Yesterday I reported on the situation between Phoenix Bishop Thomas Olmsted and St. Joseph’s Medical Center, which operates in his diocese as a Catholic hospital and whose parent company, Catholic Healthcare West, has been slow to comply with the good bishop’s requirements that it implement in his diocese the U.S. bishop’s Ethical and Religious Directives (ERDs) concerning healthcare as he understands them.
What happens will depend in significant measure on the decisions of Lloyd Dean (pictured), the president and CEO of Catholic Healthcare West.
To make a long story short, Bishop Olmsted has threatened to “publicly revoke [his] endorsement of St. Joseph’s Hospital as a ‘Catholic’ hospital.”
The result may already be known by the time you read this (reports on Thursday indicated that the parties were in discussion, trying to work out an agreement), but whichever way it goes, there are some interesting canonical aspects to this case—and we’re likely to hear more about the story in the future.
So let’s get to it . . .
Who Gets to Be a Catholic Hospital?
Some in the press (including folks who should know better), have been claiming that this doesn’t mean that the hospital would have to stop calling itself “Catholic.”
For example, USA Today states:
St. Joseph’s would not be required to stop calling itself Catholic. . . . Numerous Catholic institutions, from universities to hospitals to publications, call themselves Catholic without being affiliated directly with the church. St. Joseph’s has no official connection with the bishop, but it was founded by the Sisters of Mercy, a Catholic religious order.
And the National Catholic Reporter (not Register) states:
St. Joseph’s has no official connection with the bishop, but it was founded by the Sisters of Mercy, a Catholic religious order.
Numerous Catholic institutions, from universities to hospitals to publications, including the National Catholic Reporter, view themselves as Catholic without being directly affiliated with the official church.
The terms “affiliated directly,” “official connection,” and “directly affiliated” are canonically ambiguous. I don’t know what they mean, other than that St. Joseph’s Medical Center (and the Reporter and many other institutions) are not directly owned, operated, or erected by the bishop.
What I do know is that the Code of Canon Law says the following:
Can. 216 Since they participate in the mission of the Church, all the Christian faithful have the right to promote or sustain apostolic action even by their own undertakings, according to their own state and condition. Nevertheless, no undertaking is to claim the name Catholic without the consent of competent ecclesiastical authority.
And:
Can. 300 No association is to assume the name Catholic without the consent of competent ecclesiastical authority according to the norm of can. 312.
The competent ecclesiastical authority for a hospital operating in a particular diocese being the diocesan bishop:
Can. 312 §1. The authority competent to erect public associations is:
1/ the Holy See for universal and international associations;
2/ the conference of bishops in its own territory for national associations, that is, those which from their founding are directed toward activity throughout the whole nation;
3/ the diocesan bishop in his own territory, but not a diocesan administrator, for diocesan associations, except, however, for those associations whose right of erection has been reserved to others by apostolic privilege.
§2. Written consent of the diocesan bishop is required for the valid erection of an association or section of an association in a diocese even if it is done by virtue of apostolic privilege. Nevertheless, the consent given by a diocesan bishop for the erection of a house of a religious institute is also valid for the erection in the same house or church attached to it of an association which is proper to that institute.
The bottom line is that the term “Catholic” implies that an initiative is run or at least accepted and approved by the Catholic Church and that it operates under Catholic theological and moral principles. The Church doesn’t want people misled by initiatives that claim to be Catholic but act in non-Catholic ways (e.g., “Catholics for Choice”). Consequently, to use the name “Catholic” you need the approval of the competent ecclesiastical authority.
It doesn’t matter whether you “call” or “view” yourself as Catholic. You can even be a Catholic institution and yet not have the right to call yourself that, as illustrated by the case of Catholic schools:
Can. 803 §1. A Catholic school is understood as one which a competent ecclesiastical authority or a public ecclesiastical juridic person directs or which ecclesiastical authority recognizes as such through a written document.
§2. The instruction and education in a Catholic school must be grounded in the principles of Catholic doctrine; teachers are to be outstanding in correct doctrine and integrity of life.
§3. Even if it is in fact Catholic, no school is to bear the name Catholic school without the consent of competent ecclesiastical authority.
In light of these canons, the press should avoid such blithe statements regarding whether an institution can licitly be called “Catholic” when the competent local bishop says it is not a Catholic organization.
Who Gets to Interpret the Directives?
Another interesting canonical aspect of the case concerns the interpretation of the USCCB’s Ethical and Religious Directives, which Bishop Olmsted believes were violated. The ERDs do not address every possible medical situation explicitly, and so judgment is required to discern how a particular directive applies to a particular medical case. According to Bishop Olmsted, St. Joseph’s Medical Center violated the following directive (ERD 47):
Operations, treatments, and medications that have as their direct purpose the cure of a proportionately serious pathological condition of a pregnant woman are permitted when they cannot be safely postponed until the unborn child is viable, even if they will result in the death of the unborn child.
Because we aren’t privy to all the medical facts of the case, it’s impossible to determine which parts of this directive Bishop Olmsted believes were not fulfilled (was the direct purpose a cure? was it proportionately serious? could it not be safely postponed? what do we mean by “safely”? was the child already viable? was it not an operation on the mother that left the child intact but instead a direct dismemberment of the child?). Despite this, Bishop Olmsted seems to be making a reasonable claim in asserting that the local bishop has the right, at least in ambiguous cases, to determine the application of the bishops’ directives as they are exercised in his own diocese. It is not practical, on a medically sensitive case, to consult the entire body of U.S. bishops regarding the meaning and application of a directive, and so it would naturally fall to the local bishop to make this call.
How Might This Get Resolved?
Because different bishops might have different takes on the meaning and application of particular directives, this suggests a way that Catholic Healthcare West might respond to Bishop Olmsted’s requirements. As you may recall, his letter to CHW stated:
1. CHW must acknowledge in writing that the medical procedure that resulted in the abortion at St. Josephs’ hospital was a violation of ERD 47, and so will never occur again at St. Joseph’s Hospital.
2. CHW must agree to a review and certification process conducted by the Medical Ethics Board of the Diocese of Phoenix to ensure full compliance with the Ethical and Religious Directives of the USCCB. The Bishop and his representative from the Medical Ethics Board must have appropriate access to their facilities and protocols for review. (As hospitals and health care organizations submit to similar kinds of certifications from the government or from medical oversight organizations, it should not be unusual to have a group from the Catholic Diocese to certify that hospitals run by CHW are in full compliance with Catholic moral teaching).
3. CHW must agree to provide for the medical staff at St. Joseph’s Hospital ongoing formation on the ERD’s, as overseen by either the National Catholic Bioethics Center or the Medical Ethics Board of the Diocese of Phoenix.
If I were CHW, and if I were trying to work out a solution with Bishop Olmsted, I would accede to his second two requirements immediately and, in compliance with the first, I would propose a text like:
Catholic Healthcare West acknowledges that the medical procedure that resulted in the abortion at St. Joseph’s Hospital was a violation of ERD 47 as interpreted by the competent ecclesiastical authority, the local bishop in whose diocese the hospital operates, and so will it never occur again at St. Joseph’s Hospital.
And it would be somewhat hard for Bishop Olmsted to refuse such a formulation since he can scarcely claim to decide for all bishops everywhere how ERD 47 applies to particular medical cases.
What’s Going to Happen Next?
Hard to say, and it depends on what Catholic Healthcare West decides to do, but I expect there to be more on this case.
F’rinstance: CHW also operates another facility—Chandler Regional Hospital—which does not identify itself as Catholic—despite being run by CHW—and which according to Bishop Olmsted, “authorizes sterilizations and I know not what other immoral acts.”
The fact that it doesn’t identify as a Catholic institution—but is nevertheless run by an institution that does identify as Catholic (i.e., Catholic Healthcare West)—creates an interesting canonical situation, and Bishop Olmsted refers to addressing this situation in the near future, saying, “I recognize that my objections to how Chandler Regional operates are more involved, but I would foresee us needing to address those directly in the near future.”
He also (more than once) calls into question whether Catholic Healthcare West can be considered a Catholic organization, leading to another interesting question . . .
How Big Is This Story Going to Get?
You see, the thing is, Catholic Healthcare West is (as its name suggests) an initiative designed to serve the western part of the country, and it operates medical facilities in a variety of dioceses located in California, Arizona, and Nevada.
You can see a list of the facilities here.
Because CHW is a regional rather than a national or local organization, it falls squarely between the cracks of numbers 2 and 3 of Canon 312 §1, quoted above. The fact it operates regionally makes it the concern of more than one bishop, but not the whole conference of bishops. The most logical way to parse the situation is to say that the local facilities it runs are subject to the jurisdiction of the local bishops in whose territories they fall, while its home office is the proper subject of the bishop in whose territory its home office is located—which is to say, Archbishop George Niederauer of San Francisco.
This is why he gets carboned on the letter Bishop Olmsted sent, to keep him in the loop.
Only the situation is more complex than that since the case of a regional entity like this isn’t explicitly dealt with in the Code, and so Rome may need to be involved in how the case is resolved, which is why Archbishop Pietro Sambi (the Vatican’s “nuncio” or ambassador to the United States) is also carboned in the letter, to keep him in the loop.
The stage is therefore set (depending on what CHW decides to do, or has been doing) for this story to “go regional”—spreading across other dioceses in the western U.S., and especially the Archdiocese of San Francisco—or even “go global” (in a sense) if the Holy See gets involved and establishes canonical or moral principles that have application everywhere.
Time will tell.
What do you think?
Comments
Post a Comment
Thanks for posting this, Jimmy. So very few of us have the wherewithal to study canon law—appreciate the breakdown. As you state, the implications of this case are quite big. And not, perhaps, just for institutions that are Catholic in name ... This also touches on a very important issue which will have much more serious ramifications, i.e. freedom of religious practice among Catholic healthcare providers. —And the term “providers” is used in the broadest sense: hospitals, clinics, health organizations & networks, as well as all those who work in medicine (doctors, advanced practice professionals, pharmacists, nurses, etc.). Because so much of the uproar here has to do with the practice of medicine and the supposed “standard of care” (which I think is more like saying, “everyone else is doing it”) colliding with the teachings of the Church in the arena of bioethics.
One would think that an individual (or entity) could deliver medical care in a manner totally consistent with its religious credo under the protection of the first amendmnet.
But then, we wouldn’t need such things as “conscience protection” clauses and such. Until that happens, many good people who work in medicine (myself included) will have to plan for the possibility of “green martyrdom” or else compromise their principles.
As a point of clarification, under US law, anyone can call themselves “Catholic” without any affiliation with the Church, and many do, e.g. the “Anglican Catholic Church.” Unlike Scientology, the term “Catholic” is not trademarked, or trademarkable, so ordinary free speech principles apply.
Above and beyond the issue of whether or not St Joseph’s Hospital continues to identify itself as a Catholic hospital are many issues that will concern the non-Catholic public. Will Catholic hospitals be required to inform patients of Catholic doctrine and offer them the opportunity to transfer to a secular hospital? What about trauma patients and others who are unconscious and unable to identify their religious preferences? (St Joseph’s has a Level I trauma center.) Will insurance companies be required to offer secular hospital options on their provider panels? What should first responders do when the closest secular ER is “closed” (as they sometimes are during the winter due to volume) and the next nearest ER is Catholic? I support Bishop Olmsted. He is a blessing to the Diocese of Phoenix. As a Catholic nurse, it would be a dream come true for me if all hospitals practiced according to Catholic doctrine. But, I submit that regardless of whether St Joseph’s is stripped of it’s Catholic identity, this case is likely to generate ongoing debate with regard to Catholic hospitals.
Curious note by ER. From the list Jimmy published, requiring the hospital to change its name was not one of the actions the bishop would take. The actions he does list more directly disassociates the Church from the hospital. I prefer substance over form. More importantly, all are in his power. I’m just glad the bishop is carrying the full weight of his office. We should pray for all of our bishops as the office is a heavy responsibility.
This follow-up to your first post shows real signs of growth and a more complete understanding of the situation in its entirety. Thank you for taking the courageous path rather than the predictable. Progress is made and truth is revealed (and scandal is avoided) when people grapple with situations intelligently and honestly. You are a good man for showing readers that this truly is not as cut and dried as many are trying to make it out to be.
The issues raised by Deborah’s comment are a bit silly. Catholic hospitals aren’t new and neither are there administration. The Church has been operating hospitals for centuries without facing problems such as those. Of the countless number of possible medical procedures, there are something around three that a Catholic hospital should not permit to occur in its facilities. Catholic hospitals all over the world provide competent and appropriate care to untold numbers of people of all religious affiliations.
Jimmy, isn’t in fact the case that the local ordinary, and not the episcopal conference, is the appropriate authority in such a case, regardless of the practicality of consulting the conference? The episcopal conference is not, generally speaking, a law-making body (excepting a few responsibilities delegated to it by universal law). So it’s not clear that a document such as the ERD has the force of law absent its promulgation by individual bishops. The bishop, not the conference, is the legislator for his diocese. So it seems somewhat imprecise to discuss His Excellency’s actions as a merely practical necessity, when by all accounts they were the legally appropriate exercise of jurisdiction. Or am I interpreting the canons (forgive me for not citing) incorrectly?
Deadline extended to Tuesday…
http://www.diocesephoenix.org/NEWS-RELEASE-DIOCESE-OF-PHOENIX-121710.pdf
The extension is good news. Perhaps the bishop read Michael Sean Winter’s latest commentary on the fiasco and is doing a bit of soul-searching and coming to the realization that he just might have come down a bit too heavy handed and un-pastoral. Read it here: http://www.ncronline.org/blogs/distinctly-catholic/mess-phoenix
I am having trouble finding the details of the procedure. The Hospital claims they performed another procedure which resulted in the abortion. What are the facts?
Peace in Christ,
Carolyn Hyppolite
carolynhyppolite.blogstpot.com
Carolyn, a good backgrounder on this case can be found here:
http://www.americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=12348
Your choice to run the picture of Mr. Dean so prominently next to this commentary is interesting. I have a hunch about your motives, but probably shouldn’t say it out loud.
Thank You, Andrew. If the information given in America Magazine is accurate. It seems to be that the Hospital was in complaince with Catholic moral theology. What is the problem? Why the excommunication? What am I missing?
Peace in Christ,
Carolyn Hyppolite
carolynhyppolite.blogspot.com
Carolyn, I think what a lot of folks are missing is a truly pastoral approach when it comes to applying our church’s longstanding moral tradition. What should be addressed intelligently and thoughtfully has turned into simple lists of dos and don’ts with no desire for truly understanding a particular situation with all its complicated factors. When moral decision-making is dumbed down like this, it makes it easier for people who aren’t willing to go to the trouble of really understanding in a genuinely Christian way. It’s all about making things simple and needing to feel right. Jesus went after the pharisees for this very sin.
What you’re missing, Carolyn, has nothing to do with the morals of the case, but with the bishop trying to wield his power. A lot of ‘em are doing this now days because they feel powerless. It’s ironic because they more they do stuff like this, the more they undermine their own authority.
The extension of the deadline seems to imply that, at least in the opinion of the bishop, the negotiations currently ongoing might be brought to a positive conclusion. For that we should all be thankful.
As to the question of the other hospital…well, if the hospital doesn’t self-identify as “Catholic” but the organization does, it seems to me that the proper authority over those questions would be the bishop of San Francisco, where the organization is domiciled and its administrators reside.
I am not in favor of abortion. However medical ethics are not simplistic. Do we know or do we have to know all the particulars of this case. For example, was the mother’s life in danger? While i might choose to let my child live, a mother with many children might say, “The child will die without me.” Sometimes the Bishops get into women’s business..I site the case in South America where a 9 year old child was raped by her father or step dad and became pregnant with twins. Any mother knows a 9 year old is not capable of giving birth without serious complications to twins. The Archbishop in a show of power excommunnicated the doctor, the mother ...everyone except the child (who was under the age of consent…but still expected by the bishop to deliver twins) and everyone except the rapist.
I want to give the bishop the benefit of the doubt, but Akin listing the canon law for us is not helpful. In fact, it just occurred to me that I am governed by canon law that I have never read, that are numerous, and entrusted to expert. If these are the laws that govern us than we need to be catechized in them by the Church. We are not even encouraged to look at them.
More importantly, the point is not whether canon says that the bishop can decide who is Catholic but whether the bishop himself is subject to canon law. Does canon permit the bishop excommunicate as he wishes or does he have to abide by certain rules? Was the defendent given an opportunity to defend herself? Has the bishops made public the reasoning behind his conclusion? Does he simply get to say, “Do what I say or you are out?”
I want to be clear that I am absolutely pro-life. I have worked as a pro-life volunteer. I have walked, raised money, given money, worked in a crisis pregnancy center. I am not defending abortion. What I think there should be openness in the process and the bishop does not get to exclude people as he wishes.
Peace in Christ,
Carolyn Hyppolite
carolynhyppolite.blogspot.com
The bishop only owes the public the truth - which was very thoroughly explained in the first letetr yesterday. If these hospitals receive the Catholic label and act in a way that does not show that they will honor Catholic teaching, they are stripped of their Catholic label. That’s it - no further discussion. Some posters here seem to think the bishop is accountable to all in society to explain his actions so they can be immediately second-guessed.. youre missing the point, as I’m guessing CHW will do as well.
The only thing the letter made clear, Cr, is that Olmsted wants to be bowed to like a king. His predecessors, the Apostles, would’ve kicked him out of the club if he’d acted like that in front of them.
CR,
The bishop has a moral responsible to explain to Catholics terms by which their belonging to the Catholic Church can be revoked. Now, if those terms are “do what I say or you are out,” we need to know that so that we at least know where we stand. On the other hand, if there are specific rules that cannot be violated. He needs to show us clearly and openly how those rules were violated.
I have a problem with the secrecy with which these things are debated and decided. I think it could use a little sunlight.
Peace in Christ,
Carolyn Hyppolite
carolynhyppolite.blogspot.com
“Your choice to run the picture of Mr. Dean so prominently next to this commentary is interesting. I have a hunch about your motives, but probably shouldn’t say it out loud.”
I have been a reader of Jimmy’s personal blog for years. He regularly includes pictures of involved parties with his posts (so much so that it really stands out when there is not a picture at the top of a post).
So I doubt your hunch is correct.
A fuller understanding of the Bishop’s position might be had by reviewing several of the ERD’s together, reproduced below. #45 is quite explicit about direct abortion. # 47 refers to proceedures which might inadvertently - or at least without direct intent to abort - result in an abortion. This is supported by #48 and its footnote that refers back to #45. Direct Abortion is intrinsically evil. Another act, done for moral purposes which inadvertently (but perhaps even forseeably) causes abortion would be allowed under #47. But #45 does not condone direct abortion.
45. Abortion (that is, the directly intended termination of pregnancy before viability or the directly intended destruction of a viable fetus) is never permitted. Every procedure whose sole immediate effect is the termination of pregnancy before viability is an abortion, which, in its moral context, includes the interval between conception and implantation of the embryo. Catholic health care institutions are not to provide abortion services, even based upon the principle of material cooperation. In this context, Catholic health care institutions need to be concerned about the danger of scandal in any association with abortion providers.
46. Catholic health care providers should be ready to offer compassionate physical, psychological, moral, and spiritual care to those persons who have suffered from the trauma of abortion.
47. Operations, treatments, and medications that have as their direct purpose the cure of a proportionately serious pathological condition of a pregnant woman are permitted when they cannot be safely postponed until the unborn child is viable, even if they will result in the death of the unborn child.
27
48. In case of extrauterine pregnancy, no intervention is morally licit which constitutes a direct abortion.31
Footnote 31. Cf. directive 45.
Sorry, my last sentence should have read:
“But #47 does not condone direct abortion.”
Jimmy, kudos for continuing to clarify this often cloudy situation. Where in the world were these “bashing” bishop voices when liberal bishops were literally destroying their dioceses with lackluster teaching and proper enforcement of our faith & morals?
You are correct, Kevin, all of these directives come into play, especially 47. And the hosp. has said repeatedly that the procedure was not a direct abortion. The child died as a result of double-effect, which is licit and is the reason dir. 47 exists.
Len-
That is where we disagree. It comes down to what the intent was in the proceedure to determine whether 47 comes into effect. From what I have read, it would appear that the direct intent (albeit to treat the mother) was to abort the child, rather than to perform some other procedure to help the mother. Had the intent been to do some other treatment, and the loss of the child happened as a consequence of that, then 47 would come into play, along with the doctrine of double effect. The doctrine of double effect, however, never applies when the action taken (in this case direct abortion) is intrinsically evil.
Yes, Kevin, you and I will just have to be satisfied with the fact that we disagree, and our disagreement lies not so much in the notion that one is absolutely right and the other absolutely wrong, but in the reality that life itself is messy and unclear. Humanity will be forever getting things sort of right and kind of worng. And it won’t be until our absolutist, quick-to-condemn church embraces this fact that we will indeed be modeling what Christ asks of us as His body.
Len,
I think you missed Kevin’s point. Right now most news accounts out there say that the doctors performed a direct abortion, not some other procedure indirectly causing an abortion. You seem to believe that they were performing some other procedure. Can you tell us what the basis for that belief is? I.e. a news account, etc. This is an honest question—I am just unaware of any accounts saying that the hospital did anything other than a direct abortion.
Yeah, the “Old Catholic Church” down the street can call itself “Catholic” but it doesn’t mean it is in communion with the local Diocese. Since Catholic Healthcare West already runs “non-Catholic” hospitals not only in the Diocese of Phoenix but also in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, why don’t they just agree to remove the “Catholic” part of the indentification for this hospital as well if they can’t in “good conscience” obey their local Bishop.
Titus said: “The issues raised by Deborah’s comment are a bit silly.”
Titus, there are many “silly” people in this world. Judging by the comments following the article about this issue at azcentral.com (the Phoenix news), there are many people who do not wish to be taken to St. Joseph’s in the event of an emergency. There are many anti-Catholic folks. With all the publicity this issue is generating, it is likely that the very questions I presented will come up. I’m not sure where you reside but I live in Phoenix, have been an RN for 30+ years and worked in St Joseph’s ER at the time the patient in question was hospitalized. I could be wrong but the debate surrounding this issue I have heard in this community over the past year is what prompted me to submit my post. You may disagree but calling the questions “silly” comes across as condescending.
It’s cut and dry insubordination. A “Catholic” hospital doing procedures in direct violation of Catholic Church teaching. A good Bishop reigning in the abuse…and the secular media gets it all wrong.
Boy, what a surprise! (NOT)
He’s doing his job, more should follow his lead.
I hope St Joe’s refuses olmsteads offer and continues to call itself a Catholic Hospital after all the Sisters of Mercy support Sister McBride and so just because they don’t ascribe to olmstead’s brand doesn’t mean they cannot cont’ be Catholic. Why not be catholic in affiliation with a more reasonable bishop as I’m sure there are some out there. I’m sure in other states the bishops aren’t interfering in hospital decisions as olmstead feels is his right. There are many birth control procedures done at St Joe’ as well as other facilities that are renamed to disguise their true intent and they have ben overlooked. So why now, and why does this bishop feel it is his duty to bully the doctors and administrators of this hospital? He is out of control. He needs to be dethroned! Enough is enough of this power hungry tyrant. I’d say off with his head but then our fine gov. brewer would blame the illegal aliens and only make the situation worse and our state will continue to be the laughingstock of the country.
When it comes to abortion, it seems we fall into 1 of 5 categories:
1) Pro-life without exception, believes in God
2) Pro-abortion, does not believe in God
3) Pro-life, believes in God but..
4) Pro-abortion, believes in God but..
5) Not religious and doesnt care about abortion
# 1 recognizes that any abortion under any circumstances results in the intentional killing of a child. That God’s plan for that that life is gone forever. That it could impact our future. That a lost child could have grown up to be president or a doctor who finds a cure for cancer. They vote pro-life, they do what they can within their small pocket of the world to help pregnant mothers, and try to change hearts. They pray for the mothers who have lost their child, for the child lost, and for the people who support abortion. They are never afraid to let people know they are pro-life, no matter the mockery or punishment. They really believe that Jesus meant it when He said “Blessed are they are persecuted for what is right, theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven”.
# 2 is a hater of the Catholic Church and her teachings - because she constantly shines the light on those that continue to kill the most innocent in our society. # 2 will use any tactic at his or her disposal to fool others into his or her way of thinking. Lying, manipulation, and twisting words are of no consequence, in their mind the goal is to do or say whatever it takes to destroy the credibility of the Catholic Church or any church that opposes it. With the overall goal of constantly moving focus away from the death of an unborn child. And they believe that their behavior or methods are always excused due to what they believe is their supreme intelligence, since in their mind there is no god but themselves.
# 3 is uncomfortable to become involved with any aspect of abortion, even though they know it’s wrong. At times their faith drives them to do something good for pregnant mothers and the unborn – to financially support a crisis pregnancy center, consistently vote pro-life, or speak the truth. And they do occasionally. However, most of the time they are fearful to speak out against it, and are embarrassed to be seen as pro-life by those they know are not pro-life. Even the minimum of going to pro-life masses or praying for others or supporting pro-life causes financially is pushed out of their minds in favor of things they want to do. They become uncomfortable when #1s are speaking out on the issue or with their brave example/actions, because they fear that they will also be held accountable by the world because they proclaim to follow and know Jesus. And, since they know the good nature of #1, they are well aware they have nothing to fear on earth by criticizing #1, in an attempt to gain the respect of #s 2, 4 and 5. They are lukewarm..
Hmm.. what did Our Lord say about being lukewarm?
# 4 is selling a bill of goods. They proclaim to know better than a bunch of old men who make rules. Their souls are divided, because they still have a need for religion. As a solution in their minds, they go over church teaching and make it their life’s work to convince others that it is ok to be Catholic or religious and still support abortion. And they do fool and corrupt many in their religion. # 2 recognizes this and uses them masterfully until they are no longer needed. Or, until they become a # 2. Their souls are never filled with the spirituality that they desire and they cannot and will never understand why. Lest they enter into sincere prayer and repentance and ask God to reveal the Truth..
# 5 just doesn’t care. They look to the example of the rich and powerful in society to fill the void. He or she is one who need people’s prayers, perhaps the most.
Bishop Olmsted is in the first category. He knows it’s wrong and that he has to do everything within his station and power in life to ensure that it doesn’t happen again, while also being an example of morality to all. If he is to be persecuted, so be it. For Jesus suffered, and any suffering he receives as a result of speaking out is nothing compared to Our Lords suffering.
If we ever aspire to make it to Heaven, we all need to strive to be #1.
Colleen,
I think your summary does not accurately capture the discussion some of us are having. We are asking was there an abortion or some other procedure which resulted in an abortion. I personally want to know the details of the case. I don’t like the Church makes these deliberation in secret and the laity have no access to the basis on which it was decided.
Peace in Christ,
carolynhyppolite.blogspot.com
Carolyn,
Here is a link to the Code of Canon Law:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_INDEX.HTM
It’s probably the most accessible, least secretive system of law in the world—I doubt even your local traffic code is this easy to find, much less understand. By all means, read it, study it, know it. Take a look at canons 1329 §2 and 1398 to see the laws immediately affecting the excommunication in question here.
I think out of context, Bp. Olmsted’s comments can look a little petty. His frequent appeals to his authority look at first glance like he wants to be “bowed down to” as some others here have put it. But the US bishops are acutely aware of the fact that Americans have a strong allergy to authority, and nobody is aware as they are of the fact that the quickest way to diminish your authority is to invoke it. So why does Bp. Olmsted do so?
The reason is that it’s precisely his authority, even more than the procedure itself, that is at question in this case. He is the guardian, so to speak, of the title of “Catholic” in his diocese. The buck ultimately stops at him, and he has to answer in conscience for what goes on in his diocese, especially when it’s done in the name of the Catholic Church. So what he’s saying is not “I am the bishop and my word is law, so it has to be just as I say.” What he’s saying, rather, is “If you are going to call yourselves Catholic, then you are placing a burden on ME to oversee what is done under that title. It won’t be enough in the end to agree to disagree, or for you to find some theologian or ethicist who will back you up. In the end, I may have to answer to God for what is done in the name of the Church entrusted to me. If you will not, when all is said and done, submit to my authority, how can I trust you to call yourselves Catholic?”
Tim,
While I think we could all do well to review canon law. That’s not what I am talking about. I think the facts of the case should be open. I think there if the Church is going to excommunicate people or place institution under interdiction, it should do it through a public process. There should be a public presentation of the charges, and an opportunity to defend them publically. If this institution did kill the innocent child, I will be the first one to support this decision. However, we have two sides telling two different stories and no public exposition of the evidence.
And for the “I am so orthodox” crowd all that matters is that the bishop made a decision. Well, frankly, the bishops over the centuries have made too many stupid or just plain evil decisions for us to buy that. Whether it is burning heretics or letting child molesters run amock, the bishops secrecy and unchecked authority has harmed the Church. It has scandalized the faithful and placed road blocks to evangelization.
And all we are getting is we need to listen to our overlords as they lord it over us. And you’re not Catholic, you’re not Catholic, you’re not Catholic. There’s nothing uncatholic about asking that the facts of the case be made public.
Peace in Christ,
Carolyn Hyppolite
carolynhyppolite.blogspot.com
“I think the facts of the case should be open.”
The most relevant facts for determining whether or not the procedure was permissible are in the patient’s chart and medical history. Surely you’re not asserting that _those_ should be open to public scrutiny?
The death of the baby was not the primary end sought…everyone seems to agree on that. So the only questions are:
1. Whether or not the mother’s medical condition was proportionally serious, and
2. Whether or not there was a way to treat that condition without killing the baby.
Knowing those things would require that we know far more about the details of the mother’s condition than any sane person can say that a member of the general public is entitled to. Basic human decency (not to mention US federal law) prohibits public disclosure of such matters.
Since it is the administrators who being condemned, I think these details could be made available without revealing the name of the person involved, if necessary, we could get the patient’s permission to discuss the case. I can only assume that the bishop was given the details that you just listed. If not, then how did he arrive at his conclusion? Unless we are able to answer questions 1 and 2, we have no case.
Peace,
Carolyn Hyppolite
“...the bishops over the centuries have made too many stupid or just plain evil decisions for us to buy that. Whether it is burning heretics or letting child molesters run amock, the bishops secrecy and unchecked authority has harmed the Church. It has scandalized the faithful and placed road blocks to evangelization.
And all we are getting is we need to listen to our overlords as they lord it over us. And you’re not Catholic, you’re not Catholic, you’re not Catholic. There’s nothing uncatholic about asking that the facts of the case be made public.” CH
I agree.
Code Pink is protesting in front of St. Joe’s . Join them if you are willing and able. Take a stand for transperancy and participation of Catholics re. being involved and made aware of the facts and reasoning behind olmsteads rash treatment of Sr.McBride and St Joe’s Medical Professionals.
I believe olmstead has veered so far to the right in an effort to rail against the status quo but in this quest he is alienating Catholics.
It’s time to end this charade: the demanding of unquestioning support and allegience to the leaders of the Catholic Church. How did they get to be leaders? What exactly is the process? I’m well aware that money and power are involved and of course to be male is a prerequisite for any appointment.
The Catholic Church has rested on its’laurels for far too long (after they have expired). Now is the time to listen and act before it is too late. The world is watching. Your members are paying attention. How you handle this incident is important in the entire scheme of the preservation of this institution because if the outcome is as expected it only adds to the secrecy, the corruption, and belief that all is not right and harmonious in the Catholic Church today.
This incident adds furvur to the call to favor the nuns who are the true carriers and caretakers of the faith: who have served selflessly throughout the years. Even now Sr. McBride has kept silent.In spite of the support she is receiving from her fellow sisters she does not speak out against the unfairness of it all. “Her silence says it,” all as Ed Montini wrote in the AZ Republic in reference to his attempts to contact her and obtain her side of the story.
The priests have historically been made to look good at all costs and by whom? Who has taken the fall for these failable men? Who has comforted the sick, the lost, and the forgotten? Who takes a vow of poverty and upon retirement cont’ to work to take care of others in their convent( if the convent hasn’t ben sold out from under them, as in most cases)?
I implore all Catholic bishops and priests to examine their consciences. Is this a fair system? How many times have you depended on, taken advantage of,or otherwise been given favor over a nuns well being?
Truth, light, and courage!
Furthermore, this type of secrecy does not only come in sensitive medical cases but in all cases. We are never given the details. I have a bunch of friends who have felt the need to cut ties with the group intercessors of the lamb but none of them can explain exactly what their great infraction was. I haven’t been able to find the details on that either. If someone out there knows about that case, please tell me the details.
Peace,
CKH
Part of the problem with Matt’s assessment is that we are balancing a probabilistic assessment (the chances of the mother’s death) with a certainty (death of the baby if an abortion is performed). Doctors have the job of making informed predictions about health matters; but they are also quite frequently wrong about those predictions, because they are ultimately guessing about the future. (Think of all the times that doctors “gave someone” 2 or 3 or 4 months to live, but they were still alive late.) We aren’t even dealing with something where we can *calculate* a probability. Given those facts, which are common to all medical practice, we know without looking at any specific medical records that the doctors decided to lower the risk of the mother’s death by killing the baby. And that is what is morally wrong.
Thus the ethical hypothetical that this situation is supposed to be about—“the mother’s life or the baby’s?”—isn’t really present. Because we live in a real and contingent world, not a book of ethics, those kinds of clean dilemmas don’t exist.
By the way, one other thing to keep in mind is that we may find out a lot more about the actual facts of this case if the mother sues the hospital. Since a number of outside experts have said that an abortion was likely unnecessary, that seems like a pretty good possibility.
Actually, Code Pink is a pro-abortion organization and I would not encourage Catholics to ally with them against the Church. First, I think it is sinful to take an innocent human life or support it. Second, I feel this is a family affair. Third, doing so will only give proof to those who think that a call of transparency and some kind of due process is a secret pro-abortion plot. All I want to advocate for is transparency, which would great benefit the health of the Church.
Peace
carolynhyppolite.blogspot.com
Carolyn: The Bishop, in all probability asked qualified physicians to review the medical records for him and answer specific questions he posed to them to determine if an abortion was performed. Releasing medical records to the general public is of no value unless the general public has sufficient medical knowledge to understand the records. Besides pulmonary hypertension, this mother may have had other medical factors affecting the situation. What, if any, medications were given to the mother in an attempt to treat her disease process prior to ending the life of her baby is also pertinent. At some point we have to trust people who are more qualified than ourselves. Do you not believe that Bishop Olmsted is intelligent enough to get input from qualified physicians on the matter? He is a thoughtful, intelligent and humble man. I’m certain that he felt, after communicating about the matter with CHW for nearly a year, that he had no choice but to send the letter that he did on Nov 22nd. This isn’t an “agree to disagree” matter. The Bishop has the last word and, no, all matters of the Church do not have to be open for public debate.
Deborah,
I know nothing about the bishop’s intelligence, thoughfulness, and humility nor do I think they are relevant. Intelligence people make bad decisions all the time. And specifically, Church authorities have made and continue to make bad decisions. Furthermore, it is dangerous to give anyone human being, no matter how thoughful, intelligent and humble, unchecked authority. Power corrupts; it corrupts politicians and bishops alike. The evidence from Church history is simply too numerous to ignore. I was watching an Amish excommunication documentary recently and while the bishops made an equally power hungry bad decision to excommunicate, at the very least, the community was allowed to attend the trial and the defendant was able to present his case publically. As a result, members of the community were secretly doing things like giving food the shunned man. Although they did not dare speak up, their actions show that they thought their bishops was wrong.
Even recent Church history is full of theologians who were condemned and then pardoned. At the beginning of the century, the Church condemned tons of biblical scholars. These condemnations were later reverse.
I am not willing say that someone is no longer a member of the body of Christ given these secretive and authoritarian processes. The bishops can excommunicate me for having or participating in an abortion; they cannot excommunicate me for not thinking that someone is fairly excommunicated.
Peace in Christ,
Carolyn Hyppolite
carolynhyppolite.blogspot.com
As I tried to explain in some of my earlier posts, the question is NOT, according to Catholic Moral Theology the question that Matt poses. It never gets there. Direct Abortion (and I have yet to see any source indicate that this was not a direct abortion - that is the direct taking of an innocent human life) is ALWAYS in inherent evil. ERD 47 never comes into play in the case of a direct abortion. ERD 47 does involve the moral doctrine of double effect. But applying it to a case where the action being taken is an inherent evil simply is a misapplication of the doctrine. As an example, I would again call your attention to ERD 48 above. If proportionality were a test that could justify direct abortion, why would ERD 48 be necessary - in fact, it references back to 45, which is the controlling ERD in this case. The ERD’s were a result of a long (and continuing) history of church teachings on these subjects. They were, in fact just rewritten a few years ago due to some clarifications in universal teachings.
These are not simply decisions made by a single bishop (who is exercising his responsibility in making them) - they reflect a reliance on many years of teaching by the church. Teachings that actually are quite complex - because the subject matter is complex. Teachings that do rely on the lastest available scientific evidence, coupled with the moral teachings of the church down through the centuries. Unfortunately, we have done a poor job on passing on those teachings. But they are available - in papal and Church documents, in scholarly writings - Dr. William May’s book Catholic Bioethics is an excellent and current work that incorporates many of the recent church documents.
It has been said many times that the Church is not a democracy. In our American society we are brought up believing that if something is not open to debate or vote, it is suspect. Sorry, but Jesus did not found a democracy - he gave the keys to Peter - and ever since, despite the weaknesses of human fraility, that is how the Church has - and will continue - to live and grow- under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. No one can deny that human weakness has brought some evils into the Church over the years. And the Church constantly has renewed itself and moved forward.
Might I humbly suggest that before you protest the decisions of a Bishop (who I believe is acting bravely in defense of the faith), could you take some time to study the history of the teachings and see how they work. It is not like a rule book where you read a few things and become expert. ERD’s while a very important statement by the USCCB on the matter are not the whole story. Its kind of like reading the Cliff Notes version - you miss the history and rationales that missing information can lead to unfortunate misinterpertaions. I myself am far from expert - but I know a bit about where these rules come from. And yes, I do rely on the Church and her Magisterium to fill in the gaps for me. To me, that is why Jesus left Peter the keys. God Bless.
Carolyn, it sounds to me as if you accept no authority. Do you accept the authority of the Pope? Are you a physician or nurse qualified to review the medical records in this case and understand all the rationale behind treatment options and the pharmacological effects of medications on the disease process in this case? If not, then it would be wise to defer to those who do. You’re coming across as arrogant to me. The Bishop is not excommunicating anyone. His letter is informing CHW that they must follow the ERD and understand why the procedure performed was considered an abortion in the eyes of the Catholic Church if they want to continue to promote St Joe’s as a Catholic hospital. The Bishop did privately inform Sr McBride that she excommunicated herself in approving the abortion. The information was leaked to the press and he issued a statement in response to their questions. I’ve read on another news source that the excommunication has been lifted. Perhaps this was done through the sacrament of reconciliation. That is surely no one’s business except Sr McBride, God and her confessor. You seem to have a great deal of animosity toward anyone with authority in the Church.
Deborah,
We have a problem if every time someone raises a question they are deemed a rebel. I suspect if more people had raised question earlier we could have been spared the expensive and scandalizing sex abuse crisis. I think uncheck authority to act secretly and without question is dangerous and that its result in Church history has been as damaging as one would expect. Another poster said the Church is not a democracy. Well, there was a time in the Church when the laity voted in their bishops. St. Ambrose was voted in by popular acclamation. I am not saying that we should go back to this. There are many weaknesses the democractic model but we seem to think that all things are exactly as they are today and anyone who suggests a modest change, like a transparent process is a heretic.
No, I am not a medical professional but a lot of people are and I think having an open process would allow knowledge people to consider the issue. Also, you excommunicated yourself or you have been excommunicated is practically the same thing. All I am saying is sunlight is a great disinfectant.
There is nothing arrogant about asking for an open process. I also have no amnimosity towards Church authorities. I happen to like my bishop and I liked the last one. What I have a problem with a principle is unchecked authority and secrecy. I think these things are dangerous for the Church. More people are scandalized by the results of these things than anything I am saying.
Peace
Carolyn Hyppolite
Carolyn,
Bishop Olmstead does not have “unchecked authority.” He answers to the Pope. Pope Benedict, in his wisdom, has been working towards the removal of the name “Catholic” to hospitals and university’s that ARE NOT Catholic anymore for a while now.
I couldn’t be more pleased.
Well, I have a plane to catch.
Merry Christmas,
Carolyn Hyppolite
Of course the bishop has unchecked authority. In the last sentence of his third paragraph His Excellency wrote, “And the theology of the Catholic Faith, as concretized in the Code of Canon Law, dispels any doubt whose opinion on matters of faith and morals is decisive for institutions in the Diocese of Phoenix.” It would be reassuring if his prudence and circumspection were equally beyond doubt. At least we can be certain of his authority.
“And the theology of the Catholic Faith, as concretized in the Code of Canon Law, dispels any doubt whose opinion on matters of faith and morals is decisive for institutions in the Diocese of Phoenix.”
Of course, he is the Bishop. It’s his job to oversee what goes on in his diocese.
If he did nothing, and allowed this scandal to continue, he would have to answer to the Holy Father (and ultimately to God,) for his inaction.
(And, conversely, if the good Bishop were wrong, the Holy Father would step in and correct him. But that’s NOT going to happen. Bishop Olmstead is following his God given moral duty.)
What impressive stones we’ve gathered to brutally avenge the villains in this tragedy! Wouldn’t even the most righteous person find himself at the other end of the pelting if all the world knew of his worst sins?
I realize that not everyone contributing to this forum resides in Phoenix and, given the state of the Catholic Church in America, we have come to the sad realization that not everyone in position of authority in our Church is orthodox when it comes to following Church doctrine. Having said that, if it is of any consolation to anyone, I am a resident of Phoenix who attends mass at the Cathedral almost daily. I’ve listened to many homilies of our good Bishop and have observed his behavior and demeanor. He is a humble and caring man. It would be my guess that he is a shy person by nature and probably abhors all the attention this issue is getting. Nevertheless, he is not afraid to perform his duties thoughtfully and diligently. I trust him completely to have made the proper investigation of the matter before he issued the letter to CHW in September. Just my 2 cents.
Catholics for Choice is not a non-Catholic institution. Its name is a literal description of its membership: faithful Catholics who believe abortion should remain legal by the laws of man and that using birth control is compatible with a responsible Catholic life.
@Carolyn: I would understand your point about wanting to shed light on the process - if it were everyone else’s business.
The sacrament of Reconciliation does just that: sheds light where we try to garner darkness and helps us to see where we were blind. But it is also a PRIVATE process - Thank God.
A previous poster mentioned this: opening up the facts “necessary” for the general public to weigh in on the process would be an absolute violation of patient privacy, not to mention completely unnecessary.
The procedure which was procured appears to have been a direct abortion. (If anyone has facts to the contrary, by all means say so.) That being said, there isn’t anything else we *need* to know.
There is a very big difference between a procedure which is intended to end pregnancy and one that intends to cure disease while incidentally ending pregnancy. I am speaking as a medical professional here: to my knowledge, there are no disease processes that can licitly utilize DIRECT ABORTION as a means for a cure.
Anyone who justifies procuring a DIRECT abortion automatically excommunicates him/herself.
To be clear: in cases where pregnancy endangers the life of the mother, many options should be sought to preserve her life, even if this means that the child may not survive. However, this cannot be done by means of a direct abortion. The specific act of direct abortion is never medically necessary nor morally licit.
@DRF: because abortion and birth control are contrary to the Magisterial teaching of the Church, one cannot both be in favor of those entities and still be a *faithful* Catholic. This is a contradiction in terms.
For more on “responsible Catholic life,” try reading “Love and Responsibility” by Karol Wojtyla (Pope John Paul II).
Rachel,
I am afraid that saying that an institution is not a Catholic institution is a public matter. Catholics make decisions about what institutions to visit or donate money to based on their affiliation with the Catholic Church. Therefore, it matters whether the bishops says this is not a Catholic institution. This makes it a matter for the whole body.
I also think the excommunication is a public matter. In the early Church, the excommunicated used to have to do public penance. It was just a matter between you and Jesus but you, Jesus and his whole body.
Peace in Christ,
Carolyn Hyppolite
carolynhyppolite.blogspot.com
It’s an oversimplification to say that anyone who procures an abortion “automatically” incurs excommunication.
On the one hand, the Church’s law recognizes that the direct taking of a human life, especially by abortion, does grave harm to the communion of the Church. It does such grave harm, in fact, that one can incur excommunication by the very commission of the act. The penalty does not need to be imposed by any authority, although an authority (like Bp. Olmsted in this case) can declare that it has been incurred.
On the other hand, the conditions that must be met in order for any penalty to be incurred are quite stringent, and they are even more stringent for a latae sententiae penalty (i.e., a so-called automatic penalty) to be incurred. Among other things, nobody incurs a latae sententiae penalty if they are acting under grave fear or grave inconvenience, which almost any pregnant woman in danger of death would certainly be doing. Ed Peters (whom nobody has ever accused of being a bleeding heart) has opined that it is nearly impossible for any pregnant woman (whether in danger of death or not) who procures an abortion to incur a latae sententiae excommunication. Note that this does not change the nature of the act, and it is only tangentially related to moral culpability, but it removes or diminishes any legal culpability. That’s probably why the only one (as far as I know) whose excommunication was declared was the sister who approved the procedure.
I mention this for two reasons: first, I think people need to be careful when they talk about “automatic” excommunications. Second, I think an understanding of sanctions, especially latae sententiae sanctions, shows that Bp. Olmsted was not acting like an authoritarian. He didn’t excommunicate anybody, in the sense that he did not impose a (ferendae senentiae) penalty at all. He just declared that all the conditions were present that resulted in the sister incurring an excommunication.
One final note: excommunication does NOT cut you off from the body of Christ. If that were the case, you would have to be rebaptized in order to come back to the Church, which we know is impossible. Excommunication is not even a state of the soul akin to the state of mortal sin. Rather, it is a legal state. It is a recognition that there has been a rupture in communion.
Catholics for a Free Choice is not a Catholic organization, but a front group for pro abortion advocates who want to fool faithful Catholics into believing one can support abortion and still be in good standing with the church. When Catholics for a Free Choice spread their propaganda on the national Democrat Party website, the Catholic bishops asked the Democrat Party to remove it because it falsely portrayed the church’s teachings while pretending to be some sort of authority. (I found it quite interesting that Nancy Pelosi even quoted CFC head Frances Kisling’s false explanation of the Church’s historic opposition to abortion.)
I guess anyone can use the word Catholic in their title, but it doesn’t make them Catholic. I wouldn’t be surprised to see future organizations calling themselves “Catholics for Adultery,” “Catholics for Homosexual Relations,” “Catholics for Euthanasia,” or any other intrinsic evil one can think of, but none of these would be considered faithful Catholics.
What Bishop Olmstead did was to work with the hospital group privately and with Sr. McBride privately, and it sure wasn’t he who released the details. He does not owe outside parties an explanation or defense for doing what he is obligated to do as shepherd and pastor. He has tried to save the face of those involved, but they are th eones trying to put pressure on the bishop to continue doing what they want rather than submitting in obedience to his rightful authority.
As has been stated repeatedly, nothing is stopping this hospital from doing whatever they want, but they should not be doing it by lying about their identity. If they want to be honest, they should remove the cword “Catholic” from their name, even though that requirement would be ethical rather than legal.
This is very disturbing; I’m glad Bishop Olmsted is taking the matter seriously. I recently found out that a doctor at DePaul Hospital (a Catholic hospital) in Norfolk, VA, performs abortions and sterilizations at his private practice and for Planned Parenthood. Although he does not do such things AT DePaul, it violates the hospital’s policy that employees uphold a Catholic ethic of life. I’ve written to Bishop DiLorenzo, who is Bishop of our diocese. Hopefully, he will take whatever steps are in his power to correct this situation.
It sounds to me like a huge ego trip by a wannabe pope. I was an inpatient for a month at St Joe’s and I didn’t even know it was a Catholic hospital, which I’m glad of because it’s a wonderful hospital and I wouldn’t have gone had I known. I really hope they tell the bishop exactly where on their ass he can put his lips. Please don’t cave Mr Dean! This just makes me hate the catholic church more and more, the evilest religious group of all. You people make me sick and I bet you remove this post within minutes. Frickin’ bullies, nothing matters but what you and the pope want. No other opinion is valid, that is what makes you the worst.
It’s important for people to realize:
this Bishop is asking the hospital to commit to breaking the law.
Hospitals work under the laws of the United States of America.
Religious hospitals cannot agree not to provide safe, legal and
medically approved services to women dying in reproductive crises.
Catholics are not free to impose their unique laws on American
women.
If the hospital agrees to force women in reproductive crises to
die with their unborn children, the hospital should immediately
be shut down.
There should be a country wide investigation now of Catholic
hospitals. If they are breaking the law in depriving women of
services they need to be closed.
American women have rights.
These rights cannot be denied in a public hospital.
I believe the laws of the United States granting equal rights to
women are moral.
I believe that Sr. McBride behaved in an admirable and moral way here.
The Bishop is out of line.
This is going to become a national crisis.
And it should become one.
Ms. Rice, for someone who supposedly decided to abandon the Catholic Church, you seem awfully obsessed with molding it in your preferred image rather than allowing it to follow the commands & authority of Christ.
The bishop is not asking any hospital to “break the law”; hospitals are not legally required to kill the children of anyone for subjective reasons, like (admittedly) scary scenarios in which the mother may be at an increased, if uncertain, risk of death. Your use of the weasel phrase “reproductive crises” is little more than an attempt to imply the certainty of death for the mother unless her child were executed in this case.
The bishop isn’t even insisting that the hospital be shut down - he’s simply pointing out that if the hospital will not follow the ethical & religious directives that exist in keeping with Catholic belief, & instead is willing to perform intrinsically evil acts, it will not be allowed to claim it is a “Catholic” hospital.
The pathetic claim of a cherished “right” of American women to kill their own children based on their emotions (level of comfort, fear, or anger) is dubious at best, and diabolical at worst.
The idea that women have a “right” to kill their children is not only immoral, but UN-equal - unless you, Ms. Rice would like to begin arguing for the EQUAL right of men to determine whether their children should be killed for whatever scary scenario THEY can think up.
Sr. McBride behaved in an irrational & emotional way - fearfully dealing in a “what if” scenario that makes it easier to “make the hard choice” of throwing a child overboard - not to “save the life of the mother”, but to reduce the fear of death & the possibility of it.
There is nothing admirable or moral about such a willingness to engage in the sacrifice of the unborn for the born. Such willingness is little more than insisting that “might makes right.”
Chris,
VERY well stated!
In addition I would add that Sr. McBride had the opportunity to explain the options to the mother, and if the mother made the unfortunate decision to kill the baby, she could have gone to a different hospital to have the abortion. Catholic hospitals should not be in the practice of killing babies.
Ms. Rice, I have no idea if you are the author of the same name, or if you are another Anne Rice or even someone just pretending to be one of the above. I do have a couple of thoughts however in reaction to the points you have made.
—
1. Is it really a law that a Hospital has to provide every “safe, legal and
medically approved service”? Last I checked, not every Hospital provided every medical service possible. They have to treat every patient, but it is up to the doctors and the hospital to determine what sort of treatment the patient is given.
—
Also please note, I question how safe a procedure where both the outcome and the intent is the death of one of the two people the procedure is performed upon.
—
2. The Bishop and the Church is certainly not suggesting that the Hospital (Catholic or otherwise) force the woman to die. It can and should do everything moral in its power to save the life of both the woman and the child she is carrying. The Church does recognize however that not every action that can be taken should be taken. Saving a life, even multiple lives can never justify the deliberate taking of another life.
—
I agree American woman have rights. I also agree that they should have equal rights as men (Though in the case of the “reproductive rights” you are advocating, there can by biological necessity be no “equal rights”). I believe that all humans—men, women, boys and girls, born and unborn—should have the right to be treated in the most effective method morally available.
—
I wonder, shouldn’t faithful Catholics (and other Christians as well) have rights as well? Shouldn’t we know that there are Hospitals where the doctors and the “ethics” board understand, respect and follow the same moral principles as we ourselves follow? That won’t suggest immoral procedures simply because it is expedient?
—
As a husband and father, the sort of decision faced by the woman and Sister McBride and her doctors is something out of my worst nightmares. If faced with the same situation, I pray that my wife and I would have the strength through God’s grace to make the right decision. Knowing how weak we are as humans however, I pray that God might heal all that have been involved in this tragedy.
MarylandBill,
I think you are asking very good questions here.
Let me recommend that you google the ACLU and see
the letter that they have written asking for an investigation of
Catholic hospitals with regard to their treatment of women in
reproductive crises.
As I understand it, Catholic hospitals often service huge communities,
and some times they are the only hospitals in those communities.
Women, Catholic and non Catholic, can be taken to Catholic hospitals
in an Emergency.
Hospitals in the United STates must be licensed. All receive federal funds.
There are real choices as to how women might be treated, and whether or not
they are treated right according to the medical standards and ethics
we uphold in this country.
After examining the letter, and the situations described, and the
situation of Sr. McBride and the dying mother, I would say
there is a real question as to whether Catholic hospitals have been
withholding safe, legal and approved medical treatment from pregnant
women.
Case in point:
a woman miscarrying a child comes into a Catholic emergency room.
She is bleeding and in danger of death.
Can Catholic doctors really refuse to help her because they still hear a
fetal heartbeat? Are they allowed to stand there and watch her die with
the fetus that is being miscarried?
Or are they obligated under the law to take the medically approved steps for
saving her life?
We are told in this case here in Phoenix that the mother was dying.
That she and her husband wanted for her to live.
Would the hospital have been guilty of murder if it refused her and
abandoned her to die?
These are the issues.
I urge you to read further on what is at stake.
That’s terrible even for a hypothetical analogy.
I find it interesting that you keep upholding the supposed veracity of a St. Joseph’s crystal ball that says the woman’s last breath was imminent, & that anything other than killing her child would have been “abandoning her to die”.
I think you’ve spent too long thinking in dramatic prose…
Instead of focusing on dramatic emotions, perhaps you would be better served by learning what the Church actually teaches.
Chris,
What reasons do we have for not believing the hospital? Within the confines of Church teaching, what medical procedures should have been employed instead?
Peace in Christ,
Carolyn Hyppolite
Ms. Rice,
I might look up the ACLU letter at some point… though generally, etiquette in online discussions is for the person who feels it is relevant to their post to provide a link rather than force the rest of us to go scurrying trying to find it (at least give me a title to google).
—
With respect to some of your examples, I think you are forcing a false dualism on the situations involved. In both the actual case we are discussing, and in the case of the hypothetical miscarriage, you suggest that the choice is between killing the child and providing no treatment. In the case of the miscarriage, the doctors (In a Catholic Hospital) can certainly work to save the life of the mother by giving her blood and other supportive therapies. Further, they can even provide treatments that, as a secondary effect, will cause the death of the infant. What they cannot morally do is directly kill the child.
—
If we accept the moral reasoning you propose, then it logically can be extended to other circumstances where two (or more) lives appear to be ending. Lets suppose someone appears to be dying (doctors are often actually quite bad at accurately making this prognosis), say of a stroke. Another person in the same Hospital is in end-state organ failure. Doctor’s don’t believe they can save both, but one Doctor reasons that if he hastens the death of the first patient, he can harvest the organ needed to save the life of the second patient.
—
The thing is, no ethical board would accept this as an acceptable line of reasoning…. except in those cases where the first person happens to be a baby that has not yet been born.
—
One of your arguments I find interesting, and totally not compelling is that Catholic Hospitals often serve hugs communities and are often the only hospitals to serve those communities. If I understand your argument, it is that essentially, the Catholic Church should be forced to follow the “ethical standards” of a secular culture even though that same secular culture never bothered to provide those communities with a hospital of their own? If this is not a case of no good deed going unpunished, I am not sure what is. Should we start prosecuting those who give beggars on the street a dollar because they are enabling the beggars’ illegal drug habits?
—
Final thoughts. You keep repeating the same phrase, “safe, legal and approved”. As I pointed out earlier, I question the use of the word “safe” when the means of the procedure is the death of one of the patient. Who does the approving? Medical procedures, unlike drugs, are not regulated by the federal government. As far as I know, the only “approval” done on medical procedures is by insurance companies. Finally, just because something is legal, it doesn’t mean it is moral or right. I see lots of immoral conduct that is perfectly legal.
Carolyn,
I am curious, why should we believe the hospital? They have an interest in making sure the case is presented as an either/or proposition. Without having an outside doctor review the medical records, we really can’t know one way or the other. What research I have done suggests that in general, Pulmonary Hypertension’s real danger is later in the pregnancy, so I do have reason to be suspicious of the claim that the woman, who was 11 weeks pregnant, was in immediate risk of death.
—
That being said, even a quick google search will reveal that there are ways of treating Pulmonary Hypertension in pregnancy that do not involve abortion. Clearly, they do not eliminate the risks of death, but there is a huge difference between accepting the risk of dying and killing.
Maryland Bill, a community can wind up with a Catholic hospital
because of a merger. Not because some one built a
Catholic hospital for that community.
And a community might wind up with only a Catholic hospital
because other hospitals have been for one reason or another
forced to close.
The argument is simply that all hospitals in the United States
require licenses and are required to meet certain standards.
And I argue that those standards should include
give all patients medical care.
Withholding medical care from a woman dying in a reproductive
crises seems to me to be profoundly morally wrong.
Obviously there are crucial questions here about what sort of
care can be withheld and when.
I support the staff at St. Joseph’s in their decision to save
the life of the dying mother.
Given the case as we know it, I do not support those
who say that life saving care should have been withheld.
I do not think this is legal.
Conscience clauses should not include the “right” to stand
by and watch a woman die if a legal procedure can save her life.
That’s my position.
I am not saying that I absolutely believe the hospital but I am uncomfortable with condemning the hospital given the little and conflicting information that we have been given. I think it’s unlikely that the hospital performed a direct abortion on a woman who came to that hospital not wanting one because they enjoy killing babies. At the very least, it’s more probable that they genuinely believed that there was a real threat to this woman. They are claiming that they saved the only life that they could. I am not sure if that is true but I am also not inclined to just accused them of lying without any proof. On the other hand, if the bishop thinks there were medical alternatives that should have been used that have not been, I think he should tell us what they are.
Carolyn Hyppolite
Ms. Rice,
With respect, the specific mechanism as to how the community ended up with only a Catholic Hospital is irrelevant to the discussion. Obviously, it was not important enough to the secular community to ensure that a hospital that shared their values was maintained the community.
—
Again, you insist on enforcing a false dualism on the situation. No medical situation can be reduced to do X or withhold all medical care. No one, certainly not the Church is suggesting that medical care should have been withheld. The Church does say however that directly killing an unborn baby is never a morally acceptable answer.
—
I find it interesting that you use the words “seems to me to be profoundly morally wrong”. One what basis? What is the philosophical foundations of your moral system?
—
For the record, my moral system is strongly rooted in the teachings of the Catholic Church. That system says that the intentional taking of a human life that is not acting as a moral agent against me or someone else (or in limited cases, the state can do so as an agent of justice) is inherently immoral. In addition, that fact cannot be changed by the consequences of the action. To base this decision on the predicted fate of the woman is to accept consequentialism which as I pointed out earlier can lead to even more sins against human life.
—
Your desire to restrict “Conscience Clauses” effectively guts them of all meaning. Lets say (hypothetically) that Congress was to pass a law that stated that if a Doctor certified that someone had less than 6 months to live, that the person could be killed so that their organs could be harvested to save the lives of others. By your position, a health care worker could not refuse to participate.
—
Ultimately, I find it telling that your second response to me was with one exception not really a response but simply restating your initial position (i.e., The Hospital saved the woman’s life, that is as it should be, and even faithful Catholic Hospitals should be forced to do the same). You did not actually respond to what I believed was a logical extrapolation of your position.
It’s not that I don’t believe the hospital - I don’t know if they were correct or not - but Anne presents the reported belief of the hospital as foolproof knowledge of the woman’s imminent demise, while dismissing any claim that such an idea might not be as clear cut as she’d like to think.
The fact is that while there IS significant risk in the case of pulmonary hypertension (which is often diagnosed in women only when a pregnancy occurs), such a diagnosis is not a certain death sentence.
Some women diagnosed with pulmonary hypertension can & do go ahead with their pregnancies. Treating pulmonary hypertension involves identifying the cause and attempting to halt or reverse the condition, although currently the only long-term ‘cure’ is a heart-lung transplant, regardless of a persons fertility state.
Even though I’m not a doctor, I am aware of a wide range of treatment for pregnant women with pulmonary hypertension who decide not to kill their children. They are almost uniformly put under round the clock observation, especially in the third trimester, and there are several specific medications & techniques used to manage the condition in pregnancy. It is quite common for such women to deliver prematurely, whether it happens naturally or is induced as soon after 32 weeks as possible.
All of these things are perfectly compatible with Church teaching that ALL life is of equal dignity & worth. Essentially “every procedure whose sole immediate effect is the termination of pregnancy [either before or after the point of viability] is an abortion. ... Direct abortion is never morally permissible. One may never directly kill an innocent human being, no matter what the reason.”
Treating pulmonary hypertension involves identifying the cause and attempting to halt or reverse the condition.
Doctors typically recommend just killing the child with abortion. Most likely with the rationalization of “making sure to save at least one life”, but one must wonder how much “crystal ball reading”, risk, expense & management avoidance factors into such a rationalization. Abortion is certainly an easier way of reducing the risk of death to the mother, but it doesn’t treat disease or the fact that the mothers life is still in danger as long as the disease remains.
But performing an abortion, whether it’s by crushing the skull of the infant, or removing the placenta in order to deprive it of oxygen/nutrients, is not treatment of disease, it is killing a living human child - so morally illicit.
That is the issue, & that is why St. Joseph’s faced the choice of following Catholic teaching that values ALL life, or not being able to call itself Catholic anymore.
Pulmonary hypertension is a grave condition, with risk to not only the mother, but the child as well. It is important to note though, that a risk, no matter how great is not a certainty.
While the possibility that the mother and or the child might die is a terrifying possibility, & a tragic occurrence, I personally feel that the mother who died in an effort to save her child lives up to the words of Christ that the greatest act of love we can show is to lay down our lives for others.
We must do our best & leave the results to God, who knows far better than any of us what is best for everyone.
The reason the bishop rejected the explanation given by Dr. Lysaught is that the explanation simply attempted to justify the abortion on the basis for the reason it was performed - “the intention of doctors involved in the case, and the mother, was primarily to save the mother’s life – not to end the life of the fetus”.
.
However, that misses the point that intent is irrelevant.
.
A directly procured abortion is any procedure that is performed with the immediate effect of killing a child, not one that is performed only with some noble intent.
.
That is why the abortion was wrong.
.
Again, “One may never directly kill an innocent human being, no matter what the reason.”
.
Not because you’re mad.
.
Not because the condom broke or you’re angry at the father.
.
And not to save someone else’s life - much less to reduce the risk of loss of another persons life.
.
Both the mother & child deserved to have all efforts as saving both of their lives, even if it meant that one or both of them might end up dying. The idea of killing one person in order to save another is the human act of triage run amok.
Ms. Rice: “Withholding medical care from a woman dying in a reproductive
crises seems to me to be profoundly morally wrong.” The Catholic Church upholds the moral teaching of Christ. Of course, if you are not Christian, you may have an opposing moral standard. In addition, physicians are often wrong in both diagnosis and prognosis. Abortion was the “quick fix”, easier than implementing a carefully thought out and monitored medication regimen. Hospitals are not, to my knowledge, required to provide all services. Patients are frequently transferred to other hospitals because the hospital they are in is unable to provide certain services. I know of one hospital in Phoenix that routinely transfers patients because it has no orthopedic surgeons on staff. Only a few hospitals in Phoenix have hand surgeons on staff so patients with hand injuries are often transferred. It is highly unlikely that the woman in this case was so unstable that she could not have been transferred via critical care ambulance to another facility. She was not being held hostage. We don’t know if she was told St Joe’s does not perform abortions and given the option to transfer. It is interesting to note that the Bishop has also discovered that St Joseph’s staff have violated Catholic doctrine in other ways. I worked at St Joseph’s and found they were Catholic in name only, not in practice. I agree that this case will generate many questions. I posted earlier on that probability and was called “silly”. While there are questions regarding the first response system as it currently operates and the non-Catholic patient’s right to go to a secular hospital in an emergency, the issue here is about a hospital promoting itself as Catholic while refusing to follow Catholic doctrine. The Bishop is right to insist that CHW cease and desist from identifying St Joseph’s Hospital as Catholic. Think about this….what would happen if all the Catholic hospitals in the USA closed?
Mr. Akin, with all respect, I think you’re asking the wrong question. The question is, “Who gets to practice medicine?”
Mr. Kent Dean,
I think you are looking at this all wrong.
The question is, “How far into moral depravity can a hospital go, and still call itself Catholic?”
Good new article to read on the whole situation.
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1005213.htm
.
the only people who get to make this decision is the patient and her doctor and the ethics committee of the hospital. i am a healthcare provider and i feel that you should be able to expect good quality care when you brought to a facility. it is a law that a women can have a abortion and anyone who thinks that they get to make the decision to let the mother (who is the only alive pt) suffer until she dies and then try to save her is the immoral person. a ll week fetus is not alive. it is a fetus and object that is relying on the mother who is breathing to give it substance. a ll week is not able to breath or perform any alive task. to make the sick mother be a incubator is a terrible idea. catholics need to under stand that the law of the land states who is alive and who is not. had the mother died the hosp the church could be sued for malpractice and in some cases of second deg murder. hosps merge all the time for econimical and religious reasons. and to suggest that making her alive children become orphans is a good idea that god would approve of is immoral. the cath church has for centuries made up there own ideas and making people fit into molds to control them. if you want to led like sheep that is your right but you do not GET THE RIGHT TO TELL ME HOW TO LIVE MY LIFE. the church does not support the hospital and the employees are not req to be cath or even christians. i want a doctor who is trained to make decisions not someone who is relying on their dogma. every cath hosp has a ethics committee who see these cases. why is it ok for a cath hosp to practice euthenasa. and they do. many people with chronic terminal conditions who could live are given the choise of turning off machines to end their lives so as not to suffer.
Pam, with respect, no competent philosopher, theologian or biologist is going to agree to your assertion that an 11 week old fetus is not alive. Even Peter Singer, who supports not only abortion but also legalized infanticide, long ago acknowledged that there was no point in the development of a baby, after the moment of conception where you could point to it and say here it is alive, but before that it is not.
—
In addition, no one is saying that the Hospital should simply let the mother die. What we are saying is that there are certain procedures which are inherently immoral (making them legal doesn’t make it moral). The ethics board chose to ignore the moral authority of the Church that the Hospital claimed as being integral to its identity.
—
Further, I would be very nervous about the notion that man made law gets to determine who is alive and who is not. Certainly such a belief opens the door to extreme abuses (what if the state decides that Jews, or Atheists or Hispanics are not living human beings?)
—
Yes, it is true that we don’t get the right to make you live life the way we think you should (Though we do have to right to say how we you should, that is protected by the Constitution). What the Church does have is authority over organizations that claim a Catholic Identity. The Hospital in Question claimed that identity, used that identity to its benefit for decades. By doing so, it made a tacit agreement to abide by the moral teaching of the Catholic Church.
—
No one says it would have been a good outcome had the mother died. However, consequentialism is not a justification for doing evil. The ends don’t justify the means and the means were inherently immoral in this case.
—
Final point, you don’t understand what euthanasia is. There is both a moral and legal distinction between refusing or ending active treatment of a disease and actually actively killing the person. The latter is euthanasia, the former is not.
—
Here is my final thought; you and lots of other people seem upset at the idea that the Catholic Church wants to tell people how to live their lives. Why not practice what you preach and stop telling the Catholic Church how to run itself and institutions that operate in its name?
In situations like this we need to accept the medical opinion that if the woman’s pregnancy continued both would die. At the present time we do not have the means to sustain the life of a child at 11 weeks outside the womb. The hospital made the only medical decision. They separated the mother and the child. That makes moral and medical sense.
Those who condemn CHW would rather see the woman die. There was no other alternatives in this case. Either save one or lose two.
CHW policy is to save both and when that is not possible then save one that can be saved. Much simpler and to the point than direct and indirect abortion and all the gobble gook that is written on the subject.
By the way the church was a democracy until the dark ages. The laity have a right to have input into the running of their Church. The laity needs to find a way to use that right. Right now the laity is voting with their feet and with their pocketbook. Remember Luther, Calvin and others succeeded because of the corruption in the clergy. Read your history carefully and find out how many of the Popes during the reformation had children. The Cardinals sold what ever the pilgrims would buy in hopes of bribing the next conclave for electing the next pope.
Also, have the readers noticed the creeping infallibility that seems to be attached to so many utterances. The Pope and Bishops are not oracles. Further, the deposit of faith from the first century is sufficient so more is not needed.
I believe that CHW staff followed the dictates of their consciences. The rest of us should be glad we are not in their shoes. I have been there. I had to take my wife off life support and that was the worse night of my life. Let us stop judging others so harshly lest we might have to face the same thing.
Those who want to kick people like me out should know we are not leaving.
Charles, may we see your MD and your certification in the relevant specialties? And may we assume you have actually reviewed the relevant medical records of the woman?
—
The simple fact of the matter is that none of us really know a whole lot about the case. The Hospital, obviously has reason to tell a story where the woman’s death was imminent without the abortion. Without competent experts reviewing the medical records however, there is no way to know whether the Hospital is really providing an accurate picture of the situation. Certainly a number of women with pulmonary hypertension have managed to successfully carried children to the point where they were viable.
—
The “gobble gook” that you refer to is simply the application of Catholic Moral teaching that goes back centuries. For an action to be moral, both the ends and the means must be moral. It is obvious to most people that an evil means makes the act evil, but even a good end, perpetrated by immoral means is evil as well. Directly killing an innocent moral agent is never a moral means to achieve goal, no matter how apparently noble.
—
I am sorry about your wife. You are certainly not the only one on this board to have suffered loss, and I imagine you may not be the only one here to have had to make such a decision regarding a loved one.
—
I do find it interesting, however, how you bring quite a bit of frankly irrelevant (and in at least some cases wrong) information into this discussion. Just to correct basic facts. Yes, there was a lot corruption in the Catholic Church in the early 16th century that inspired the Protestant Reformation. They not succeed because of that however, they succeeded because of local princes and nobles who wished to take advantage of the situation to build their own power bases. The Church was not a democracy prior to the dark ages. The Church is the bank from which the deposit of faith is drawn.
—
I suppose some of us are judging. But lets make a distinction between judging individuals and judging actions and institutions. I certainly view those directly involved in the case with quite a bit of compassion and I am sure that if they repent, the Church will offer God’s forgiveness gladly. But it is not charitable to look upon (what Catholics believe is) obvious evil and stay silent.
Charles,
It is you who are being harsh. No right-thinking person would want to have been in Sister McBride’s shoes that day. But the fact remains that it is straightforward Catholic teaching that an innocent life can never be directly and intentionally taken, no matter how compelling the reason. This is why abortion is always morally illicit. The Church has always taught that abortion was a serious sin and this will never change.
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.
http://pblosser.blogspot.com/2011/01/sin-against-holy-spirit.html
The following is a synopsis of a bulletin insert entitled “Those Who Defend Evildoing,” by Fr. Robert D. Smith:
... It is possible to think of a sin against the Holy spirit, the sin which Christ says will never be forgiven (Matt. 12:32), as an obscure and rare sin ... But is it really so rare?
What is it? Christ identifies it quite clearly. It relates essentially to a commitment to identifying a good action as having an evil source or else evil actions as having a good source ....
... The person who defends his own sins in a public way in conversation of some kind, is often admitting not just the sin but also that he is committing a sin against the Holy Spirit. What we hear most often is not a statement such as “I arranged for an abortion. I know it is wrong, but I did it out of human weakness.” No, rather we often hear, “I arranged for an abortion and did so out of the goodness of my heart to help those close to me and to help humanity.” ...
What such a person is defending is what Christ Himself identifies as a sin against the Holy Spirit. “Adulterous conduct, fornication, stealing, false witness, blasphemy” do not come from a good heart, but “make a man impure” (Matt. 15:18-20). Such actions by no means constitute evidence of goodwill.
This is why all sin is so dangerous. And any delay of repentance leads strongly away from the initial sense of wrongdoing, into the increasing, naturally human conviction that one must, after all, still mean well even in the sin itself. The person who does not go this far and who keeps his sense of his own wrongdoing has retained a strong position from which to repent. Not so with the person who has allowed himself to slip into the kind of self-righteousness which involves calling himself good for his very evil acts themselves.
Can it be that when Christ dispatches His angels on Judgment Day to gather all evildoers to hurl them into the fiery furnace (Matt. 13:41-42), it will turn out that many if not most of these evildoers heading directly and headlong for damnation will have somehow, during life, in addition to their iniquity itself, committed themselves to some kind of sin against the Holy Spirit, become involved long-term in the defense of their evildoing as good?
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.