the classifications within the table did not seem to make allowance for these variances. Do we say that Radium-101 is an entirely different class of thing than Radium-102? No, there is a range within which radium’s atomic weight may vary, but still be classified as radium.

Similarly, the Catholic Church notes that the developing human being, while remaining the same in its essence, goes through a variety of stages, during some of which it is very dependent on its mother. But it is still very much a “human being.”

Which philosophical system will prevail in the marketplace of ideas? One that classifies living entities according to their stable and unvarying features? Or one that classifies and reclassifies living entities anew for each transitory stage through which they pass during their stages of development?

The Bishop, and apostle is right and within his rights and duties to make a determination about any institution using the name Catholic, and thereby claiming to be Catholic in the area of his diocese.  The woman who seems to dress not in any habit, as is required by church regulations, is wrong.  Whatever is going on, the institution in question could have changed a policy, practice, or put in place the needed procedures to satisfy the bishop, had those in charge really behaved as Catholic, then the institution would have made any changes needed to satisfy the Bishop.  They should have followed his requests.  The response of the woman in odd garb and her photo tell me about her ideas of obedience, and show me that at best, she is confused about some important information related to her role as a religious, and possibly other areas of her life.  Forming a conscience requires that you form it in accordance with Church teachings, including following the teachers who are the Bishops and indeed apostles.  Whatever your conscience may tell you, if it disagrees with Church teaching, the Church teaching is to be followed even if your conscience does not like it.  This is because such conscience would be damaged and in need of reform before it can be followed.  The idea that any conscience is supreme is false, all must form it in accordance with the mind of the Church.  Otherwise everyone is his own Pope.

All the defense of the hospital is based on a lack of clarity of what actually happened.  To attack Dr Nadal’s analysis as ‘post hoc’ might be correct, but in effect such attacks are used as the equivalent of throwing sand in the air to confuse the matter, in order to justify what the hospital did regardless of what it did, or to justify what the hospital might have done.

Some defenders of the hospital use this confusion to argue a pro-abortion position based on the age of the fetus, which is clearly not Catholic nor permitted to Catholics.  Others argue the rights of conscience, without taking into account the terrible consequences which can arise when conscience, no matter how loud, is wrong.

A clear statement from hospital authorities that they believe they did not authorize and commit a direct abortion would be helpful.  Did they make such a statement?

I’m exasperated by the use of “Catholic” by so many institutions that thumb their collective noses at the church and its teachings.  This includes hospitals, such as St. Joseph’s in Phoenix, but also colleges and universities.  I would like to see bishops around the US apply this same canon law to revoke the right of abortion and homosexuality supporting colleges / universities to call themselves catholic.  These institutions are intentionally misrepresenting themselves as catholic when they openly contradict the church’s teachings.  Why are they not sued for misrepresentation?