In the words of Phoenix Suns announcer Al McCoy…SHAZAM!

Jimmy - Do we know how this letter was leaked or by whom?  It has a stamp on it “Received”, so I would assume it was leaked to the press by Dean or someone in his office.  The question is: Why?
.

The reason I ask is that the Diocese of Phoenix has put up a statement that is a single, short paragraph:
.

<i>(Dec. 15, 2010) — The letter to Mr. Lloyd Dean that was made public today is considered to be private and confidential. The bishop and his staff are working together with Catholic Healthcare West and St. Joseph’s Hospital to find the best way to provide authentic Catholic health care in accordance with the Church’s teaching.<i>

.
It’s not uncommon these days for dissenting parties to go running to the press in an effort to get sympathy and to sway public opinion against the bishop (a very secular, political move - and inappropriate, especially if it was committed by Catholics).
.

As for my thoughts, it goes to show that just because we don’t “see” bishops taking action, doesn’t mean they are sitting back doing nothing. These kinds of communications (though not necessarily with the kind of force and clarity shown here), are probably happening within many dioceses on a “private and confidential” level.  People have been accustomed for years to sending ambiguous responses that went unchallenged, but I think we see a shift. 

.
Bishop Robert Vasa yanked “Catholic” in Bend, Oregon, from a hospital that was doing sterilizations after communications were ineffective at bringing about change. I think we will see more of this.  “Holy boldness” is catchy among the bishops and I think we will see it going up exponentially. 
.

Deo gratias!

I have posted this already here before You guys should stop complaining because, one the health care we have now isnt as good as it was supposed to be. also the law has just been signed so give it some time. so if u want to say u have the right to choose tell that to ur congress men or state official. If you do not have insurance and need one You can find full medical coverage at the lowest price check search online for “Wise Health Insurance” If you have health insurance and do not care about cost just be happy about it and believe me you are not going to loose anything!

Hmmm… I’m thinking “robertaviles” is a spambot. WDYT?

D’ya think? ROFL

I think Olmstead should resign or be forced out. He is power hungry and St Joe’s should tell him to stick his opinions! Advise to St Joe’s: ignore this man created deadline and continue to ignore any babble from this man. He is a moron and he needs to be defrocked. Even the pope is letting some light into the tired old opinions of the historic male heirachy of this dying institution which can be attributed to men like Olmstead who refuse to allow reason to enter into any argument.I believe God will punish you in the here after Olmstead!

Bishop Olmsted didn’t create this situation; the hospital did. There’s no point letting a hospital call itself “Catholic” if it doesn’t want to practice medicine according to Catholic teaching. It’s the bishop’s job to keep an eye on this stuff. If anything, it sounds like he’s given them lots of time to adjust their policy or tell him they don’t want to be called “Catholic” anymore.

I hope they see reason. They still have time.

For Colleen Holman: Bishop Olmsted is “power hungry” and a “moron”? Have you ever met him? If you had you would understand just how inappropriate your name-calling rant sounds. Bishop Olmsted is a humble man who is courageously fulfilling his duty. St. Joseph’s Hospital is a fine institution but it must refrain from promoting itself as Catholic if it does not intend to comply with Catholic doctrine. St Joseph’s/CHW knew the contents of the ERD issued by the USCCB. The fact that Bishop Olmsted’s personal and confidential correspondence to CHW was leaked by someone in the CHW camp is shameful. There are many issues that will need to be addressed that go above and beyond the issue of CHWs Catholic identity. Non-Catholics will object that they sometimes have no choice when taken by ambulance to a Catholic Hospital ER where they will be subject to health care according to Catholic doctrine. In the health care arena, this could turn into a legal nightmare. Does the hospital have the obligation to explain Catholic doctrine to patients and give them the option to transfer to a non-Catholic hospital? Must emergency first responders avoid taking patients to Catholic hospitals if the patient is non-Catholic. St. Joseph’s hospital has a Level I trauma ER. It is frequently impossible to know the religion of a patient transported to the trauma center. Many questions will be generated by this case. I don’t know the answers but I support Bishop Olmsted in his stance. It is his responsibility to make sure institutions promoting themselves as Catholic are actually Catholic in their actions. He is thoughtfully and diligently carrying out his responsibility.

Colleen Holman’s reaction is exactly what the person who released the fax was hoping for.

As Forrest Gump would say, “Catholic is, as Catholic does”.

This hospital wants the Catholic name, but does not want to business according to Catholicism. The remedy for that is to relieve the hospital of it’s Catholic status.

While reading the bishop’s letter, I started to imagine him over a stone Bridge:
“I am a servant of the Secret Fire, wielder of the flame of Anor.
YOU SHALL NOT PASS!!!!”

Go, Bishop Olmstead!

My prayer is that we have clones of Bishop Olmstead in the future with the JPII generation coming of age.

Thanks for updating us on the situation. 

The pro-abortion Catholics must be shown the light or shown the door. Killing children is not healthcare!

What a great leader for the Church Militant!!!

- The door is open, and swings both ways.  I pray not only that CHW will remain and comply with te Bishop’s requests, but that by doing so people at the hospital will have a greater understanding of the teaching they are curretnly supposed to be operating under (and will operate under, going forward). 

If not, then, sadly, let CHW lose its Catholic status and move on.  The Bishop is, of course, correct in his position on this.  He always has been.  I join with others here hoping that more Bishops will take the teaching opportunities they are provided to instruct, like this. 

Peace.

We knew Bishop Olmstead when he was a priest at the Josephinum in Columbus. He said mass often at our church and the moment we experienced him, you knew great things were in store.  He was very humble, extremley well spoken, brilliant homilist and faithful teacher.  Trust this. Bishop Olmstead is NOT power hungry ... he is hungry for the truth, for the faith and for Christ Jesus.  We are blessed to have his leadership.

We are very blessed to have a Bishop like Bishop Olmstead and the many more we are now learning about. Preistly men who are not only educated and learned, but who are humble and devout with undoubtedly are also devoted to Our Lady.

Need a similar position on many of our “catholic” universities.

Olmsted is the one who needs a better understanding of church teaching. Remember, a bishop’s mitre doesn’t come with extra brains. Very few of these guys have any significant moral theology training and they’re relying on theologians to advise them. So this really does come down to one theologian’s interpretation versus another’s. And bishops these days are too afraid of the Catholic Taliban (AKA pro-birthers) to actually uphold what the church has been teaching for 500 years.

The “leaking to the press” most likely came from within the Bishops office, in some way.  Very sad.  I applaud his very strong stand on this matter.  We need many bishops with his spirit.

J.S. - you’re wrong.

Dave W. - you are.
Uh oh. Looks like we’re at an impasse.

If this situation has been ongoing for six years without a resolution, then Bishop Olmstead’s action is long overdue. It sounds as if he did everything in his power to avoid having to give this ultimatum, but I thank God that he is fulfilling his obligation as rightful authority.

I’m starting to see more and more bishops exerting their authority, possibly because the challenges to it have increased so publicly.

God bless you, Bishop Olmstead. May your brother bishops follow your example.

J.S. - Extra brain doesn’t mean extra right, apostolic authority and fidelity to the magisterum does.

@J.S. - Are you suggesting that the “magisterium” of popular opinion amongst one group of theologians or another trumps episcopal authority in this regard, when the bishop is in communion with Rome on his position?  If that is the case, then in your view of the church people can just pick and choose which group of theologians to follow, in which case there is no need for bishops, or a pope for that matter. We already have that in the thousands, if not tens of thousands of denominations of Protestantism since the reformation.

.
If you believe Bishop Olmsted is out of step with Rome, then the burden is on you to prove it - with objectivity rather than generalities.

.
But this really isn’t about that, is it? Is it possible that your condescending, subjective remark about the bishop - like Colleen’s - is about wanting to see certain Church teachings changed in a way that embraces immorality?

.

God bless Bishop Olmstead. I work in a Catholic Health Care System as an independent solo Internist. Many are the times that so called “moral theologians” in high places in the system cheat to beat the ERDs; but God will not be cheated. Unfortunately we have had weak-spined Bishops who sigh with relief to depend on these “theologians”, and think they are then unburdened of the Apostolic mandate to teach and act on the truth. Sydney O.Fernandes,MB,BS,MD,FCPS

I support Bishop Olmsted.  But I think the most likely outcome is that as of tomorrow, St. Joseph’s will no longer be a Catholic hospital.  And whatever partial adherence to Catholic teaching they currently practice will be thrown out, so that sterilizations, if not abortions, will begin there in the near future.  I do hope I am wrong.

The “leaking to the press” most likely came from within the Bishops office, in some way. 
.

Very doubtful this is the case since the scanned page has a stamp which says, “Rec’d by the office of Lloyd Dean”, or something to that effect.

.
A common move for people dissing bishops is to run to the press when their feelings are hurt. Feelings are more important than objectivity measured against hard truths. I’m not suggesting that Dean himself released it. Many people probably had access to it in that office.

Bishops are obsolete. Get rid of them all and start with Olmstead. St. Joe’s: Continue to call yourself a Catholic Institution. Please people who responded are you following what Olmstead dictates 100% of the time..gimme a break! I know he isn’t. He may justify his actions based on his interpretation of theology but I’m sure other learned theologians could do the same with their opposing understanding.
No one is all knowing except God himself and someone should remind Olmstead of that (and soon) or the Catholic Church that he supports will continue to erode. Reformers need to take the lead here and align with St. Joe’s and I believe they will have a positive result. I know I will support their action. I believe the good nuns would support St. Joe’s also.
I don’t know how St. Joe’s can maintain it’s Magnet designation and status as a leader in health care if they have to cowtow to Olmstead’s dictum.

Pat and Diane, J.S.‘s point about 500 years of church teaching actually is referring to THE magisterium. Olmsted may have “episcopal authority,” but that doesn’t excuse him from abiding by the church’s moral tradition. A bishop can’t simply say whatever he wants and call it “law” or “truth.” In this case, I think it’s the bishop who appears to be venturing away from the church’s magesterium into, as Diane said, “the ‘magisterium’ of popular opinion amongst one group” of misguided American Catholics.

Hmmmm…. so apostles have become obsolete?

He is a successor to the apostles, and no where in the Bible does it say that they were just a temporary office.

The whole Church should rejoice in Bishop Olmsted. He is a faithful pastor and a true Apostle of the Lord.

Successors to the apostles, sure, but that doesn’t magically imbue them with truth and knowledge. They still need to go to the trouble to actually learn the truths and traditions of our faith just like the rest of us. And they can still make mistakes, like the rest of us. Has every Catholic bishop throughout the past two millenia made only correct pronouncements? Of course not. There’s no reason to belive that our current crop is any less prone to getting in over their heads than their successors were.

Colleen says: Bishops are obsolete. Get rid of them all…

And what? Start yet another Protestant denomination?

+1 to Roger! Our church will never to the place Christ actually wants it to be until we get beyond all this silly man-made bureaucracy.

Roger N.  - you fall into the same problematic argument as J.S.
.

There is no substance,  no specificity, and nothing objective about your unsubstantiated, broadbrushed, subjective remark.
.
What specific Magisterial teaching is Bishop Olmsted wrong about? Be specific now.

Good lord some of you—talk about petty and agendas.  I must consider some here neither practicing catholics nor faithful to the church.  You have a case here where a bishop is actually performing the duties he is called upon—unlike so many liberal bishops who held hands and sang Kumbaya while amoral practices krept into all sides of the church. Is this where the liberal pro-choice so-called catholics hang out?

! Our church will never to the place Christ actually wants it to be until we get beyond all this silly man-made bureaucracy.

.
@Jennifer - excellent point - we agree then, that marks of the Catholic Church - that it is, the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church has been under attack by a pseudo-magisterium of baptized Catholics who don’t accept it’s apostolic-ness. They have created man-made bureaucracies in our Catholic hospitals, universities and other institutions which go against the full teachings of Christ, and work against apostolic successors.

.
Let me ask this of all who are dropping condescending remarks about Bishop Olmsted: are you willing to make a sincere profession of faith as it is in the Creed?

.
Let me ask another question of all of you who are critical of the bishop: Do you go to Mass every Sunday? Is the Creed recited after the homily where you go?

J.S. - I recommend that, in the future, you research a person’s academic credentials before suggesting that the person lacks brain power or needs a better understanding of church teaching. It would spare you the embarrassment of suggesting that for a person possessing the licentiate in theology and the doctorate in canon law.

Immoral ... a pot calls the kettle black. Is that why most parishoners have only 2-3 children. Perhaps someone is not fully complying with the bishops dictates on bith control.

One of the most powerful things I have read in a long time.

God said,” give to Ceasar what is Ceasar’s..”,and so I say grant the medical professionals the liberty to make the decision in health related matters. We all know that the decision was not made lightly. It went to the highest court available at St. Joe’s and it was a right and ethically (moral) choice in my opinion.
Who would want/agree to serve on an ethics board which cow tows to the rants of olmstead. It would guarantee bias/prejudice and any patient coming into St’ Joe’s would have to sign a waiver agreeing to accept ‘the olmstead level’ of care provided. In my opinion that care would be substandard.

Wow, wow, Dear Good people, do you hear this nasty lady?.  Colleen Holman, what have Catholic Bishops and the Catholic Church done to you that you have become so virulent against them? Are you one of the group that are determined to destroy the Catholic Church and who demanded that the VATICAN MUST BE BURNED DOWN?  You sure sound like them to me. Any Organization which wants to run as a Catholic Institution MUST ADHERE TO THE CATHOLIC TEACHINGS ON FAITH AND MORALS.  FULL STOP.  If that Hospital wants to become an Abortion Abbatoir, the way is wide open. Just stop calling yourselves Catholic.  The humble, polite but Spirit-filled Bishop Olmstead is obeying God’s Law and discharging his Pastoral Duties as authorized by the Universal Catholic Church in Union with the Holy Father as the Vicar of Christ on Earth: God has emphatically decreed: You Shall Not Kill.  And abortion is Murder Most Foul and totally unacceptable not only by the Catholic Church but by anyone who is true to themselves and knows Life belongs to God and is sacred and we are all called upon to protect it from conception to natural death.  Thank you, Bishop Olmstead and may God give you more courage to serve Him with fidelity and minister to His Sheep faithfully.

Colleen says: God said,” give to Ceasar what is Ceasar’s..”,and so I say grant the medical professionals the liberty to make the decision in health related matters
.

This is not a secular hospital, but a Catholic hospital. That means, those making difficult decisions must make them in light of Catholic teaching, not in a vacuum. It would be one thing if those involved violated Catholic teaching out of ignorance or misunderstanding. The bishop’s persistent, private dialogue was aimed at rectifying the matter in this way. That is why he has communicated the Catholic position on this most difficult decision to them. That is why he has given them time to reflect. Even if they struggle with the teaching, they need to assent to it on faith. “Faith” which first requires understanding prior to assent is not a different kind of faith - faith in personal discernment. It lacks understanding of how Christ set up the one, holy, Catholic, and apostolic Church. It also requires a great act of humility.

God gave us free will and a brain not to sit idle and like sheep follow false gods whom the Cath. Church has given authority.Men make mistakes.

“Tomorrow (Friday, December 17th) there may be one less Catholic hospital in America.”

No. There will either be one _more_ Catholic hospital (if these supposed “Catholics” actually start paying attention to their bishop and the teachings of the Church), or one less _fraudulent_ one (if they don’t, and the bishop acts to end the fraud).

The former outcome would, of course, be the better of the two. But either one is manifestly preferable to the present state of affairs.

I fear that the bishop’s words and emphasis will be used against him in the court of public opinion. Quoting out of context, it’ll be easy to make him sound petulant about disrespect of his authority, rather than stalwart in defense of the teachings of the universal Church. But that probably can’t be helped.

God gave us free will and a brain not to sit idle and like sheep follow false gods whom the Cath. Church has given authority.Men make mistakes.

Indeed God gave us a brain. That brain can be used to assent to the teachings of the Church or reject them.

.
Dear Colleen - those who choose obedience, even in the absence of understanding are not held captive by the Church. Obedience is an act of freedom and requires humilty. Our Lord exemplified this on the Cross. I say to you that it is the disobedient who are held captive by their attachments to the world. Theirs is an act of pride which does not comprehend the Cross. The Cross signifies sacrifice. Next to giving up our very lives, there is nothing greater we can give to God than our will, for the will of another - especially an apostolic successor whose teaching IS aligned with the Magisterium.

And, Colleen - you have not told us which specific mistake you believe Bishop Olmsted is making (as measured against the CCC or some other specific teaching)

I admire your courage, Colleen.  Keep speaking out against the ignorance that is pervading fundamentalist Christians, Jews, and Muslims.  So much evil in the world today is perpetrated by these people.

I worte the Phoenix Diocese with my outrage at Olmstead’s dictates.  I urge others who see his folly to do the same.

@Sandra - I suspect Bishop Olmsted is not afraid of hate-mail. Offending people is not a bishop’s concern. Offending God by neglecting to call out error for the good of others.

.
I recommend that faithful Catholics send a spiritual bouquet to His Excellency.

Sandra, Colleen:  Your self-righteousness and ignorance proceeds you. What in heaven’s name is your stance and so called demands?  Is it to approve of abortion?  Is it to allow them in catholic hospitals?  Is it an attempt to sway the authority of the church in regards to faith & morals?  What is it?  To what ends? Are you a member/supporter of Moveon.org?  Catholics for choice?  What??

Thank you Your Excellency, I wish all American Bishops would stand up for our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, as you did. Please continue to witness for our Catholic faith. God bless you.

>>God gave us free will and a brain not to sit idle and like sheep follow false gods <<

So am I free to drive on the left side of the road?  Not in the US if I want to live.

Freedom _always_ is in light of guidelines.

Yet we also have examples of loyalty/‘idle sitting and sheep following of false gods’. 
Where you say?
In any sports stadium on any given day with any sport.  We all know some folks who do not like the owner of the team, the GM, coach, or half the players, yet he/she still roots them on and wants them to do well.

Why do we suddenly forget that fantastic behavior with something with a more eternal consequence that who gets to hoist a trophy?

Some things _are_ always wrong - no matter the circumstance.

I’m still waiting for Colleen to respond to Diane’s request that she tell “us which specific mistake you believe Bishop Olmsted is making (as measured against the CCC or some other specific teaching)”.

(sound of crickets chirping)

It has been said here that “men make mistakes.” In the spirit of inclusiveness, and in response to some comments here, I will say this: women make mistakes.

God bless Bishop Olmsted a courageous and holy man!

@Collen, Sandra, and all those opposed to Bishop Olmstead’s decision.  The bishop has simply said that the hospital either follows the teachings of the Catholic Church, or it cannot call itself Catholic.  Since you are obviously not Catholic, I frankly don’t see how this matter concerns you, and if you are Catholic, I would advise you to check the Catechism of the Catholic Church and learn your faith.

Please don’t feed the Trolls!

I love to see a bishop actually doing his job!  Good for him.

“Bishops are teachers of the Catholic faith. Bishop Olmsted, I’m sure, takes that role seriously. Jesus of Nazareth was also a teacher. But his most pointed words were saved for the Pharisees and Sadducees, those high priests and religious authorities of his time, whose fixation on the letter of the law left them blind to the spirit of the law.”

Read the rest here: http://blog.faithinpubliclife.org/2010/12/pastors_or_generals.html

@Jennifer - Jesus does not teach us to follow any one thing that he teaches in isolation. Our Lord does not contradict himself either. 

.
Tell me - what did Jesus say about those by whom scandal comes?

He said not to put your faith in men (or women).

@Jennifer - you keep evading simple questions. Along with the others you have not answered, please tell me what Jesus said about those who bring harm to “the least”?

.
As a matter of transparency, I think you owe people here an answer to this: Are you a baptized Catholic? Do you go to Mass every Sunday? If you are a baptized, practicing Catholic, do you accept all that is in the Creed?

.
If you evade these basic questions, there is nothing more to discuss.

Yes, yes, and yes. Phew! Glad we got that settled. Seems to have really made a difference in this argument.

“As a matter of transparency”??? What are you talking about Dianne?

I declare this conversation over (at least my participation in it). I also claim victory, and depart in peace, knowing that Jesus is proud of me enlightening many of you. Bye.

Excellent bishop Thomas J. Olmsted. I appreciate your courage.You are a faithful bishop unlike some others.

Diane: Why do you cast pearls before swine? Isn’t it obvious you are not going to affect a closed mind? Those bashing Bishop Olmstead for his courageous action want only to tear down the church and use this forum to help do it.

Too many so-called Catholics and critics of the church have the idea the church should be run like a democracy, where public opinion dominates and God’s laws should be put to a vote.

The short of this is simple: if you want to call yourself a “Catholic” hospital, be one. If not, stop the false advertising.

Catholics have a right to expect all institutions which carry “Catholic” in their name to practice what they preach. I wish more bishops would crack down on institutions which falsely portray themselves as Catholic, and that includes universities as well.

I thank God for Bishop Olmstead. And I thank God for the you real catholics that support Bishop Olmstead and defend the catholic teaching on the sanctity of human life. I pray for those whose comments here suggest that they are “cafeteria catholics” that they may see the whole beautiful truth of the catholic faith and the catholic church. God bless us all.

Andy - Jennifer’s comments, along with a few others here, could lead any reasonable Catholic to wonder if they are Protestant. The arguments, such as saying “put no faith in man”, which does not comprehend the apostolic mark of the Catholic Church, is a common salvo fired by non-Catholics.

.
Jennifer has established she is a baptized, practicing Catholic.  Sadly, she selectively quotes Scripture to fit her point, to the exclusion of other passages (and never answered my questions about what Jesus said about bringing harm to “the least of these” and on the subject of scandal).  Perhaps she will someday enlighten herself on these things, along with the Creed in which we profess belief in this One, Holy, Catholic and apostolic Church.

.
One can go on all day about how to make meatloaf without meat. At the end of the day, it ain’t meatloaf. The Catholic Church is not like Burger King where you get to have it your way. That is precisely what distinguishes the One, Holy, Catholic, and apostolic Church from many thousands of Protestant denominations.

.
Truth is fixed, static, unmoving; it is not moving and dynamic. Truth is where the compass needle points - no matter what direction you go, it remains pointed to the North. Bending the needle, to suit your whims and desires, no matter how well intentioned, does not change that which the compass needle seeks, but in the minds of those deceiving themselves!

God bless the good bishop!

Joanne - perhaps I already know I have little chance of changing the minds of uninformed and malformed Catholics who make condescending remarks about Bishop Olmsted. If they ponder something I say that is good. However, I’m just being mindful of the fact that there are a great many more silent readers trying to figure things out. I pray they are not led astray, “by all sorts of strange teachings”.

Bishop Olmsted is wrong on this one.
If he should win in this battle, probably it will
spell the demise of this hospital.  Americans
are not going to stand for bishops overruling doctors,
nurses and hospital staff in matters of health care.
If bishops really do want to force women to die with
their unborn children, they should get out of the American
hospital business.
ITS VERY IMPORTANT TO REALIZE THIS IS NOT AN ABORTION ISSUE.
This man isn’t concerned here with saving the life of an unborn
child.  The child in this case would have died with the mother.
What concerns this bishop is that the woman was not forced to die
with the child.  He’s furious apparently that her life was saved.
If only this Bishop had approached Sr. Margaret McBride with
some respect for her experience, with some humility in face of
her experience, he might have learned something here.
But he didn’t do this and now he’s created a scandal.
Many Catholics have spoken up, averring that he is wrong
in his interpretation of canon law, and that Sister was right.
More Catholics need to speak up.
A woman entering a Catholic hospital shouldn’t fear death.
She shouldn’t fear that a bishop will sentence her to death with
her unborn child. 
Women are human beings.  Their lives have value.
Christ died for women as well as for men.
Bishop Olmsted is headed for moral disaster.

Anne, at issue is cracking the door open or closed on more abortions in catholic hospitals ... not the last one, but the next one. Here, Bishops rule as they should. Healthcare decisions are to be maade to save both. Decisions are not made to exterminate one for the other.

Anne, do you not think it is a moral disaster ALREADY to choose to kill a human being?

You don’t know that the child would have died with the mother. Preemptive abortions kill children, period.

Do you think that little boy or GIRL had rights too?

Dave W., I thank you for this.  Please understand I have followed
the story from the beginning and do understand what is at stake here.
But I continue to believe this Bishop is more angry that the mother
was allowed to survive her unborn child, than anything else.
He is also obsessed obviously with his authority.
Many Catholics have challenged his position, including theologians.
If he does get his way, I think the ACLU will rightly push for a
full investigation of Catholic hospitals.
We are a nation of laws and standards.
You simply cannot run a hospital in our country if
you are going to abandon women to die with their unborn
children because of your religious beliefs.
Americans will not, and should not stand for this.
Women are citizens here.  They have equal rights and equal value.
When the church privileges abstract theology and
the authority of the clergy over real moral issues,
the church diminishes its capacity to really guide the flock.
I am pro life and always have been.
I value the life of this young mother whose life was
saved by Sr. Margaret McBride. 
I value the lives of women as well as men.
I hope and pray that this Bishop is condemned by Rome for
what he is doing. 
I urge Catholics to stand up for St. Joseph’s and for Sr. McBride.

liseux,  an eleven week old unborn child cannot survive
if the mother dies.  The child would most certainly have
died with the mother. 
Please understand this is not an issue of killing.
This bishop is not going to bat for the unborn.
This is about forcing women to die when the unborn can’t be saved.
It’s strictly about separate standards for women.
Catholic American soldiers kill people all the time,
as part of a volunteer army in Afghanistan.
Pregnant women, women, children, all are killed as
collateral damage.
The Catholic Church does nothing about this one
way or the other.  It prays for these soldiers.
This issue here is not about moral right.
It is about a bishop forcing a hospital to abandon women
to die with their unborn children.
it’s about the church’s deciding that there are different
moral standards for women than for men, that the lives
of women don’t matter. 
This bishop is gravely corrupt.
He should be fired.
Remember, many many Catholics, including theologians have
disagreed with his moral stance.

2000 years ago, you would have been complaining that the bishop insisted on Christian men, women, and children becoming useless martyrs instead of just sacrificing a pinch of incense to the Emperor and Mother Rome. 60 years ago, you would have been complaining because Pope Pius XII and the Bishop of Munster wouldn’t let you fit in with all the other good Germans, staying quiet about all the innocent deaths caused by Nazis that you obviously could do nothing about. Why, there couldn’t possibly be anything worth dying for!

Bishops are the chief teachers and overseers of everything going on in their dioceses. They stand between us and the wolves. Doctors and hospitals that oull immoral practices out of their butts and call them “Catholic” are nothing but wolves in sheep’s clothing.

Why would you think a woman would feel safe in such a deathtrap? If a hospital will kill babies on purpose, it’ll kill women too. Probably the old women first, or the mentally disabled, or the ones without friends or kin. But sooner or later, it’ll be you and me.

What a shame that it came to this.  From a CHW (business perspective), what difference does it make if the Bishop revokes the hospital’s “Catholic” identity? 

Does the local ordinary have any other authority over St. Joseph’s Hospital?  Can it force a regime change in the hospital administration or close it down for a time, etc?  Or, does Catholic Healthcare West operate without impunity?

Maureen, your post is irresponsible nonsense.
You malign Sr. Margaret McBride and those who work
with her, and those who support her.
Let me suggest you examine this case. 
You can easily find numerous articles about it online.
I say again: women matter. They do not count less than men.
There is no separate baptism for women; there is no
separate canon law that holds them to a standard to which
men are not held.
There is abundant evidence in the gospels that
Christ loved both men and women, and came here
for both men and women.
THIS CASE IS NOT ABOUT ABORTION.
It is about a bishop who is furious that a woman
was not forced to die with her unborn child,
a martyrdom that he feels was somehow appropriate.
The man is out of his depth.
And please don’t suggest that bishops cannot make mistakes.
They make mistakes all the time.
That’s why they’ve been forced to resign for sexual abuse in
Belgium, in Austria and in America.
Bishop Thomas Olmsted must be held to a high moral standard.
He doesn’t get a pass because he’s a bishop. 
Many Catholic theologians have disagreed with his attack on Sr. Margaret
McBride and her hospital.
I urge Catholics to stand up for the Sisters of Mercy.
Stand up for the value of the lives of women.
Above all, stand up for truth.
You never know when some one you love might find
themselves in a Catholic hospital emergency room.
Do you want competent medical care for that person
or the religious decisions of a bishop?

Anne, you went from a smattering of niceness to meanspirtness in a single breath. Your last post was language from a bra burning, Gloria Steinum disciple who advocates pro choice over pro life every day of the week.
I would argue this is 100% about abortion in a catholic institution. 
You say <<You simply cannot run a hospital in our country if
you are going to abandon women to die with their unborn
children because of your religious beliefs.>>  Is that what the catholic hospitals are doing? Let’s take your words and correct them ... << You simply cannot run a <catholic> hospital in our faith if you are going to abandon <the fetus> because of <secular> beliefs.>>
I believe the catholic medical practice is to do all they can to save ALL lives, period.  If you are really pro-life, you understand this has absolutly zero to do with males and females and women’s rights.

OrangeCountyKevin, I think it came to this
because Sr. McBride and the Sisters of Mercy
genuinely care about matters of life and death.
They spend their lives taking care of the sick
and the dying. 
If only this Bishop had approached them with
respect and some humility, seeking to learn from
them and their experience, but alas, he has not.
And I do not, myself, see how the hospital
can back down.
If they give in to this bishop, it will probably mean
the end of Catholic health care in America.
Americans are not going to stand for American
women being forced to die with unborn children in
situations like this.

Dave W., I continue to disagree with you.
I am pro life and always have been.
I must stand up for Sr. McBride and for
the Sisters of Mercy on this one.
The ACLU will move in shortly to demand
a thorough investigation of Catholic hospitals.
They have already begun.
And frankly, I think they have cause to do it.
This has nothing to do with abortion.
It has to do with the value of women’s lives.
I will continue to stand up for the young mother
whose life was saved by Sr. McBride and for the
Sisters of Mercy. 
And for life.
The hospital issued a beautiful statement today,
about how they saved the only life they could save
here.  I am for them.  I am for those who have given
their lives to tend the sick and the dying.
Catholics need to stand up to Bishop Olmsted.
Stand up for life, and for truth.

Anne, appreciate your opinions—but you seem to be putting so much faith in Sr. and none in the Bhp.  Did the Sr. act as she may have though correct at the time?  Maybe. Does the Bhp know more about this than you and I, most likely.  Maybe a bad analogy, but is the soldier who kills an Iraqi family because he felt threaten—- morally right? Does that justify his actions, even if done in the heat of battle?  The Sr. has been reconcilled.  Now the attention must turn to the greater good in my opinion. 
Peace.

Point #1 - Denying that woman an abortion would have killed her.  But he, it’s just another woman - who cares?

Point #2 - There is nothing courageous about beliveing in dogma, or being dogmatic.  It is fear that fosters dogma, not courage.  It’s too scary for some people to make thoughtful, considered, intelligent, common sense decisions based on the facts of a situation and then do the most humane thing.  That, folks, takes courage.  The courageous person in this instance was the nun who sat on the ethics committee and anguish over a good decision.

Point #3n- What the Church does is everyone’s business.  The RC Church is a well funded political machine that interfers in the political process and lobbies for laws that deprive women and gays of our most fundamental human rights.

Sandra sure is not cathlic,  that’s for sure.

Hey Dave - there was never a bra burning.  But if dismissing intelligent thought by saying there was, you go for it, buddy.

Anne went into her feminist mode because Maureen’s historical point about women and the Church is the truth.

Thanks Maureen for pointing out the historical points of caving in to cultural relativism.

Sadly, Anne has fallen victim to the dictarship of relativism and the course of least resistance. To hell with truth and principle.

This is about abortion and the AUTHORITY of the Catholic Church.

Sandra Currie, I couldn’t agree with you more.
What the Roman Catholic Church does is everybody’s business.
And indeed it is a “well funded political machine” and it does
indeed seek to interfere with the rights of American women
and the rights of gay Americans.
I have no doubt that in his heart of hearts Bishop Olmsted thinks he’s right.
But I urge those interested in this, to look up online the informed
opinions of Catholics who disagree with him.
I think this Bishop has given grave scandal.
Once again, I support the Sisters of Mercy and the others who are standing up to him.

Sandra, please demonstrate how the Catholic Church denies the “fundamental human rights” of women and homosexuals today.

Ah ... who’s the legalist now! Let’s then call it “bra trashing”—and keep the context.

Anne Rice Thank you! I’m thankful for your input. I have followed this story from the begining also. The olmstead supporters like to label anyone who doesn’t agree with their stance as murderers. No wonder women are leaving the Catholic Church in droves. I agree that in the Catholic Church women don’t matter much. The heirachy would like to see women in their place,  and as they prescribe, in their servitute.
I challenge all Catholics here to read the book,‘Double Crossed.’ Nuns are treated as third class citizens at best. Vatican II challenged women to become equal partners in the faith but the heirachy resented the favor and positive atention these women in positions of leadership were attaining and pulled the rug out.
I hopo and pray the nuns have learned from their past mistakes re. trusting that he Vatican would support these devoted, pious, and dedicated women. No, the church seeks to publicly ostracize and make an example out of any woman who dares to make an intelligent point or express sn opinion that is not checked twice and approved by a bishop first.
Unfortunately the Catholic Church is beyond corrupt and is blind to its’ leaders misdeeds who are too arrogant to admit to any wrongdoing.
If you can find just one holy bishop bring him to me and labeling olmstead humble…I think not! He puts more time and ceremony into changing his hats during mass…..

Anne, why do you support a group of people who support the killing of innocent children?

You are giving scandal by doing so.

Anne, I realize that an 11-wk. old fetus cannot be viable, so that’s why the child should have been given a chance in her mother’s womb to grow.

An 11-wk. old fetus is not such a drain on a woman’s body as an abortion is.

Instead, a pre-emptive abortion was done.

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2006/0603fea4.asp

Colleen, I appreciate your comment here very much.
I have read Double Crossed, and I also recommend it.
I was educated by nuns as a child and in high school.
Two of my aunts were Sisters of Mercy. I have close friends
today who are nuns.
I think there is a silent schism in the church today between
nuns and the hierarchy, and perhaps this is inevitable.
Nuns are in the front lines, really working with the sick and the
dying, the poor and marginalized.
Bishops live in palaces.
It’s important to emphasize here that this issue is
not about abortion. I am against abortion. I am pro life.
This issue is about forcing women to die when a pregnancy is
killing them, forcing them to be martyred along with the unborn.
I think some posting here are understandably confused by this.
A hospital is involved every hour of every day with
fine distinctions and key moral decisions when it comes to
the life and death of patients. 
Sr. Margaret McBride is universally admired at St. Joseph’s.
It is really a scandal that the Bishop treated her with such
contempt here.
He is apparently obsessed with his authority and feels
quite superior to the health care professionals at St. Joseph’s.
Perhaps, if the man does appeal this to Rome, Rome will rule
in her favor.  It is not inconceivable.
In the meantime, I urge Catholics to stand up to the man.
Stand up for life.

Colleen, can you demonstrate with factual information that women are leaving the Church in droves? 

Ironically, the Church is villified for worshiping Mary, and then some ignorant people accuse her of treating women as second class citizens.

It was the Church that gave women in marriage rights to not be divorced at the drop of a hat in the first centuries of Christianity; it was the Church that placed the care of widows (and orphans) as a top priority; and it was the Church that has said that we do not fertility at all costs, that families are planned with God’s help through Natural Family Planning.

Liseux, you are speculating about the wisdom of the
medical decision made by Sr.McBride and the doctors
at her hospital.
Based on the information we have the young mother
was dying.  The abortion saved her life.
This is what the hospital has told us.
I base my conclusions on what the hospital has told us.

Yes, stand for ALL life, not just the one that is female, ill or well, and up for an abortion.

Yes, the hospital that is now trying to save it’s Catholic identity is trying to justify killing an unborn child. Not surprising.

If the woman’s life had been in critical danger, a procedure could have been done on her body that would have had as a secondary consequence that the child died.

A procedure could have been done to save the life of the mother, and secondarily the child died. The intent would not have been to outright kill the child.

This Catholic teaching protects both the mother and the child.

Instead, the child was hastily killed outright.

This is the killing of an innocent boy or girl whose life had value.

Life was not given a chance.

There was a rush to death.

This case has nothing to do with moral relativism.
It has to do with the value of human life.
A woman is not an idea. She is not a concept.
She does not exist merely to facilitate the birth of
new people.
She has a heart and a soul. Her life has value.
Again, this case is not about abortion.
No one expects a Catholic hospital to perform abortions.
This has to do with forcing a woman to die with an unborn
child who cannot be saved.
Those who don’t understand the issues, let me suggest you
google and read.  There is plenty enough out there on this
case.
For those who support the hospital’s decision to save the
young mother’s life, let me suggest you go to their website,
and send an email of support.
It is important that concerned Catholics speak up for life.

Wait - is this the same Anne Rice who <i>quit being a Christian?

.
If so, how can someone who doesn’t accept institutionalized religion comprehend apostolic succession and authority?

.
Further, what does a bishop in Belgium have to do with Bishop Olmsted. Let’s expand on that mode of thinking…

.
- let’s project guilt and inability to think objectively on all women because some woman decided to kill her children so she could be free of the responsibility.
.
- ditto for men because of what Hitler did.
.
- let’s look at all school personnel with a suspicious eye because children have been abused by people who work in schools (at a much higher rate than clergy!)
.
- let’s not read books anymore because some author wrote a bad novel.

.
And, the list goes on. The people who whine the most about stereotyping people do an awful lot of stereotyping themselves, but when it’s a catholic priest or bishop, that’s ok… Not!

liseux, I must say that you are wrong.
There was no rush to death.
The hospital saved the only life they could save here.
I urge Catholics to support St. Joseph’s hospital and
the Sisters of Mercy.
Endless speculation as to what doctors “should” have done
if this case was this way, or that way, etc., really doesn’t matter here.
We must go with the information given us by the hospital.
And according to that information, I feel we must support the
hospital for saving the life of the mother.

Diane, this is a serious conversation about a serious matter.
Perhaps you’d like to delete your post and give a little
more thought to how to address the matters at hand.

I am being very serious.

This quote is from Bold Faith Type online, and worth reading.

“This is a classic example of why some Catholic bishops have lost the respect of even faithful Catholics, including those who view abortion as a tragedy that undermines the sanctity of life. An imperial style and dogmatic certitude in the face of the messy complexities of ministering to the sick and dying leaves little room for prudential judgment or nuanced analysis. One can believe abortion is wrong and at the same time recognize that in grave situations moral absolutes often collide with the real world, where life-and-death medical decisions are made in the most ethical way possible against a daily backdrop of ambiguity and imperfection. Unlike most bishops who have spent little or no time serving in hospitals, Sister McBride and other Catholic health-care providers have lived experience and practical expertise that should be respected.

“Bishop Olmsted’s black-and-white determination also offers a telling contrast with Pope Benedict XVI’s recent statements about condoms, where the pope acknowledged that while the Church teaches condom use is wrong, “in certain cases” contraceptives can be “a first step in a movement toward a different way, a more human way, of living sexuality.” This is not situational ethics that violates Church teaching, but practical and humane theology that responds to the world as it is even as we strive to build a world that lives up to our highest ideals. The tragic pandemic of AIDS in Africa, the pope teaches, must have some bearing on the proper application of Church teaching. If it doesn’t, our religious leaders are taking a path radically different from the example of Jesus, who walked among the brokenness and sin of the world not as a moral bureaucrat offering edicts from on high, but as a real person who experienced the human condition in all its frailty.”

This quote from an article by Ruth Ann Monti,
is well worth reading:

“Catholic Healthcare West, which operates St. Joseph’s, addresses abortion on its Mission and Values, including when it may be permissible:

“Direct abortion is not performed. Indirect abortion is performed in certain medically indicated cases. An indirect abortion is a termination of pregnancy that is not directly intended and in which the sole purpose is the cure of a proportionately serious pathological condition of the mother, when the treatment cannot be safely postponed until the fetus is viable.”

I urge all Catholics to realize these are not abstract issues.
Speak up for the rights of women and the unborn.
Speak up for life.

Anne, I see you dismissing and trying to marginalize posters who logically and historically counter your points.

Diane has valid points. Please respond to her questions, as they are legitimate.

Anne, you and Sister chose death before life.

The child was not given a chance.

Why take the easy way out?

This case has nothing to do with moral relativism.
It has to do with the value of human life.

You’re right. And that human had a right to a life. The hospital did not have the right to rip that baby limb from limb because it didn’t care enough to save him or her. THAT is what this is all about. Pretending literally ripping someone apart is OK because it helps someone else is not supporting women in any way shape or form.

Liseux, I suspect there was nothing easy at all
about what Sr. McBride did. Why don’t you call
the hospital and talk to them about it?
If you go to their website you’ll see that they invite this.
Perhaps they can shed some light on this for you.
You seem unsure of what actually happened there.
I feel we must go by the statements that the hospital has
given us. I don’t doubt the hospital.
Speculation that some one took “the easy way out” isn’t warranted here.
http://www.stjosephs-phx.org/Who_We_Are/Contact_Us

You may have made a different decision, had you been there.
You might have told the young woman that she had to die, and
that you refused to help her.
Perhaps that’s exactly what you would have done.

But that doesn’t mean Sr.McBride took “the easy way out” in saving the
young woman’s life.
Remember, this is a Sister who has spent her life caring for the sick
and the dying.  I think she deserves some respect, based on her record.

“I base my conclusions on what the hospital has told us”.

Well, I DO NOT BELIEVE what the hospital has told us.

If the FIAMC (international Catholic Doctors Association) and other Catholic Medical ad bioethical associations said “yes, this is a technical situation where no other thing could be done”... may be I will start to think about it.

I we know that these “baby or mother” situations are rare as a green dog, and I believe these situations in a rich country such as USA are non existant.

No, I DO NOT BELIEVE the technical conclusions of the hospital… Does any pro-life (real pro-life,  mean) Catholic doctor support their conclusions?

Desde España, felicidades al obispo de Phoenix por su valentia!

Ann I think it is sad that many Catholics just accept the church’s teaching on blind faith. “If the priest is against it then so am I.” Perhaps it is fear that prevents them from truly engaging themselves in a study of what makes sense or maybe laziness.I guess maybe it makes it easier for them to sleep believing they are depending on the mother church to influence their decision making.
It takes alot of work and courage to delve into matters of faith. The heirachy have also set up barriers to allowing an open forum into many issues. They totally block or make it almost impossibe to access unbiased information.
I for one cannot sit back and relax with a clear conscience when the church is disintegrating before my eyes due to the egos of few.
I also have several aunts who are Sisters of Mercy and have grown up in the faith. As I mature in my faith though I have chosen to question when the actions and dictates of the church heirachy do not make sense; When the conversation is limited to participation of a chosen few; and When the concerns and questions of members are blatently ignored.
So for those of you who have not read about this case and who do not wish to be informed, to those who follow church teaching without question there is probably no chance that you will invest the time and effort it takes to personally own your faith. That would be much too hard. Why work when you can follow this bishops directives. You will continue to believe his version of the truth and defend his humbleness.
I find it hard to demonize nuns who have historicly proved their selfless love and dedication to the Church. I am so proud that the nuns are finally finding their voice and refusing to accept the status quo. They love the Catholic faith and they aren’t going to give it up! I’m looking forward to the day when their leadership will bring new energy and life to this religion. Until then I will not allow the sheep and their shepherder to break my spirit and ambition to seek out the truth that Jesus intended us to live as Christians.
May God and Mary and the all the saints be with the good sisters in their endeavor to invigorate the Catholic Church I hope it is not too late. Sr. Margaret McBride you may have not intended to be a lightening rod but you are. You are providing the momentum many of us need to speak out and cry foul. We are not the bad guys here but then it’s easier to point out the sins of others than to take a thorough inventory of your own faith. So many people call themselves Catholics but pick and choose their beliefs and actions to suit their needs,preferences,comforts, and their willingness to really stand behind and defend their beliefs with more than a few biblical lines used to support their litle grasp of the faith they learned about in their youth.My challeng to you: Be bold and have the courage to question your immature understandings of what you think you believe You might be surprised!

Anne Rice quoting the hospital which states: “Direct abortion is not performed. Indirect abortion is performed in certain medically indicated cases. An indirect abortion is a termination of pregnancy that is not directly intended and in which the sole purpose is the cure of a proportionately serious pathological condition of the mother, when the treatment cannot be safely postponed until the fetus is viable.”

.
Anne - An abortion was scheduled, not a the removal of a cancerous uterus.  With something like a cancerous organ, there is no desire to kill the unborn baby. Rather the baby dies as a result of the uterus needing to be removed. In the Phoenix case, an abortion was performed with intent to kill the baby.

.
Further, I don’t know which theologians you are referencing because the theologians I’ve been reading, are saying that the principle of double-effect does not apply in this case because the abortion itself is intrinsically evil. 

.
With regards to physician opinions, abortion is not the only answer:
.

However, while various media gave the impression that pulmonary hypertension is a condition where abortion would be curative, Catholic medical experts pointed out that this is not the case. 

In fact, neonatologist Dr. Paul Byrne explained to LifeSiteNews that with pulmonary hypertension, an abortion, although it may relieve some of the stress on the heart, may also make the situation worse due to the stress of the abortion procedure. Dr. Byrne also explained that the literature on the condition indicates that there have been successful interventions for pregnant women with pulmonary hypertension that have enabled both mother and child to survive. [a href=“http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2010/jun/10062501”>Source</a>

.
In a previous article, Dr. Byrne explained (emphases mine in bold):

.
However, Dr. Paul A. Byrne, Director of Neonatology and Pediatrics at St. Charles Mercy Hospital in Toledo, Ohio, disputes the claim that an abortion is ever a procedure necessary to save the life of the mother, or carries less risk than birth.

“I’ve done this work just about as long as neonatology has existed,” said Byrne. “The key is we must protect and preserve life, and we have to do that from conception to the natural end.” [Source]

In light of that quote by Dr. Byrne, who has certainly seen his share of such patients in his long career, it seems that we are operating under different assumptions.

.
Anne, Colleen, et al - all believe that the mother was going to die if she didn’t have the abortion.

.
As the testimony of Dr. Byrne shows, there are alternatives, especially at 11 weeks of pregnancy. 

.
Colleen has especially talked about us showing “blind faith” in our Church leaders, but doesn’t hesitate to display “blind faith” in medical boards and nuns. They are, after all, human and capable of making mistakes.  I have known several women who had to be hospitalized toward’s the end of their pregnancy for complete bed rest due to these kinds of complications. What Dr. Byrne said makes perfect sense.  At 11 weeks it is unlikely that anyone would be in severe PH.  That is likely to happen later in pregnancy when you can get the baby to viability outside the womb.

Do you believe the hospital has lied about the situation?
Was Dr. Byrne there? Did he treat the patient? Did he confer with
the staff of St. Joseph’s?  Has he seen the records of this case?
Apparently he was not there, and did not treat the patient, and
has not seen the records of the case.

I can only respond to the case as we know it as reported by
the hospital. The hospital said the woman was dying, and that
they saved the only life that they could.

If new facts come to light, if the records are made public,
or if further statements are made about the decision, then it will
be time to reconsider.

As it stands now, I am responding to the news we have been given.
The opinions of a doctor hundreds of miles away on a patient he has never met
and a case he has not studied do not warrant serious consideration.

Doctors take a hippocratic oath to do no harm. Priest take a vow of celibacy. Let’s take a guess; Which profession has a greater chance of adhering to their vow..hmmmm
No I didn’t say which profession you would expect to honor their vows because it’s common knowledge that a large percentage of priests cheat on their vows; priests who have lovers; men women, and unfortunatly children and animals. What else are they being dishonest, deceptive, and below board about? Sorry but I can’t put my blind trust in these fine examples of Christ among us.

Here is a quote from the article that appeared in June in the National Catholic Reporter:
“Ethicists fault bishop’s action in Phoenix abortion case.” by Tom Roberts.

“Both the recent reactions, as well as writings, of a range of theologians and canonists whose work spans a good portion of the liberal-to-conservative spectrum, suggests that the approach of Olmsted and his chief ethicist, Fr. John Ehrich, while defensible under the most rigid reading of canon law, is outside of the mainstream of scholarship and thinking on the matter.
These experts faulted Olmsted’s action for several reasons:
It does not, for instance, take into account such factors as the intent of those involved, a consideration regularly applied to other complex moral problems.
It does not ask if the death of the fetus—assured whether the decision was to do nothing to save the life of the mother or to remove the fetus from the mother’s womb—should even enter into “the moral framework” in this instance.
Its application in this case is inconsistent with the approach the church takes to other grave public sins, such as support of the death penalty, war, or clergy accused of sexual abuse, including rape, of children.
In a pastoral sense, the sanction was unnecessarily heavy-handed, given the agonizing circumstances involved.”

Anne, why do you put so much faith in an “ethicist” and not in one of the successors to the apostles, the bishop?

Is it because he agrees with your point of view?

Colleen, your ad hominem discussion is off-topic. We’re not discussing clerical vows of celibacy, but the untimely death of a child.

Anne - If you are reading the National Catholic Reporter, it explains a few things.  It’s not Catholic - the Catholic Church distanced itself from that source back in 1968.  I regret that I cannot consider most of the people they consult to be “experts”.  The NCR is nothing but it’s own “magisterium”.  The site is full of dissenting opinions on everything from soup to nuts. No thanks.

.
It’s true that Dr. Byrne was not there.  However, after reading what he said, that it is very unlikely for someone to be in severe pulmonary hypertension at 11 weeks of pregnancy, I wonder how much of this was a business decision cloaked in “saving the life the mother”.  It would take a lot more money to keep the woman in the hospital on bed rest and on a restricted sodium diet, if need be, to save the life of that baby.  For just a few hundred dollars, you can kill the baby and save a much greater expense.  Insurance plans probably don’t like mothers being kept in a hospital on bed rest either.  The really Catholic thing to do in such a case would be to get the necessary funds to ensure the mother could get what she needed in order to get the baby to viability. There are any number of crisis pregnancy centers who would have put out the call for assistance if needed. 

.
@Colleen - you can keep stereotyping all priests based on what a fraction of a percent did.  How about we sterotype all doctors based on the negligence of a few?  Anyone can play the stereotype game.  Of course, it is just easy to reach for when it involves Catholics.  As I pointed out earlier, teachers and school admins have a far worse abuse record than priests - exponentially greater.  How about we all stop projecting the guilt of individuals to classes of people?

Liseux, given what I know from the way the case was reported,
I felt the Bishop was wrong.  He has behaved badly. He has not
applied canon law in a way that is consistent; and he has shown
a merciless attitude towards the dying mother whose life was saved.
He was profoundly disrespectful to Sr. Margaret McBride and other
people at the hospital who worked with her on this.

I have quoted comments by others when I think those comments
have substance and merit.

Of course I do not privilege this bishop simply because he is a
successor of the apostles. Bishops in the United States and in Europe
have been guilty of sexual abuse and of covering up the crimes of others.
We are confronted with evidence constantly that bishops are fallible human
beings like the rest of us.
A bishop must earn respect like anyone else.

Here are some more comments of interest from
Angela Bonavoglia who wrote a very good story on
the original incident for The Huffington Post.

“We need more research into how often and in what ways physicians compromise patient care as a result of the Catholic Directives. But for now, the experience of the nameless, faceless, pregnant woman who Bishop Olmstead would have sentenced to death (rather than having her live “the rest of her existence having had her child killed,” which is how the diocesan statement put it) is a cautionary tale.

“Unless you are a deeply devoted Catholic and want your local bishop to make your most intimate medical decisions, when the ambulance pulls up, be ready. Have your own ethical and moral directive saying: Do Not Take Me to a Catholic Hospital. If for no other reason than this: there may not be a Sister Margaret in the house. “

I must agree with Ms. Bonavoglia.
As long as this church values the lives of women
less than the lives of men (and unborn children),
women must beware of Catholic hospitals.

The more I read on this case, the more I study on it,
the more I wonder if some great good might not yet
come of it.
I think Sr.Margaret McBride won the battle in the press
for any number of reasons. 
And she is still winning.
Why?
Because she did what was right.

I meant to add a link with my statement on teachers.

Forgotten Study: Abuse in School 100 Times Worse than by Priests

Liseux, what concerns me here is the case as
we know it from what the hospital has told us,
and what the bishop has told us.

I have no way of evaluating the reflections of a doctor
who wasn’t there, never saw the patient, and has not seen
the records.  The issues he raises do not have to do with this
case as we know it.

Again, if additional information comes out, if we discover
that the facts were not as they were presented, then we can
re-evaluate.  But Dr. Byrne’s “speculation” is beside the point.

Diane, thank you for your balanced, objective posts on this matter.

Of course I do not privilege this bishop simply because he is a
successor of the apostles. Bishops in the United States and in Europe
have been guilty of sexual abuse and of covering up the crimes of others.

.
Let’s face it Anne - your posting here isn’t really about this Phoenix case is it? You keep projecting the guilt of a fraction of a percentage of priests and bishops onto all priests and bishops. 

.
I’m outta here.  You have the combox so you can dialogue with yourself.

.
Please be assured of my prayers.

Diane, please keep posting.

Your points are timely, full of truth, and demonstrate a keen awareness and experience with the issue.

Is Te Deum Laudamus a group you are associated with? I’d like to know more.

The fact that Anne cannot answer your questions or refute your evidence underscores that this is not just about the Phoenix case for her.

She’s got an axe to grind and agenda to promote that is very much about the Culture of Death. She is in my prayers as well.

My concern here is with the case of Sr. Margaret McBride and
Bishop Thomas Olmsted, with the fate of St. Joseph’s Hospital
in its ongoing confrontation with the Bishop.
I try not to be drawn off into personal discussions
or respond to personal attacks.
Again, my concern is with St. Joseph’s Hospital
and what will happen in the struggle with Bishop Olmsted.

lisieux - it is the name of my blog: http://te-deum.blogspot.com

.
Anne is just repeating herself.  It’s like watching a re-run.

.
Now, I don’t know if this is the Anne Rice because she has not answered this question.  But, let’s just look at what the Anne Rice, said about abortion when she backed Hilary Clinton in 2007:

.
I feel we can stop the horror of abortion. But I do not feel it can be done by rolling back Roe vs. Wade, or packing the Supreme Court with judges committed to doing this. As a student of history, I do not think that Americans will give up the legal right to abortion. Should Roe vs Wade be rolled back, Americans will pass other laws to support abortion, or they will find ways to have abortions using new legal and medical terms

...Do I myself have a solution to the abortion problem? The answer is no. What I have are hopes and dreams and prayers—- that better education will help men and women make responsible reproductive choices, and that abortion will become a morally abhorrent option from which informed Americans will turn away.

.
Here is video of the Anne Rice saying that while she believes abortion is murder, it should be kept legal.
.
http://theblogprof.blogspot.com/2010/08/video-of-ex-christian-anne-rice-yeah.html

.
So, think of how many unborn babies will never exit the womb to receive baptism and have the opportunity to give glory to God - their Creator.  Those babies don’t belong to their mothers, they belong to God who willed them into being.

Hi Liseux,
You asked how the Church denies women and gays fundamental rights.  Let’s start with women.  The Church takes away autonomy over our bodies.  Forcing unwanted pregancies by denying us a choice of when and how many children we chose to bring into the world is taking away from us the most fundamental of rights.

Teaching that gay people are an abomination, denying them their civil rights is engendering fear and hatred of our gay brothers and sisters.  What would Jesus have done?

The Church has maintained male supremacy over the ages and as a result has warped sense of the world.  Ensuring that women are kept silent and pregnant has helped maintain this supremacy.

I went to a reunion of the sisters who entered the order that I entered when I was seventeen.  If these women had a real say in the Church, it would be a much different institution.  All but one were pro choice for women.  They were loving, caring women, doing good works in the world, and their opinions and values were discounted by the male hierarchy.  They made the choice to stay in and struggle, but totally respected those of us who had given up on trying to move the Church to a more humane and enlightened place.

If you read the history of the Church, you will see what this male domination has caused.  The Crusades, the support of repressive regimes in central and south america, etc, etc, etc.

We need more Bishop Olmsteds! 

In one of the comments “fear of dying” was mentioned.  If we get our lives in order, we should look forward to death as it means seeing our God.  It’s just the fear of the dying process that scares us and wanting to cling to the material things of this life.

What I saw in many of the comments who oppose Bishop Olmstead is the cafeteria Catholic.  Sad!

“However, Dr. Paul A. Byrne, Director of Neonatology and Pediatrics at St. Charles Mercy Hospital in Toledo, Ohio, disputes the claim that an abortion is ever a procedure necessary to save the life of the mother, or carries less risk than birth.”

He needs to get out more.

Anne says: My concern here is with the case of Sr. Margaret McBride and
Bishop Thomas Olmsted, with the fate of St. Joseph’s Hospital
in its ongoing confrontation with the Bishop.
I try not to be drawn off into personal discussions
or respond to personal attacks.
Again, my concern is with St. Joseph’s Hospital
and what will happen in the struggle with Bishop Olmsted.

.
I see. So it is ok for you to launch a personal attack on a Roman Catholic bishop by lumping him in with a bishop in Belgium who committed a wrong?

.
Further, it is not a personal attack to ask that, if you are going to use the name of a well known book author who was Catholic, and who has since rejected Catholicism, it is relevant. Why? If you don’t believe in institutionalized religion, then it is understandable that you would not factor the apostolic angle to this very discussion. This is not just an issue about a hosptial.  It is an issue concerning a Catholic hospital.  If the hospital wants to be known as a Catholic hospital, then it needs to act like a Catholic hospital. 

.
Neither you, nor I, have access to the data used by those doctors and ethics staff which made decisions.  They say that they saved the one life they could.  Do you have data in front of you that shows that the mother was in iniment danger of death?  When other doctors say that it is unlikely for someone to have “severe” pulmonary hypertension at 11 weeks of gestation, it makes me wonder about that data.  It makes me wonder about what insurance companies were willing to pay for.  It makes me wonder, if the mother did not have insurance, if the hospital was willing to go all out - in charity - to give her what she needed to carry this baby until it was viable.

.
There are any number of doctors who will attest that abortion is not the only option for someone with PH.  As for the condition of the mother, we have nothing but the word of administrators.  How can we be sure this wasn’t a business decision based on the fact that it costs only hundreds of dollars for an abortion versus so much more to put the mother up as needed to get the baby to viability?

Sandra, I think we can disregard Dr. Paul A. Byrne altogether.
It’s obvious, he wasn’t there, didn’t see the patient, has not read
the records.
Why the man went out on a limb about a case of which he knows nothing
is a mystery.
Again, my concern is with the case as we have it from
the hospital and the bishop.

@Anne, here’s the problem with relying upon the opinion of ethicists: It is virtually inevitable that they will disagree, not just on this one case, but on a whole host of issues.  When that happens, if no one has the definitive word; doesn’t this mean that anything goes?
After all, Roe v. Wade was a relatively modest decision, it was Doe v. Bolton that caused the abortion-on-demand status that we now face.  Why?  Because the Supreme Court determined to let the woman and the doctor make the decision about when abortion was necessary for a woman’s “health”.  This was great for the doctor, less so for the woman, and horrible for the infant. Should a bishop do likewise?

Anne, you seem to feel that the Catholic Church hates women.  I grant you that the Church is full of sinners (that’s why I’m allowed in!), some of whom can be sexist pigs.
Nonetheless, as a feminist attorney who has fought for years for protection for trafficked, pimped, and prostituted women; I have found that the Church (including many bishops) has been my strongest ally in protecting these women. These are women whose lives have been destroyed by the if-it-feels-good-do-it world in which we live. 

The very bishop you judge so harshly has been a strong supporter of Dignity House, a home in Phoenix where these women can go to be safe, and receive the therapy and care that they need. 

Based upon what I know of this bishop regarding Dignity House, I do not believe that he values the life of women so lightly.  Since actions speak louder than words, I give him the benefit of the doubt.  Forgive me if I say that,as a Christian, you should do likewise.

Meant to ask the following question/comment ...
Does Bishop Olmsted have the authority to remove the Sisters from the hospital if the “Catholic” designation is removed?  And if so, he should have added that to his ultimatum. 

For the Sisters to remain, it will give the appearance of a “Catholic” Hospital and will also put these Sisters in potential abortion and sterilization procedures.

Diane——- I am posting here like any other person, because I am
concerned with this matter: Sr. McBride and Bishop Olmsted.
I haven’t the slightest objection to saying who I am.
Yes, I am Anne Rice, the author.
If you care to say who you are, I welcome the context for your
posts.  But you certainly are not required to do so, obviously.

What the Catholic Church does in this world matters.
It seeks to influence everyone, and therefore it is of concern to everyone,
and that includes non-Catholics, Protestants, Jews, atheists, and
people who have been Catholics and who have walked away from
the church for various reasons.

I find your posts confusing.
I do not feel inclined to address the points you bring up because
they seem to lead us off topic.
And though I go off topic from time to time,
I do try to remain on topic.

You know perfectly well I have not launched an attack on a bishop by “lumping”
him with another bishop.  That was not the content of what I had to say.
But if I begin to call you on all the things you post here,
the discussion will become impossible.
I urge you to make a better effort to be honest in your posts,
so that this may remain a good discussion.

I am here to discuss the case as we know the case.
If I had any “inside” info about it, I would make that known.

I continue to be interested in the case.
I will not in future be dignifying your posts with a response
until you become more responsible and more coherent.
I don’t come here to fight with people like you.
I come here to discuss this issue because I think it is a
very important one.
I believe that people can discuss this or any other issue politely
and responsibly, no matter how much they differ in their views.

The commenter Anne Rice wrote:
“What concerns this bishop is that the woman was not forced to die with the child.  He’s furious apparently that her life was saved.”

Later she wrote:
“I try not to be drawn off into personal discussions or respond to personal attacks.”

That is rich.

“These are women whose lives have been destroyed by the if-it-feels-good-do-it world in which we live”. 

I hope you’re referring to the men who frequent prostitues and not the prostitutes themselfs - they are definitely not doing it because it feels good.  If you believe that, I wish you were in the business of protecting them.

And prostitution isn’t called the oldest profession for nothing.  You make it sound like it’s a fairly new phenomenon.

And I wouldn’t be calling myself a feminist on any of the NCR blogs.  The hatred towards feminists is one of the most often expressed positions.

@Sandra Curr:
.

The Church takes away autonomy over our bodies.  Forcing unwanted pregancies by denying us a choice of when and how many children we chose to bring into the world is taking away from us the most fundamental of right

.
First of all, it is not your body we are talking about, but the body of another human being, with distinct DNA.  Have you watched an abortion? Do you have the courage to watch an abortion?  If you are going to voice a choice for people to kill the unborn, then take time out of your day to watch it. Here is a list of some pictures, videos and so on.  You will see that, as a mom, it is not your body that is being burned alive by chemicals or cut apart while still alive.  Take a look and know what you are defending. If you are like most, you won’t click that link and view some of those things because you can’t handle that part of it.  Did you know that some babies who undergo chemical abortion actually do not die during the procedure and are born alive? Gianna Jessen can tell you all about it. She survived a chemical abortion and lived to tell about it. Gianna was the lucky one.  Most babies who survive such an abortion are left on a cold shelf where they can die alone.  Ex-nurse turned whistle-blower Jill Stanek can tell you about that.

.
This is not the time nor the post to address the rest of your rant which is opening up a rabbit hole. Like others, you are revealing that your beef with Bishop Olmsted is just about your general anger at the Church and the fact that it is holding firm to constant and clear teachings which are based on Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium.

The commenter Anne Rice wrote:
“What concerns this bishop is that the woman was not forced to die with the child.  He’s furious apparently that her life was saved.”

Anne:  How many more times are you going to repeat that statement.  And how do you know what Bishop Olmsted thinks?  That statement is utterly ridiculous!  Don’t try to tell us what someone else “thinks”.

MaryO, I appreciate your posts and the work you do.
I do not think there is anything to be gained from
saying that the church “hates” women.  On the other
hand, I think there is everything to lose by ignoring
the prejudice of the church against women.
The case as we know it indicates that the Bishop did not
value the life of this woman.  He felt that she should have
been “allowed” to die as he put it.
And there is some evidence that he is furious that
he has been challenged on this.
I cannot in conscience agree with him in what he said.
I must stand by the young mother and her husband and her
children.  I must stand up for her life, for her soul, for her
unique value as a member of the human race.
I suspect all this publicity has been brutal for her.
I know what it has done to me to hear Catholics expressing their
fury that the woman was allowed to live.
I can only imagine what it has done to her.
As for the Bishop, I do not feel in the least inclined to give him the
benefit of any doubt in this situation on any other. 
i am interested—- only—- in what he says and what he does officially
and its impact on Sr. Margaret McBride, the Sisters of Mercy,
and St. Joseph’s Hospital. 
Who he is personally is not my concern.
I am sorry if you think I “should” do otherwise,
but again, my interest is in the case, not the
background of the bishop.

Here is a quote from a recent news story on the subject.

“The bishop has engaged in an exchange of letters with Dean in which the Catholic Healthcare West executive cites a Marquette University professor who said the abortion was morally justifiable under the circumstances. In his Nov. 22 letter to Dean, Bishop Olmsted said it was he, as bishop, who had the authority to interpret Catholic moral teachings and the Ethical and Religious Directives governing Catholic healthcare institutions in his diocese.

““Until this point in time, you have not acknowledged my authority to settle this question but have only provided opinions of ethicists that agree with your own opinion and disagree with mine,” wrote Bishop Olmsted. “As the diocesan bishop, it is my duty and obligation to authoritatively teach and interpret the moral law for Catholics in the Diocese of Phoenix.”

““The conclusion I take away from this analysis is that you do not intend to change anything,” wrote Bishop Olmsted. “While my objections and our correspondence have garnered your undivided attention, you have discounted my legitimate authority. Because of this I must now act. I do so not only to assure that no further such violations of the ERDs [Ethical and Religious Directives] occur, but also to repair the grave scandal to the Christian faithful that has resulted from the procedure that took place at St. Joseph’s and the subsequent public response of CHW.”

“Bishop Olmsted then gave Dean and Catholic Healthcare West a Friday, Dec. 17, deadline to comply with the bishop’s directives. Specifically, the bishop told Dean that Catholic Healthcare West must acknowledge in writing that the abortion that occurred at St. Joseph’s violated Catholic healthcare ethical directives “and so will never occur again at St. Joseph’s Hospital.”

“In addition, said the bishop, Catholic Healthcare West “must agree to a review and certification process conducted by the Medical Ethics Board of the Diocese of Phoenix to enforce full compliance with the Ethical and Religious Directives of the USCCB.”

It was from this and other reports that I drew the inference that the bishop was angry.
I do not know what the bishop feels.
This sounds angry.

Hello Sandra, thanks for answering my post.

First of all, the Church does not take away the right to a woman’s own body. She in fact PROTECTS the humanity and dignity of a woman’s body.

Have you ever had 4 arms, a penis, or two heads?  When you are pregnant with a male child, it’s not just YOUR body- it’s the body of your child as well.

The Catholic Church protects the rights of that child, a genetically complete and different being from you.

Secondly, the Church does not teach that homosexuals are an abomination. That is a strawman argument. Please know the teachings of the Catholic Church before you attempt to attack them. Actually, the Church teaches that homosexuals should be loved and treated with dignity and without any unjust discrimination. 

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

“They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity.  Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.  These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter.”  #2358

As for denying homosexual “marriage,” this is accurate about the Church. But this is not a fundamental human right to marry anyone or anything you want. I cannot marry a minor, a close relative, or my cat. 

Homosexuals have the same right I have- to marry a person of the opposite sex. They do not deserve to have special rights.

As for women not having a say in the Church, please, read the history of the great Catholic saints of yesterday and today.  St. Catherine of Sienna TOLD the popes what to do and they listend. So much for the male-dominated clergy. Same thing with St. Teresa of Avila.  These women were giants in the Catholic world, were respected, and their influence comes down to us today.

There are 100s like them.

Today, we have the great Mother Angelica, slayer of wayward and bishops (my opinion) and the great DAVID of the television empire. With 200$ she started the largest Catholic global tv network, EWTN, and had to fight some greedy and jealous bishops to do so.

Are all bishops greedy and jealous? Certainly not. She received help from many other bishops and laymen who were Godly men, BUT God chose to work through HER to bring us the Catholic truth on the airwaves, tv, and the computer.

Please get out of the victim mode. It’s not fitting for present day women, and it’s not fitting for the Church either.

BTW, look at many of the defenders of the Church here- we are WOMEN who have been freed and enlightened to love and promote life.

God bless you all,

I’m outta here.

Sandra,

1.Yes, the Church believes that abortion is murder and the taking of an innocent human life is an offense to God. If you wish to characterize that as “taking away from us the most fundamental of rights” than I would suggest that your problem is more fundamentally with God, than with his Church.  The Church is just the messenger.

2. If you knew anything about the status of women in the ancient world then you would know the pivotal role that the Judea-Christian tradition has had in raising the status of women in history. You need to read more.

3. The Church does not teach that “gay people are an abomination”. The Church teaches that homosexuality is a grave moral disorder and a mortal sin. Rather than “engendering hatred” against homosexuals, we are taught, commanded even, to love our homosexual brothers and sisters.  Again, you need to read more ( I suggest you start with the Catechism of the Catholic Church) before you embarrass yourself further by making such ignorant and ill-informed statements.

4.“I went to a reunion of the sisters who entered the order that I entered when I was seventeen….All but one were pro choice for women.  They were loving, caring women, doing good works in the world…” 

I’m sure they were (are) loving, caring women, but if they truly were pro-choice then they were not Catholic women, and this discussion is about Catholic teaching.

” If these women had a real say in the Church, it would be a much different institution. ”  I am sure that is true, but then it would not have been the institution that Christ founded, would it? There are plenty of other, secular, pro-abortion institutions in the world. They should join one of them (actually, they should ask for God’s forgiveness and return to his Church…as should you).

I will pray for your conversion; pray for mine.

@Sandra Currie, yes, I was referring to both the men who force women into prostitution and the men who frequent them once they have become prostituted.

@Anne, I am not ignoring prejudice against women and neither of us has enough first hand knowledge of the unfortunate situation in question to make a firm judgment of the matter.  You have made the point that the bishop should not be entitled to deference simply because he is a bishop.  Without conceding that point, I am suggesting that, given this particular bishop’s background with regard to women (especially those treated as outcasts by our society); it seems both unjust and unfair to conclude that he is furious because a woman did not die. Perhaps he is furious because a child has been killed.  Assuming for the sake of argument that he is wrong about that, does that make him “prejudiced” against women?

Maryo - I wasn’t referring specifically about Olmstead, and was referring to the entire culture of the RC Church, of which I know quite a bit.  Twelve years of Catholic school, my time in the convent, plus catholic university.  That’s where I learned the Catholic Church’s attitude towards women. 

And to Andre - the women who are still part of the order that I entered are every bit as much a member of the Church as you are.  There are some here who seem to believe that the Church’s teachings have remained unchanged since Jesus.  This is simply not the case.  There is no unbroken history passed down by bishops, no unchanging doctrine, no unchanging beliefs.  You, perhaps should do some more reading.  And spare me the prayers, I have no desire, need or intention of going back to something that I so happily left.

Anne - if someone does not accept the teaching authority of the Catholic Church, or apostolic succession, then it is understandable why you and I would disagree.  Our initial assumptions differ.

.
You find my posts confusing.  This too is understandable.  You quote a source which calls itself Catholic (NCR), which is not Catholic, to argue a Catholic position. 

.
You said about Bishop Olmsted: He has not
applied canon law in a way that is consistent;.

Here again - you are arguing Canon Law.  How can you argue the Church’s canon law when you do not accept the authority of the Church?  What qualifies you to even make such a statement, that he did not apply canon law consistently. Are you aware that Bishop Olmsted holds a doctorate in Canon Law?

.
and he has shown
a merciless attitude towards the dying mother whose life was saved

.
Where is the proof that she was actually dying at the time? The word of an administrator who also has to balance financial matters? Once again, from a business standpoint, an abortion is quite cheap.

.
To illustrate our differing assumptions going into this you say: This case has nothing to do with moral relativism.
It has to do with the value of human life.
.

Here again, the Church teaches us that both the mother and the unborn baby’s lives have value.

.
 
A woman is not an idea. She is not a concept.

.
A woman is a person, not a concept. The baby is also a person.

.
She does not exist merely to facilitate the birth of new people.

.
She exists to know, love, and serve God.  God is the author of the new life that grows within her and therefore, only God can terminate that life.

.
She has a heart and a soul. Her life has value.

The baby has a heart - a heart which beats.  Her life has value and she could be the very person who solves world hunger, if she is allowed to come into the world.  She is not a potential human being, but a human being with potential as Fr. Frank Pavone often says.  Also, the Catholic Church teaches us that this unborn life is ensouled at conception.  Therefore, the unborn baby has a soul and is deprived of the Sacrament of Baptism, and the opportunity to know, love and serve God, her Creator.

.
I respond to these things that you say, Anne, to show that our operating assumptions differ.  What you say may make sense in a secular forum, but it does not make sense in a Catholic forum.

.
I do not doubt your sincerity and concern for the woman in question.  I do believe you care about her.

We are please at the Bishop’s response and pray that more Bishop’s take a strong position to protect life,most especially protecting the innocent unborn. We will continue to pray vigilantly for the Bishop and all those that support him and the Lord’s ways.

Let the real Anne Rice make a public statement on her official web site that says the “Anne Rice” posting on NCRegister’s web site is one and the same. 

Until then, don’t be gullible and believe the above avatar of the same name is the real Anne Rice.

That said, I think “Anne Rice” has already made her point clear.  This is about family (alleges relatives to be in the same religious order as the excommunicated sister). 

“Anne Rice” parries the main thrust of Diane K.‘s points with focusing upon a second opinion by another Doctor.  Slick, but no go.  There’s a lot of moral questions that are not addressed and they need to be if this is to continue as a “serious” discussion as the alleged “Anne Rice” states.

Answer the whole of Diane K.‘s points and then you proceed with the conversation.

-KJS
http://d-rium.blogspot.com

You go, Diane.  I feel for Anne because she reminds me of myself several years ago.  Being a feminist, I had a very hard time accepting what I viewed as the Church’s historical mistreatment of women.  (Oddly, it was the Church’s position on abortion that had earlier brought me back to the Church.  I had seen so many of my women friends whose lives were permanently damaged by the “choice” foisted off on them by men who then happily moved on with their lives. I wanted to go back to the stance of the early feminists who viewed abortion as male abuse of both women and their children.)

Anyway, because I was so bothered by the issue of women and the Church, I spent some time reading history and learning the role of women in the pre-Christian world.  The Church was not just the women-oppressing institution that I had learned about in my one-sided Women and Power studies in college.  Still this was not enough for me, until the day I gave my anger over to Jesus and asked Him to take it away.  Our generous God gave me much more than I asked.  I asked for resignation.  He gave me understanding.

It bothers me a bit to see such obviously caring women locked in this battle of words.  We may never agree on the underlying ideas (and those ideas are important); but perhaps we can agree to pray for one another (and for all involved in this sad case).

Diane, you posts goes in all directions.
Your statements don’t make sense to me.
I’ll continue to post here on the question of
Sr. McBride and Bishop Olmsted.
And I will respond to others points when I
feel it would be fruitful to do so.
You must excuse me but I cannot address
all your various points.
Thank you for your sincerity.

I wanted to close my last comment to Anne by saying to Anne:

.
I do not doubt your sincerity and concern for the woman in question.  I do believe you care about her. I just don’t see anything in what you have written that shows concern for the unborn baby.

.
It’s easy to dismiss the unborn because their screams can’t be heard.

.
@ Sandra Currie: I would recommend that you spend a little time viewing photos and videos of abortions (if you have the courage to see what it is you are advocating.  It is not the mother’s body being burned by chemical abortion, but a baby’s.  In fact, some actually survive this procedure.  Gianna Jessen can tell you all about this - she is an abortion survivor.  They endure the pain of burns which blacken their tiny bodies and it can take days to kill them. Further, ex-nurse turned whistle-blower Jill Stanek can tell you how hospitals and clinics leave these survivor babies on a shelf to die all alone, even though medical aid could help them to survive like Gianna. Thanks, in part to her, there is the “Born Alive Infants Protection Act” making hospitals and clinics provide such aid if they are born alive.  Unfortunately, who is monitoring this? It still happens, especially in clinics.  That’s just chemical abortion.  Please do visit that link which has a list of photos and videos of various abortions at different stages.  Look very closely at the body parts.  Look at the faces of some of those so-called “fetuses” who were ripped apart - the pain still visible in their faces.  Sorry to be so graphic, but it is reality in abortions.  My guess is, that most of you who are so defensive about a woman’s right to choose will not have the guts to visit that link.

.
For any post-abortive woman reading what I wrote above, who is suffering from the trauma associated with this choice (often forced upon you by others), please know that there is help for you.  Please visit these sites where you will find healing. 

.
- http://www.rachelsvineyard.org/
- http://www.silentnomoreawareness.org/

MaryO, I am happy to concede that I do not
know whether the bishop is “prejudiced” against
women or whether he is angry.  I am fine with it.
It’s beside the point.
I think the Bishop is wrong here.

Option 1 - do nothing = Dead mother and dead unborn child
Option 2 - terminate pregnancy = Live mother and dead unborn child

Any doctor who choses #1 is guilty of medical malpractice.
If the “Catholic Option” prefers two dead patients to one dead patient, then I would not call a catholic hospital a medical institution.

There was no option 3 where everyone lives. Some people can’t deal with the fact in the real world there is not always going to be a warm happy ending.

Jimmy has a new post up on this…

http://www.ncregister.com/blog/catholic-abortion-hospital-smackdown-part-ii/

Dear Anne Rice:

We understood the “I quit Christianity” part.  So stay quit, or come back as a bona fide Catholic, m’kay?  Don’t get me wrong, I am certain that you also troll on Islamic websites and bravely protest Islamist terror such as the murder of Christians in the name of Allah—and you definitely use the same sharp language against imams as you do against Bishop Olmsted.  Absolutely certain.

Anyone who has met His Excellency sees immediately that he or she is in the presence of a wise and gentle shepherd.  Backbone firmly intact as well.  A very Christlike combination.

See, a baby was killed in Phoenix—needlessly, albeit by well-meaning people like you.  You’re moral reasoning is right up there with Charlie Curran and his merry “grab your sincerity and slide” band.  Which is to say pitiable.

Would that more bishops remove the phony Catholic adjective off of more hospital signs which use the Church as a cover for dirty deeds.

A kudos shout out to lisieux and Diane, whoever you are—you know the secret to true power, and it ain’t about fighting the (patriarchal) Man.

Dear D, you have posted:
“Option 1 - do nothing = Dead mother and dead unborn child
Option 2 - terminate pregnancy = Live mother and dead unborn child
Any doctor who choses #1 is guilty of medical malpractice.
If the “Catholic Option” prefers two dead patients to one dead patient, then I would not call a catholic hospital a medical institution.
There was no option 3 where everyone lives. Some people can’t deal with the fact in the real world there is not always going to be a warm happy ending.”

You are so very right.
And if the Bishop succeeds in making the hospital
back down, it will probably spell the end of Catholic hospitals in
America.  It will take some time for the ACLU and others to get
investigations, but if women are being forced to die with the unborn
in such situations in Catholic hospitals, it is the end of Catholic
hospitals in America.

Dear Diane at Te Deum Laudamus, Maureen, Deborah, Kathy, Joanne S., Jennifer F., Mary42, Elena, Rachel McTavish -

God bless you beautiful, wonderful Catholic women.

The real backbone of the Church has, from its founding, always been the strength of its women - one need only reflect on the scene at the foot of the cross;  it was the women and a mere boy who stood fast by our Lord in His most horrible hour of darkness: when “God was forsaken of God”

It is women like you that need hold the line against the Colleen Holmans of this world. They are obviously hurt and confused, at war with themselves and with the Body of Christ. They have been spun around dizzy by secular feminism into thinking murdering Holy Innocents is a “right” and that Jesus himself does not weep at this horrible evil. 

We should pray for the Colleens, but make no mistake: they are loud, and angry, and capable of making much mischief. They therefore need to be met head-on in battle by women like you: Stand by our Bishops that are doing the right thing and enforcing Church teaching. Continue raising your children in the full Truth of the Faith.  And keep speaking out against the muddle-headed secularism that has eaten away at our Church and our country.

Please understand. When I say that the Bishop’s winning
in this instance will mean the end of Catholic hospitals in
America, I am only describing what I think is inevitable.
I realize how sensitive this issue is for believers.
I myself believe that to withhold legal medical help
from a dying mother in a situation like this is deeply morally
wrong. It amounts to murder. It is abhorrent.  It amounts to murder.
But anyone can see from this thread and many other articles
that some Catholics do not believe this, and do quite truly
believe this woman should have been abandoned to die with
her child, regardless of her wishes or those of her husband.
They believe that the child should not have been removed from her
body, whether she was dying or not.
But ideas like that really no longer hold sway in America.
Women long ago reached a point of equality in America where
their individual lives became as valuable as those of men.
Women are no longer chattels of their husbands and fathers,
and have not been for some time.
And Americans will not stand for what they feel is the murder
of women in Catholic hospitals.
If the bishop wins, the ACLU will no doubt move on with its
investigation, and inevitably hospitals that refuse to offer
full medically approved and legal procedures to women in
life threatening situations will be shut down.
I for one think this is a good thing.
If you are not willing to
treat people according to the laws and medical standards of the
United States you should not be running an American hospital.
But I am not at all convinced that Bishop Olmsted really represents
most Catholics in his point of view, and surely he has met resistance
from the Catholic people running St. Joseph’s.
Perhaps in most Catholic hospitals today, this young woman’s life
would have been saved, without fanfare or publicity.
So if Olmsted does bring about an end to Catholic hospitals in America,
will he be representing the moral views of Catholics, or
simply an extremist view that the life of the mother is not worth
the life of the unborn child?
I think the Bishop is wrong. I think he has been wrong all along.
I think the people at St. Joseph’s were right.
Not all pro-lifers by any means believe that a young woman must
die with her unborn child, if it cannot be saved. 
it seems a particularly Catholic view, and in my opinion a
particularly warped view of things.
But whatever the case, America has moved past condoning this
kind of barbaric treatment of women.
So I would say that—regardless of our personal
beliefs——we will all look back on this crisis, created entirely
by Olmsted, as the end of Catholic hospitals in America.

Diane, I think you’re romanticizing yourself and your
position.
Many many Catholic women today are profoundly
dissatisfied with the church’s attitudes towards women
and issues related to women.
This isn’t a battle between those who accept and those who don’t.
This is a period of transition.
There are many Catholic women theologians writing today
on women’s issues within the church,
and in fact the Church has come a long way since Vatican II
in acknowledging women’s issues.
The women who stood at the foot of the cross, by the way,
were not, as far as we can tell from the gospels, conventional
compliant women such as the “good Catholic women”
you seem to be romanticizing and praising.
They were in fact quite unconventional apparently in following
Christ; just as He was quite unconventional in challenging the religious
customs, and mores of the Second Temple period.
Good Catholic women today would do well to stand up to the
Roman Catholic Church. And thousands do.
Certainly many have stood up to abusing priests and bishops
who tried to cover the abuse.
And many have simply left the pews rather than support what they
cannot abide.
I think you not doing justice to a very complex issue.

Okay: stop, stop.  Are we to believe that this “Anne Rice” is the Anne Rice of Vampire fame?  “Two of [your] aunts were Sisters of Mercy” ...just like the real Anne Rice.  Really?  Of course, the “gospel” she’s spreading is entirely in line with the Gospel according to Anne Rice, I find it incredible that she would come on this comment board and use her own name as a pseudonym.  Not impossible, but in any case, we have two possibilities: 1—a complete nutcase who’s trying to pass herself off as a celebrity or 2—the real Anne Rice, someone who quit Catholicism and accused many well-wishers of being anti-gay and a slew of other slurs.  Please don’t throw scraps at her, she’ll only come back for more.

My eyes are watering with all the fatuous arguments put forth by those who oppose Bishop Olmsted.  What I see in their opinions is circular arguments.  For the unelightened a circular argument is one of the major fallicies.  Those of faith answered (apparently to no avail) with sound doctrinal answers.  I would put the whole thing to rest with this thought.
For those of faith, no explaination is necessary, for those of no faith,
or distorted faith, no explaination. is possable.  God bless and preserve BBishop Olmsted.

Dear “Ann Rice” -

In your comments you have written at length - and quite falsely - about the life of the mother and that the Catholic Church somehow values it less than the life of men and children. In the blizzard of words you’ve posted, not once have you mentioned the soul of the mother - and it is, of course, there that the error of your thinking lies.
.
We are only a handful of generations removed from the days where child birth as likely killed the mother as not; it was only 90 years ago that 1 in 100 women died giving birth.  By your reasoning, just getting pregnant under those circumstances is evidence of valuing the life of the mother less than that of men and children.  By your standards, women throughout history could rightfully terminate any pregnancy under the “life of the mother argument.” If you’re reading this, thank God that your great-great-great-grandmas never met Anne Rice.
.
Advances in medical care that have greatly reduced the mortality rate of women giving birth do not change the theology, the ethics, or the correctness of Church teaching about abortion. It is Truth, and Truth is eternal. The issue here is that a member of a Catholic religious order falsely (and possibly to the ruin of her soul) counseled a woman to have an abortion under circumstances and methods that are unacceptable - to God.  And it is not something the Pope, a Bishop, a legislator - or Sr. Margaret - can change.

Anne Rice’s comments are like the people who say torture is justified in the ticking time bomb scenario—commit an act you know is evil in order to prevent a second evil that may or may not occur. That’s why the Option 1/Option 2 scenario is not a real one; no one can say with certainty that the mother would have died, and we can’t run a parallel universe to find out.

By the way, Rice’s repeated invocation of the ACLU is baloney, as is the ACLU’s argument that federal law requires Catholic hospitals to provide abortions: http://www.becketfund.org/files/response to aclu letter - final0001.pdf. The ACLU can’t sue someone for refusing to do an abortion.

@Anne Rice - I think you will want to take note of who is writing what.  I suspect your last response was to someone else’s reply since you had already replied to me once on my last comment.

.
I do have something to say about your last comment to me: Thanks for showing us why you are really here.  You went down a rabbit-hole big-time. 

.
I don’t have time to address everything you wrote in that comment to me, so perhaps someone else does.  I will address this:

.
Many many Catholic women today are profoundly
dissatisfied with the church’s attitudes towards women
and issues related to women.
This isn’t a battle between those who accept and those who don’t.
This is a period of transition.

This isn’t Burger King where you get to have things your way.  I have been in many parishes where ladies are “profoundly dissatisfied with the church’s attitude toward’s women”.  Their average age is… gray.

.
I have been in other parishes where the pastor upholds Church teaching in the bold manner that Bishop Olmstead does.  One such parish had to recently expand and many of the parishioners come from all around the area.  My own parish is very youthful and the priests do not preach selectively as I had experienced in those other parishes where certain topics were avoided.  All across the world, young people are finding Truth appealing and filling the pews of such parishes. They are willing to make sacrifices to follow it. They are having large families.  And, these parishes are being led by young pastors and in dioceses led by younger bishops who understand that Truth is not determined by a poll and must be proclaimed in season and out of season.

.
You are in my prayers, Anne.  May God’s love and peace.

Regarding this case, would any of you who support the bishop
be willing to explain how you yourselves would have handled this
case had you been in the Emergency room when the woman came in?

I must confess I am at a loss to grasp how exactly you would have applied
your morality to the “real” situation.

Had you been in the Emergency room,
and found the case as the hospital has presented it,
would you have told the mother that you intended to withhold a life
saving abortion from her because she was in a Catholic hospital?
Would you have explained your moral position?
Would you have told her husband the same thing?
Or would you have withheld this info, and simply told her that
there was “nothing” you could do?
How do you think you would feel about your power in such a
situation, knowing that you had the ability to save her life but
you were choosing not to?
Suppose the woman and her husband had been outraged
and begun to plead with you and demand that you do the
life saving abortion? 
What would you have said and done?
Would tears and desperate pleas for her life
softened your stance?
Would you have stood firm that she had to die?
What if they wanted to go to another hospital?
Would you have obstructed their efforts to do so, on
the grounds that you did not want the pregnancy terminated?
How far would you have gone in this case?
Would you, perhaps, have even suggested she go to
another hospital?
If her condition was far too critical for that,
would you have wheeled her gurney into a private room
and left her there to die?
Would you have called a priest to give the woman the
Last Sacraments?
If the woman had died, would you have been willing to stand
trial for murder?

I have tried to make these questions simple and honest.
I would sincerely like to know the answers.
I understand if you don’t care to respond to this post,
but I have to confess that, how you would have applied
your morality here is a mystery to me.
And I suspect it is a mystery to others.

Again, I understand if you don’t care to answer.
Nobody here is obligated to respond to anyone else’s posts,
or to control how this conversation unfolds.
But I do hope that you will at least think about these questions.

Condemning some one to death is not an easy thing to do,
apparently.  And I would welcome an insight into how you
would have handled this.

If St. Joseph’s hospital gives in to the bishop, how would you
suggest hospital staff handle such situations in the future?
Tell the truth? Withhold info?
Transfer the patient?

Thank you for your consideration of this.

I’ll answer one last time:

We have no proof that the mother “was dying”, other than an ambiguous remark from hospital administrators that they could save only one life. What they say flies in the face of what other doctors say about handling pulmonary hypertension at 11 weeks of pregnancy.

We don’t know with absolute certainty that she was in imminent danger of death based on what has been revealed.

I would love to know about any cost/benefit analysis that was factored into this decision. If they had time to hold a meeting, obviously it was not like a trauma coming in where things need to happen without thinking. There was thinking involved. That took time. What went into that thinking?

This thread is getting old and was redundant about 40 posts ago.

God bless and prayers.

It is good to see the Holy Spirit working in the Holy Catholic Church.  Thank you Lord for giving us a good and loyal servant.

Diane, if you choose not to believe the hospital’s
description of the case, then what is there to discuss?
My understanding is that this conversation here
is about the case as the hospital and the Bishop
presented it.
The bishop addressed the case as the hospital
presented it, did he not?
Obviously you don’t want to do this.
Fine.
Does anyone else care to respond to the questions I
posted?

There really isn’t much bite in what the bishop can do. It’s time the Catholic Church got out of health care unless the care is provided with an explicit Catholic experience. There are many other ways the church can act on its mission of saving souls. I don’t want to sound cynical, but all of those bodies that are healed in Catholic hospitals will end up in boxes in the earth. Why risk compromising with an evil system.

Allan Wafkowski, I think you are right.
The church should get out of health care altogether.
Perhaps it can run different Catholic institutions that
are entirely true to its principles.
But at present, in America, there is no way that
it can run public hospitals, take federal funds, etc.,
run public Emergency rooms, and keep discriminating against women. 
Whatever one believes about the right or wrong of
the situation, it isn’t legally possible to continue in this
way.
Even very pro-life Christian men do not want their
wives forced to die with an an unborn child that cannot be saved.
And women themselves will stand up for their rights in these ‘
situations.
Catholic hospitals should close.  Their time is past.
I think Bishop Olmsted may go down in history as the man
who, right or wrong, brought an end to Catholic hospitals
in America.
However he rules, whatever the hospital does,
Americans will not stand for what is happening to women in
Catholic hospitals.

Anne,

The Bishop does know more about the situation than what the hospital has presented to the general public, or that you know. For example, he spoke directly with Sr. McBride about it and has made other inquiries. He is acting on a different factual basis than the hospital has made public. (Keep in mind that the hospital made his letter public, not the Bishop, so they are selectively releasing facts to create the public narrative that best supports their position. That alone is reason for skepticism that they are telling the whole story.)

Thus I don’t see why we have to accept your premise that the only “facts” we have to go on are the ones that the hospital has made public. Perhaps you think that doctors here could not have had ulterior motives, including financial ones, but if so you haven’t been paying attention to the debate over healthcare reform. Money is part and parcel of any type of medical ethical conundrum. Procedures are overprescribed, consciously or unconsciously, because they make doctors money. Indigent patients are off-loaded by hospitals if they cost too much money.

Here there is very much the possibility that the hospital saw two financial alternatives: (1) ask the mother to agree to the abortion or (2) keep her in intensive care at the hospital for months. If she didn’t have insurance, the hospital would be out of pocket for millions of dollars in intensive care for the 3 months until the child was viable.

I also don’t see why we have to accept your narrative about an emergency decision. Despite your dramatic reimagining, she wasn’t wheeled in to the ER, nor was an ER doctor making a decision on the fly. This was a considered decision that they had time to make, and they even had time to run up the flagpole to the ethics committee.

We also don’t have to accept your premise that the only life at stake is the mother’s. The Catholic position is that there are *two* lives at stake, the mother’s and the child’s. The mother is in some danger of dying, at some unknown point in the future. (As we all are, btw.) The child *will* die if the doctors abort it. If the mother dies, we don’t have any idea when, i.e. pre- or post-viability. Thus the only sure thing in this situation is that the child would die from abortion. In addition, moral culpability still attaches regardless of the probability of danger to the mother. If I am trying to get out of a burning skyscraper, I don’t get to throw a kid who is slowing my egress out a window even if the kid’s slowness is greatly increasing the probability that won’t be able to get out before the building collapses.

Your most important premise that we don’t have to accept is that the doctors *knew* the mother would die. That simply *can’t* be true. Doctors deal in probabilities, not certainties, because they aren’t prophets. They are guessing about the future, just like the rest of us. Their guesses are more informed, but they are still guesses.

That is why folks don’t want to answer your questions—they assume premises that folks don’t want to concede to you. In the law, this is called assuming facts not in evidence, and it is rejected. As Sen. Moynihan said, you may be entitled to your own opinion, but you aren’t entitled to your own facts.

The actions of St. Joseph Hospital and CHW are an embarrassment and cause scandal.  Bishop Olmstead is a courageous leader, standing up for Christ and his body the Church.  Those who understand what it means to be a “faithful” Catholic are strengthened and encouraged by the courageous leadership of Bishop Olmstead.

ER, I don’t know what to do with your speculation
that the case is not what the bishop and the hospital
have described.
If the bishop knows “more” about the case, why doesn’t
he tell the world what he knows?
All I can go on is the information we have.
Speculation about this or that is beside the point.
I tried to base my questions entirely on what we
have been told by the two main sources of the story,
the hospital and the bishop.
When and if more facts are revealed, the discourse will change, of course.

Can you feel it. Faith, Courage, Fortitude, the tide is changing. Our loyal bishops are now holding up the Standard of the Faith in the face of our many foes. God bless this bishop and his kindred bishops. Oh, the sweet incense of holiness, how it drives the impious mad!

OC, I don’t know anything about the impious being driven
mad.
But this story might drive a lot of mothers and fathers
mad. 
It does after all involve a dying mother of four
being saved by a courageous nun and a bishop
condemning that nun for saving the woman’s life.
This might make many a Catholic father or mother
very fearful of seeking treatment in a Catholic hospital.
It also has obviously resulted in people questioning
their allegiance to Catholic teaching.
Even the most extreme pro life people may not
believe that a mother has to martyr herself if
her unborn child cannot be saved.
As for the Scriptural basis for the bishop’s position,
I have been unable to find it.
Perhaps others will be weighing in on this
as the scandal grows.

Diane has written: “I do not doubt your sincerity and concern for the woman in question.  I do believe you care about her. I just don’t see anything in what you have written that shows concern for the unborn baby.”

Of course I am deeply concerned about the unborn baby.
I hope and pray that no baby will be aborted.
But if the mother and the unborn baby are dying,
and the mother can be saved by the termination of the pregnancy, I
must agree with the hospital: save the only life that you can.

This woman’s death would not have saved her unborn baby.
At 11 weeks, it could not survive the mother’s death.
That is clear.
Let me repeat: I am pro life and always have been.
This whole issue is not about abortion. It is about
the value of the mother’s life in a situation where her child
would have died along with her.
I think it serves no one to lose focus on the problem as it has been
presented to us.
Are you personally concerned with the value of this woman’s life?
Do you have compassion for her four children?
For her husband?
Why would you demand the ultimate sacrifice from this
woman, that she die with her unborn child?

I am not sure why anyone would feel it useful to continue any additional conversation of the anti catholic talk. These folks are in no frame of mind to see the truth and alter their current paths. Say a prayer give them to the Lord and move on and ignore these folks. Shake the dust off and move on. These people have an agenda and we should not facilitate it.

It is God Himself Who teaches through the church He founded—the Catholic Church. God cannot lie, and He put ‘safeguards’ in place so that His Church would not twist the truths He entrusted to her: the Catholic Church cannot err when she teaches on faith and morals.
.
(You are kepha and on this kepha I will build My church…and the gates of hell shall not prevail over it.) (The works of the devil are murder and lies. See John 8:44.) (We are from God. Whoever knows God listens to us, and whoever is not from God does not listen to us. From this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error. See 1 John 4:6)
.
God alone knows what is truly good for us. We must listen to Him through His Catholic Church and the successors of His apostles, the bishops.
.
The Church needs more strong leaders like Bishop Olmsted.
.
THERE IS NO GREATER LOVE THAN THIS, TO LAY DOWN YOUR LIFE FOR YOUR FRIENDS. ~ Jesus Christ

Note to olmstead from St Joe’s: The answer is no, no, and no! Don’t do us any favors by giving us until Tues to meet you demands. Come pick up your statues now and scurry off to find somoneelse to punish for not complying to your ridiculous mandates.
Perhaps you are trying to set an example by showing who is the boss in Phoenix. You have good company with Brewer. You are making this one unpopular place to live.
Perhaps you can siphon off some more money to fight same sex marriage as you did for New Hamshire. Or you could go after any priest who speaks out in favor of women priests and force him to take it back or else.
The bishop before you killed a man while drunk driving and then refused to cooperate with police. He ended up doing community service and while doing so requested he be allowed to go to Rome to see the Pope. So I guess you can’t top that…or can you?

the point is healthcare not your religious values being pushed on people who do not want or need your moral authority.  hospitals practice medicine which should be practiced by doctors. not lay people.  this was vetted in the ethics committee and found to be needed.  the church does not support the hospital it is self funded and for everyone not just catholics.  IT IS AGAINST THE LAW NOT TO SAVE THE LIFE OF A MOTHER.  IF YOU WANT THE CHURCH TRIED FOR MURDER THEN YOU KEEP UP THIS INSANITY. TAKE YOUR DOGMA BACK TO THE CHURCH AND KEEP IT THERE. i would rather take my family to a non catholic hosp where i knew they would get care without your moral opinion than to a instituion that has not grown out of the dark ages.  fear and ingorance keeps you captive which is where the catholic church would like you to be.

I don’t really understand the debate. If my understanding is correct the death of the mother was almost certain if the procedure was not performed. So it seems like an easy case to me. It’s a choice between a rational person with memories, feelings, and people that care about and depend on her, vs. a non rational grouping of cells that has no memories nor loved ones, and according to recent medical studies cannot feel pain untill 24-28 weeks. If you believe that personhood begins at conception you also have to deal with the fact that the vast majority of concieved eggs will never come to term.(About half will never be implanted) This means that on your view the vast majority of human people in the afterlife will have never lived a single day on earth. Doesn’t that strike anyone as odd?

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_162-20008829-10391704.html

I offer a prayer of thanks to God tonight
for the life of the young mother and her
four children and her husband.
Thank God for their sake that Sr. Margaret McBride
was there.  Thank God for the Sisters of Mercy and
their centuries of dedication and work in the fields of
the Lord. Thank God for all those dedicated people
at St. Joseph’s hospital who work with the sick and the
dying every day.
I also pray that if I am wrong in my beliefs, God will show me
the way.
And if Bishop Olmsted is wrong, may God show him the way.
God bless all those sincere people who have posted on this
blog.
God forgive any of us who have been unkind to one another.
Thy will be done.

“the Catholic Church cannot err when she teaches on faith and morals.”
I’m sorry, but that almost made me die laughing.

I just wonder how long it will be before the catholic church enters the modern world. Or maybe it can’t and should cease to exist. I go to a Catholic school and I can tell you that the vast majority of students laugh theology teachers out of the class room.  My generation just doesn’t buy into church doctrine. We are in favor of gay marriage and we recognize that there is a difference between a blastocyst and a person. We are outraged by the priest abuse scandal, and feel that the church only sought to hide the scandal.

I agree with you, Jerry. However for all the rest of us…..

Here is an article by Elizabeth Scalia at First Things written at the time that this went public:

http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2010/05/dwelling-in-the-possibilities-of-a-ldquowin-winrdquo

Here is a link to the story mentioned in the article on the doctor who has a 100% success rate with bringing babies to term whose mothers have pulmonary hypertension, and keeps the mothers safe:

http://www.wisn.com/r/17994163/detail.html

If you notice, the story was done in 2008.

I agree wholeheartedly that Holy Mother Church needs more strong leaders like Bishop Olmstead. Thank you, Diane, for being such a rock.

Diane @TeDeum:
Bravo & Ditto!
ALL of your comments in this thread have been spot-on and charitable.

For anyone who has not met Bp Olmstead personally, let me assure you that the rants about his personality are hilarious. Reminds me so much of the rants re: Benedict XVI. Silly & sad.
M&M: I’m unsure who exactly elected you to be the spokesperson for your generation but let me assure you that many many people your age have discovered that the ageless Truth of the Catholic Church is really the only Person who can free them from the demeaning bondage of being a slave to their own generation, as GK Chesterton said.

Coming back to this Post I am shocked by the hordes of the so-called Catholics who are castigating the Bishop’s Pastoral Directive.  To you all I remind you these words “He who hears you, hears Me and the One who sent Me.  He who does not hear you does not hear Me or the One who sent Me”. Do these words sound familiar? Had the Bishop’s ruling been contrary to the Catechism of the Catholic Church or the Church’s Teachings on Faith and Morals and the Magisterium, all of you who are crucifying him would have been right.  Unfortunately for you, the Bishop is discharging his duties with fidelity and stating God’s Truth about the Sanctity of Life and the Teachings of the Church with regard to Institutions which want to remain Catholic and operate under the Guidance of the Catholic Authority. He is, therefore only doing his duties truthfully as the Shepherd of Christ’s Sheep. Christ did not plead with those who rejected His teaching and walked away - as I hereby paraphrase - that “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood you shall not have life eternal”.  He, instead, turned to His Apostles and asked them if they, too, wanted to leave Him.  God’s Truth does not change.  But man is at liberty to accept it or reject it.  And soon, this will be settled when one stands before His Seat of Judgement.  Those Catholics on this Post who - like me - follow the teachings of the Church with fidelity are not morons. We remain faithful to our One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church voluntarily after understanding God’s Wishes and the authentic Teachings of Christ’s Church and choosing to live in His friendship freely and joyfully.

Mary42—- Your support for your church is commendable.
Please keep in mind that Sr. Margaret McBride is a dedicated
member of your church.  Please also consider that the Sisters of
Mercy have served in Catholic hospitals for decades.
I must stand behind Sr. McBride and her decision to save
the life of a dying mother of four in a Catholic hospital
Emergency room.
I think she deserves the support of all those who truly value life.
Our Lord Jesus Christ came to women as well as to men.
The history of the Catholic church is filled with the stories of
female saints, as well as male saints.
Please ask yourself: if you had been in that Emergency room,
how exactly would you have told this young mother, as she lay dying,
that you were going to “let” her die, against her wishes and against
the wishes of her husband?

thereserita : I’m just using emprical data and personal experiance. Younger people tend to favor same sex marriage according to all polls I’ve seen. Most people at my school, which is catholic by the way, disagree with the church on condom use, sex before marriage, etc. I also notice that no one replyed to my claim that: “If you believe that personhood begins at conception you also have to deal with the fact that the vast majority of concieved eggs will never come to term.(About half will never be implanted) This means that on your view the vast majority of human people in the afterlife will have never lived a single day on earth. Doesn’t that strike anyone as odd?”

Code Pink is picketing in front of St Joe’s. If you are willing and able join them.

thereserita, I certainly appreciate your posts and think you
are making excellent points.  Why others don’t respond, I do
not know.
Yes, I think your point about life beginning at conception is
a good one, in that we know many many unborn children
miscarry “naturally” or for biological reasons we don’t understand.
Others have pointed out an interesting fact too:  people in
Catholic hospitals do not apparently “baptize” miscarried
babies, or treat the corpses as those of “people.”  Whether this
is true or not I don’t know.  I’ve read this.
But the issue at stake on this blog is this:
was this dying mother’s life worth less than that of a man,
or less than that of her 11 week old child?
Should the dying mother have been forced to give up her
life because her baby could not be saved?
Is the woman merely a baby machine or is she an ensouled person?
That is really what is at stake here.
This isn’t really about abortion.
It’s about the value of human life period.
The hospital believes in the value of all life,
and they saved the only life they could save, in this case.
They deserve to be commended.

At this point, I am beginning to wonder if “Anne Rice” is actually Sr. McBride or someone very close to her.  Earlier, there was this post, and I would like to second the request.  Here is that request by Kevin Symonds - emphasis mine in bold.
.

Posted by Kevin Symonds on Thursday, Dec 16, 2010 11:03 PM (EST):Let the real Anne Rice make a public statement on her official web site that says the “Anne Rice” posting on NCRegister’s web site is one and the same.

Anne didn’t respond to my point, so I guess she is conceding it. The doctors did not and could not know that the mother would die because doctors aren’t prophets. They did know that the baby would die when they killed it. Those facts are enough for us to reach a conclusion about the morality of the situation. The hospital’s entire argument is based on turning a probabilistic assessment about the chances of death into a certainty. (That would also help them avoid liability if the mother ends up suing them, btw.)

Also, for someone who scolds others at length about lack of compassion Anne doesn’t seem to show too much for the baby who was killed. Anyone who has ever seen a sonogram of an 11-week-old baby in utero ought to feel some compassion for that person too. But ultimately the question of whether what the doctors did was right or wrong should not turn on how bad reading about the situation makes any of us feel.

I also notice that no one responded to my point about the neurological capabilities of an 11 week old fetus, so I guess everyone concedes it.

ER, with all due respect you’re being ridiculous and dishonest.
The hospital deals in life and death issues every day, as they themselves
have said.
They have told us the woman was dying.
They saved the only life they could.
And I commend them for it.
It is not the prerogative of Catholics to kill women
because they do not value their lives.
A hospital in America must respect all life,
even the lives of women.
It cannot cave to a religion that apparently believes
women are no better than incubators for the unborn.
It has an obligation to save lives, and that means the
lives of women as well as men and children.
Sr. Margaret McBride did what she believed was morally
right, and the hospital is deeply concerned with what is
morally right.
There is something cold and shocking about the mentality
of people on this blog who want that this young mother should have
died, who are so determined to try to change the facts of her
story to suit themselves, who are so displeased that she
was allowed to live.
Her child could not have been saved or the hospital would have saved it.
I commend Sr. McBride for standing up for life.
A human life is not an abstraction.  It is not simply a part of a obscure
abstract theological argument.
A human life matters.
And so it is with the life of this young mother.
She is a flesh and blood human being with a soul.
Christ died for her as surely as He died for anyone.
Your statement about me lacking compassion for the
woman’s child are dishonest and I think you know this.
The child could not be saved, or it would have been saved.
You aren’t showing any particular compassion for the child yourself.
You’re displeased because the mother didn’t die with the child.
Isn’t that the real truth here?
You’re outraged that this woman wasn’t forced to die with
the baby.  You think she should have died with it.
That’s the sort of thing you think about women, isn’t it?
They can’t be treated like men or “people,” in your book, can they?
They’re inferior, partial humans, meant to “birth” and die if the pregnancy
goes wrong, because that is what is seemly for them, in your book.
Isn’t that right?
Well, you don’t have a right to force that kind of warped morality on others.
You don’t have a right to force those views on a hospital.
You might ask yourself why this case makes you so uncomfortable.
It has never been about abortion, has it? It’s about life itself, it’s about
seeing the life of a woman as human life.
And that is giving you real trouble, isn’t it?

Diane, may I ask why you think I should prove to you who I am?
Have you proved to anyone here who you are? How do we know you’re
not Bishop Olmsted?
Why am I not allowed to post here like anyone else?
I am Anne Rice, the author.
And I will put a link to this blog on my Facebook page.
anyone can see this by googling Anne Rice Facebook Fan page.
You’re welcome to check it out.
But I ask you to think about why you are making demands of
one poster here that she prove to you who she is, when
you yourself are anonymous. 
Is there a different standard here for me?
Why so?

Let me repeat my questions here as they have not been addressed.
(If some one did address them and I missed it, forgive me.)

Had you been in the Emergency room,
and found the case as the hospital has presented it,
would you have told the mother that you intended to withhold a life
saving abortion from her because she was in a Catholic hospital?
Would you have explained your moral position?
Would you have told her husband the same thing?
Or would you have withheld this info, and simply told her that
there was “nothing” you could do?
How do you think you would feel about your power in such a
situation, knowing that you had the ability to save her life but
you were choosing not to?
Suppose the woman and her husband had been outraged
and begun to plead with you and demand that you do the
life saving abortion? 
What would you have said and done?
Would tears and desperate pleas for her life
softened your stance?
Would you have stood firm that she had to die?
What if they wanted to go to another hospital?
Would you have obstructed their efforts to do so, on
the grounds that you did not want the pregnancy terminated?
How far would you have gone in this case?
Would you, perhaps, have even suggested she go to
another hospital?
If her condition was far too critical for that,
would you have wheeled her gurney into a private room
and left her there to die?
Would you have called a priest to give the woman the
Last Sacraments?
If the woman had died, would you have been willing to stand
trial for murder?
I have tried to make these questions simple and honest.
I would sincerely like to know the answers.
I understand if you don’t care to respond to this post,
but I have to confess that, how you would have applied
your morality here is a mystery to me.
And I suspect it is a mystery to others.
Again, I understand if you don’t care to answer.
Nobody here is obligated to respond to anyone else’s posts,
but I would welcome the answers.

I would really like to understand how you would have
applied your theology to withholding life saving
care from a real flesh and blood person.

Bishop Olmstead is practically Satanic in his continued alienation of people from Christ. I wonder how many child rapists he’s protecting? Its people like Olmstead and the current Pope that made me walk away from the Catholic Church (but not Christ.)

Ken Volok, I don’t think the bishop is Satanic.
But he has certainly given grave scandal to people
far and wide.
This is very bad for the Roman Catholic Church, not
simply because the bishop does not value the life of
the young mother who was saved at St. Joseph’s Hospital,
but because when the Church teaches rank immorality,
it diminishes its capacity to really help people with their moral
and social problems.
The Bishop has caused the church to lose credibility, and
he will probably, inevitably, bring about an end to Catholic
hospital care in America.
It is tragic, really, that this man did not approach this situation
with some humility and respect for the nuns who have spent their
lived working with the sick and the dying.

But the bottom line is this:
women aren’t sacrificial animals, created to breed and die
if the attempt goes wrong.  They are human beings, made
in the image and likeness of God.
This bishop simply does not seem to grasp that fact.
Like so many clerics, he is probably privileging the customs and
traditions of his own time (in which women perhaps did not have much value)
over the timeless truths of Christ.

As a rational person who is an Atheist, I applaud the nun and hope the Hospital is no longer ‘catholic’. As that title appareently means stubborn idiots. Try Richard Dawkins folks…. Its time to wake up from the GOD DELUSION. Stop tripping on acid and raping children and killing women in favor of fetus’s.

heather, I understand and appreciate your comments.
But I have great respect for rank and file Catholics, and
I believe that many many support Sr. McBride and NOT
the infamous bishop Olmsted.
In recent years, the church has been betrayed by the hierarchy
and this case may be a shining example.
Catholics can find in their own teachings the means
to support all life, including the lives of women.
It’s going to be hard for them.
This church has denigrated and “used” women for centuries.
But in the timeless truths of Jesus Christ we find
that all human life has value.

I used the term “Satanic” in that thread perhaps too loosely, for I don’t think he is a practicing Satanist but I do think actions like his have the ultimate same effect by alienating people from even being open to a concept of a higher power that is positive, for good, for love; not evil and intolerance.

anne, i respect your right to believe i even inderstand that that belief adds to your life. however because people like the bishop lead the religions of the world…. and so many people choose to follow like sheep over a cliff, not you , you have voiced your own opinions many different then theres, but you get my drift. As long as these people are in charge its as bad as if we had 1 million hitlers reigning over the world.

Ken, I see your point.
And I couldn’t agree more.
The man has alienated many.
And crises like this do give religion a bad
name.
Christians in America have really lost all credibility as people who
know how to love.
This case is particularly brutal and ugly
because these people here show no Christian compassion at all
for this young mother of four and her husband.
They saw the woman as strictly expendable.
And this is certainly a sinister position.

heather, my belief is in God,
not in organized religion,
or the organized evil in which Bishop Olmsted is
so complicit.
I remain passionately concerned with the Roman
Catholic Church because of its capacity to hurt and
injure so many in our world.
But I see your point. Believe me.

Contrary to the spin put on abortion by anti-choicers ( I can’t call you pro life because I haven’t seen a lot of evidence of being pro to the people after they are born), pro choice people are NOT pro abortion.  Anyone having made the choice to have an abortion knows what a difficult, heart wrenching experience it is. 

I do believe that children have a right to a subsistence level of existence - care, understanding, nourishment, both physical and emotional and to live free of abuse.  When I have tried to enlist so called pro choice organizations to help care for children who do not have those rights, I have not gottone ONE SINGLE positive response. 

I would like to see a world where the abortion choice is not longer the choice of last resort.  That means that societies will have to become socially just, supportive of women and their children, and I don’t just mean financially. 

It is infinitely more common for women to be coerced into having sex than it is to have an abortion.  In the pre marriage course I took from my local priest, I was informed that I was required to have intercourse with my husband - it was my duty as his wife.  So whether or not I have the resources to care for those children did not enter into the equation.  What is wrong with this picture?

So folks, let’s work for a world where women have equal rights, equal access to resources, and sufficient resources during the vulnerable years when children need constant care and attention.

Humble? This letter spends more time complaining about how his position and power are questioned than about the actual abortion. He is throwing a hissy fit because he did not get his way. That, my friend, is not humble.

May I ask Liseax and Diane and all the others who agree that this ‘abortion’ was evil: does this mean that Ectopic pregnancies in faithful Catholics are not treated? That the mother waits until the child inside her kills her in agony and then dies? There is not a way to alter this situation without performing a procedure intended to kill the child.

It’s sad, but typically hypocritical that the Catholic church has no problem allowing someone to die (and in this case it would have been mother and child) but will allow pedophiles to continue the molestation of hundreds, maybe thousands of children. How many suicides have occurred due to that? How many lives ruined. As usual there are extreme priority issues here.

Glad you asked, Colin.

When a procedure is done with the intent to save the life of the mother, such as remove an infected ovary or cancerous uterus, Catholic teaching permits the action.

The intent is save the life of the mother. The secondary cause is that the child dies.  This is not sinful.

This was a preemptive abortion. Women who are sick and dying are treated medically. They aren’t given abortions. 

That’s why this was a sinful act of taking the life of an innocent child.

WOW! There are so many complicated issues that could be addressed here. But at least one thing seems to me very clear to me.
Here’s what I know of the pregnant woman’s situation from what I have read online:
- She had four other children
- She was 11 weeks pregnant when admitted
- She suffered from pulmonary hypertension (which is high blood pressure in the arteries that supply blood to the lungs)
- As her condition worsened, the hospital diagnosed her with right-sided heart failure and cardiogenic shock

If you google/internet research any of these conditions you can see yourself how serious they are. “In the past, the death rate from cardiogenic shock ranged 80 - 90%. In more recent studies, this rate has improved to between 50 - 75%.” And there is no specific study result of this condition on only pregnant women.

Now, I do consider myself PRO-LIFE and can’t imagine having to be in this particular situation, but I can honestly say I would want the same thing. I would want to live, to be able to raise my four existing children.

Of course, no one is a prophet and knows for sure what the outcome of her life would have been without the termination of the pregnancy, but if someone told me that the odds of me dying (and the baby along with me) were pretty high, I would do the same thing.

Can anyone here say that if faced with these conditions they would not want the same for themselves? That they would rather opt to ‘take their chances’ of two deaths and leaving behind four children without a mother, rather than possibly save their own life? Obviously, with 4 children already, the last thing this mother wanted to do was terminate the life of her 5th child. I am pretty sure it is a decision she took very seriously.

And, God bless the nun for standing up for the life of the pregnant woman.

If only the Bishop could see the value of the woman’s life, the life of her family, the daily dedication of the good Sisters to the help of the sick and dying, and the incredibly moral dilemmas they face every day.

CG, your point is off-topic AND inaccurate.

The Catholic Church in the U.S. had 6 cases of reported molestation. This is six too many, but is evidence that millions of children in Catholic schools, CCD programs, and in our churches are far safer today than are our public schools.

In fact, in the 12/16/10 issue of USA Today, a front page article reported the the US Government Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress found that registered sex offenders are getting jobs in schools as teachers, administators, aides, volunteers, etc. despite state laws that prohibit them with having contact with children. “GAO: Sex Offenders Find Jobs at Schools”

So, if you really care about children, and not just about smearing the Catholic Church, turn your attention to the 1000s of children who ARE being molested today- in the public schools.

Sarah W S,

This is a tough case. But tough cases make bad precedent.

Do you think that a woman that sick needs an invasive surgical procedure such as an abortion?

That would be the Catholic Church in 2008. oops

Will and Colin, as well as Anne, I could not agree more. The fact that the unborn baby’s life is given more importance than the woman (who already has an established life, and a family, and is responsible for other children) just goes to show how messed up our priorities are. Why should a fetus have more importance than a fully fledged human being? That woman did not choose to get sick, she did not choose to put herself and her fetus in danger. If any of you naysayers had been there in the hospital, would you have looked that woman in the eye and told her, “So sorry, I can’t help you, so you’re going to have to die, and so is your baby.” That nun made the best out of a horrible situation. She chose to save one life instead of lose two lives. No one is going to say this was a good situation. No one is going to say that abortion is not a horrendous practice, we all know that it is. But allowing a mother of four to die when you could prevent it? No moral decision is ever easy. In fact, living an immoral life is far easier than living a moral one. So don’t be so quick to condemn someone. Hopefully none of us will ever be put in a situation where we have to make such a difficult decision.

liseux if the invasive medical procedure would immediately alleviate her symptoms, then yes.

Liseux,
I am not a doctor by any means (sister in med school) but I’m not.

Many people who are very sick have very invasive surgical procedures, typically to help their illness or save their life (removal of a gallbladder/kidney, cardiac & neurological procedures). However, from what I know, “abortions” are one of the more minimally invasive procedures.

I think that most of us tend to put our trust in medical professionals, really, what choice do we have? If they presented those facts to me and claimed that terminating the pregnancy would save my life as a result, I would do it.

What many people do not realize is that many conditions that result from/during a pregnancy either disappear or lessen after the baby is born.. if you can last that long. If you can’t last, if your body is failing more and more every minute, would you risk all for one child you don’t even know? has never taken a breath? And even if you would, I say shame on you. Shame on you for being willing to orphan 4 children. To deprive a mother and father of their grown daughter. To deprive a husband of his wife. all for one unformed fetus you would destroy 7 lives that woman would have left behind. Shame on you.

Heather, it has not been disclosed that killing her child would have immediately alleviated her symptoms.

Does an abortion immediately lower blood pressure and quiet heart rates?

I haven’t see abortions recommended for immediate cessation of these medical problems. I think that it was the case, Planned Parenthood would be touting abortions as medicinal.

If she was on her deathbed, an abortion could wait.

How can you even try to shame anyone when you call for the sure death of a child?  You have no credibility when it comes to “shame.”

Yes the removal of a fetus will immediately lower blood pressure and lower heart rate. Hypertension is the most common medical problem encountered during pregnancy, complicating 2-3% of pregnancies. Hypertensive disorders during pregnancy are classified into 4 categories, as recommended by the National High Blood Pressure Education Program Working Group on High Blood Pressure in Pregnancy: 1) chronic hypertension, 2) preeclampsia-eclampsia, 3) preeclampsia superimposed on chronic hypertension, and 4) gestational hypertension (transient hypertension of pregnancy or chronic hypertension identified in the latter half of pregnancy).1 This terminology is preferred over the older but widely used term pregnancy-induced hypertension (PIH) because it is more precise.

The Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists of Canada (SOGC) recently released revised guidelines that simplified the classification of hypertension in pregnancy into 2 categories, preexisting or gestational, with the option to add “with preeclampsia” to either category if additional maternal or fetal symptoms, signs, or test results support this.2

Chronic hypertension is defined as blood pressure exceeding 140/90 mm Hg before pregnancy or before 20 weeks’ gestation. When hypertension is first identified during a woman’s pregnancy and she is at less than 20 weeks’ gestation, blood pressure elevations usually represent chronic hypertension. In contrast, new onset of elevated blood pressure readings after 20 weeks’ gestation mandates the consideration and exclusion of preeclampsia. Preeclampsia occurs in up to 5% of all pregnancies, in 10% of first pregnancies, and in 20-25% of women with a history of chronic hypertension. Hypertensive disorders in pregnancy may cause maternal and fetal morbidity, and they remain a leading source of maternal mortality.  Because upon birth or abortion, the strain on the mother is immediately lessenes. you have no medical knowledge of such matters. Please ask your doctor or obgyn before you form such ignorant opinions

its a medical fact liseux, and your ignorance and even more your desire to cling to it without facts are what condemn you.

Macy,
I couldn’t agree more.

Heather,
Nice job with the research. I’ve seen some of that before, but I am glad you dug it up- the facts, that is!

High blood pressure is treated medically, Heather. 

Your first sentence appears to be your opinion. Please don’t pass off your opinion as medical fact.

The rest of the information delineates medical information. Thanks for that.

Sister McBride made the decision for the abortion, not Heather and her internet opinion/facts. 

All the facts have not been disclosed.

Until they are, I will have to side with LIFE- the life of the mother and the child.

It is a fact that you nor I were there, Heather.

It’s also a fact that we DO have a dead baby. 

Champion dead babies all you care to.

Well said Heather. Interesting how some “Christians” are so quick to cast the first stone. If liseux, and other irrational people are so eager to condemn a dying woman who, God forbid, would like to continue living for her husband and children, well then the Catholic Church can have them. As for me, I am with Anne. My loyalties lie with an all-loving and merciful God, not with organized religion, which was created by man. God shows me everyday his love and mercy, he works miracles in my life, even though I am unworthy. If Jesus Himself has told us we have no right to judge others, then I say the bishop needs to show some more humility.

I champion THE MOTHER, AND HER FAMILY. All you have are antiquated values and morals from a book not from the hand of god, but from men. And you take a book that was wriitten so many years ago and interpreted and reinterpreted again and again as fact. I hope you come to this situation or another like it in your life. and i hope u sit by and pray while you die. maybe then will know what matters at the end of your light.

Heather, please post a link to your source, so I can see if, “Yes, the removal of a fetus will immediately lower blood pressure and lower heart rate” is included as the first sentence of the medical information or is your ADDED opinion.

Heather, you are quite a hateful person.  I cannot return that hate.

Your hate sheds much light on how you can choose death for a child so easily.

And i have just this else to say. the nun that gave permission, she devoted her life to god and followed the tenets in a way that most can not as evidenced by her being a nun. im sure she came up againest other difficult situtions in her career, and no one is giving the credit that she deserves for seeing beyond her faith to that womans need. she is the type of nun we need to see and know more of.

This discussion is really about the case as we know it,
and nothing is served by speculation about imaginary cases.
The life of this woman was in danger. The hospital has told us
this. They saved the woman’s life.
Those who want to re-write the story are apparently trying
to sabotage the discussion.
Regarding clergy abuse, this blog is not really about that problem
But I do see one very vital connection.
We’ve learned from the worldwide abuse scandal that
those involved with stalling the prosecution and removal of
abusers, and those who covered for them, were stunningly indifferent
to the welfare of the child and adolescent victims.
We have seen a massive and scandalous indifference on the part of the
institutional church to these victims.
We have abundant evidence that these victims suffer terribly
from the abuse inflicted on them, and that some have taken their own lives.
And one can legitimately ask: why is a church that is so against abortion
so neglectful of actual children?
It is not irresponsible to conclude that a pro life stance for many of the
clergy is an abstract theological position and not related to compassion
for actual children.
Many Catholics here, who appear to be adamantly pro life,
have proved stunningly indifferent to the life of this mother of four,
and her family.
That is certainly worth noting.
It is very possible that when one’s abstract principles conflict with
Christian charity one should question those principles.
Other than that, I don’t see the relevance here.
The clergy scandal is being addressed elsewhere.

Christians at many times in their history have used
their beliefs to privilege inflicting cruelty and suffering.
They have privileged unspeakable violence in the name of Christ.
There appears to be a constant temptation to do that.
Certainly some Christians posting here have
been deeply unkind in their discussion of this
woman and the nun who saved her life.
They have posted ugly denunciations of those who
question their abstract principles.
That Christians often become extremely ugly and aggressive
when challenged is a bit of a mystery.
This religion is “about” Christ. It’s about His teachings.
Brutally denouncing those who question you, hurling irresponsible
and inveterately nasty denunciations at them does not seem Christian.
But unfortunately it has become all too typically Christian.
That’s why this blog ought to be exposed to the world at large.
Let people see the Catholic mind for what it is, in so far as it
is revealed here.

Liseux-in an ectopic pregnancy the current treatment is to kill the baby in order to save the mother. The baby is not killed as a secondary issue, it is the intention of the treatment. Are you saying this permissible? Surely a real Catholic could not sanction such a course of action that deliberately sets out to kill an innocent baby?

http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/261435-treatment   For a woman with chronic hypertension in her first trimester, obtain the following laboratory studies (to serve as baseline values, to be referred to later in the pregnancy if a concern regarding superimposed preeclampsia arises):
CBC, electrolytes, BUN, creatinine
Liver enzymes
Urine dip for protein and a 24-hour urine collection for creatinine clearance and protein excretion
Women with chronic hypertension in pregnancy should be monitored for the development of worsening hypertension and/or the development of superimposed preeclampsia (risk is approximately 25%). Lab investigations for preeclampsia should be repeated if the patient’s blood pressure increases or if she develops signs or symptoms of preeclampsia.
Women with suspected or diagnosed preeclampsia should be hospitalized for close observation.
When diagnosed with preeclampsia, delivering the baby always is in the mother’s best interest. Any delay in delivery should be due to uncertainty about the diagnosis or immaturity of the fetus.
When preeclampsia develops remote from term (ie, <34-36 weeks’ gestation), attempts often are made to prolong the pregnancy to allow for further fetal growth and maturation. In this setting, both maternal and fetal status must be very closely monitored in a high-risk obstetric centre. Fetal testing should be performed at least twice weekly, using a combination of biophysical profiles and nonstress testing supervised by an obstetrician. Facilitated delivery should occur if either maternal or fetal deterioration is noted, with the mode of delivery decided by obstetric indications.
  this is probably too technical for you, but i just did a quick search, the information is out there if you choose to look.

No- the current treatment is not to kill the baby. The current treatment is to remove the infected tube or ovary to save the life of the mother.

If the child dies as a secondary cause, then it’s tragic, but the mother’s life was saved.

The child could be killed in the fallopian tube and the infection left alone, not relieving the mother. This would be a first cause to kill the baby.

That’s not what the Church advocates.

This would be the intent to kill the child.

Heather, this proves to me that you were adding your opinion to the medical facts.

You’re not a doctor, and you weren’t there.

liseux if there is one thing i know, its that i can not make a blind woman see, and you are blind. the truths is that the entire meical situation will not be told. its private, unless the woman allows it. and the truth is that you will sit in judgement till your dying day. i comndemn no one who harms on one. but i do have issues with the people doing the condemning. becasue you do more harm then you realize. you are a looter. a looter of rights and thoughts. you are a looter of the worst kind. and you have looted too much of me. Ayn Rand had it right. fighting you is useless. the only thing to do is walk away and leave you to your looting until you realize there is nothing left .

I found this article interesting:
http://www.americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=12399

From which I quote:
“In my view there is a difficulty in identifying the cause of pulmonary hypertension in this case and thus a difficulty in identifying the pathological organ. In the case of cancer of the uterus, it is not difficult to identify the pathological organ. It is the uterus. But, the cause of pulmonary hypertension is not clearly known.

Federal laws limit what can be divulged in regard to deliberations concerning patient care, but in a report later made to the bishop of Phoenix, the hospital’s ethics committee identified the pathological organ as the placenta. The placenta produces the hormones necessary to increase the blood volume in pregnant women; in this case, the additional volume put an intolerable strain on the woman’s already weak heart. Since the placenta is located in the uterus, perhaps it would have been more accurate for the ethics committee to designate that organ as pathological and thus compel its removal.”

Liseux-surely that is not your answer to me? I doubt it can be because it doesn’t answer the question I have posed.
In the case of ectopic pregnancy there is no infection of any kind. The little baby has implanted in the womb. It is wrong to characterise this little baby as an infection just to suit yourself. The only so called ‘treatment’ is to kill an innocent baby and save the life of the selfish mother. Real Catholics would never commit such an evil act and would leave both mother and child to go into the arms of Jesus.
I know you are a good Catholic so I apologise if you have not yet had time to answer me and that answer I read was directed at someone else. I am just so upset you would call an innocent baby an infection.

Heather, if the entire medical situation is not told yet, then why on Earth are you pretending to be the internet doctor and adding your opinion to medical fact AND passing it off as part of the fact?

No sense in getting angry because you got called on that.

Thanks for disclosing that you recognize that all of the medical situation is not disclosed. More reason not to kill the child.

Aside from the Bishop’s repeated display of arrogance, I find it “interesting” that not once, in his entire letter, does he discuss what actually happened - that a decision was made that one life was better than none. I wish someone could explain to me how the “right to life” equates to the insistence that the proper decision would have been to let no one live.

I wonder how well the Bishop knows the Sister. I spent an hour a week, for four years, working with her and can’t imagine that there is a better representative of her faith. She is compassionate, she is understanding and is, I would think, exactly what a good Catholic should be.

When it comes to the “render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s,” I can only say that the Bishop represnts a school of thought/law that reeks of hypocrisy. Sending white smoke up a chimney signifies nothing - other than the type of wood that was used.

WWJD? - It is hard to believe that Jesus would accept what the Bishop insists is part of his “Shepherd’s manual.”

Colin, read carefully.

The child could be eliminated in the tube without alleviating the mother’s sickness.  That would be killing the child- first intent.

The Church is against this.

The tube could be removed with the intent to save the mother. 

Can you (or do you WANT) to see the difference in killing the child outright, and leaving the tube intact versus removing the tube/problematic area and helping the mother.

I am suspecting you want to say that removing an ectopic pregnancy is an abortion and that the Church condones killing children there.

Two different actions happen, Colin.

To be fair, I don’t think anyone upset about this “unconcerned” with the unborn baby. One would have to be truly numb to not feel anything when a baby is aborted. The main point is, why should a woman’s life be worth less than her baby’s? I think everyone posting comments is concerned with life- some are more concerned with the baby’s life, and some more concerned with the mother’s life. This issue is not going to be resolved on these boards- it is far too complex. But everyone should be allowed to express their opinions- the result of our God-given free will- without being insulted or condemned. Everyone has their beliefs, and only time will tell the consequences of those beliefs. If I’m wrong, then I’m wrong, but by golly I am going to follow my heart and use the brain God gave me. And it’s true, none of us will ever know exactly what happened in that hospital room, but we can only comment about what has been released, and the feelings that arise from it.

This is disgusting. I don’t believe in abortion in most cases, but BOTH of them would have DIED!
I had my own experience with this at St. Vincent’s in Portland. I have a terminal illness and was told I would probably die if I had another child. Because I was nursing a new baby, I had no idea I was pregnant again until I was 5 months along and the baby moved. (yes, I used to laugh at these women too, claiming they had no idea) I was advised to abort. I am LDS, knowing my health history, my Church also advised to abort because I had 7 other kids. We were thinking about it and saw a worker at St. Vincent’s. When I said I was unsure, she told me not to worry, I could do it at anytime UP UNTIL I GAVE BIRTH.
THOSE are the things you need to be concerned with. Not saving this woman. If the baby could have lived, like mine, I could understand. Why allow both to die?
My son is 5 years old. He was born with a tumor in his lung and has to have the lower 2/3 of the lung removed. But he is alive. I was lucky, he was lucky. God blessed us. And thanks to God, this woman is alive and her kids have a mommy.

I understand the complexity of an institution being required to maintain itself within the bounds of, in this case, “Catholic”. And it is true that the Bishop - any bishop - is the Canonical seat of authentic Catholic teaching. It is the nature of the office. All that is technical. But, Jesus ministered to human beings just like us. Is not the Church truly Jesus and should not the Church be a compassionate leader in the same vein as Jesus? So, where should Olmstead’s priorities lie? There is a larger issue here and this Olmstead/St. Joseph debate is a micro-view of the huge issue of the Church/us issue. I, for one, wish not to see this small storm in Phoenix as being indicative of the larger issue. Unfortunately, I cannot help but think it is. The institution has taken on a life of its own and we and its mission have been lost in its own self-preservation.

Liseux-I understand perfectly but your justification for killing the baby, trying to say it is a secondary happening is just not true. The treatment for ectopic pregnancy is to kill the baby. It is does not involve the removal of the fallopian tube, though if left too long, it can do. Killing the baby is the ONLY treatment for Ectopic pregnancy. The babies death is not a side effect, it is the whole purpose of the treatment. If the little baby is still small enough, it will be killed with methotrexate and will be reabsorbed by the mother’s body. If the little baby is not quite so little, it will be surgically removed. Now both of these situations are very clearly NOT allowed by Catholic teaching. A somewhat larger baby will cause the fallopian tube to rupture and now it is a life or death emergency but still, to remove the cause, the little baby, is still wrong. One MUST wait for it to die first before intervening to try and save the mother. However, the first and only treatment for ectopic pregnancy is always to kill the little baby first, there is no other threat to the mother, the death of the baby is not secondary but primary. How can a Catholic countenance such an action?

By the way, my daughter is a doctor and agrees 100% with Heather’s comments above regarding treatment of the woman’s Hypertension. No, she wasn’t there. However, she says that in the case of a pregnant woman it is the first believed and primary cure to abort the child, especially in pregnancies under 16 weeks. I believe it is *obvious* that this WAS the woman’s problem since she is still alive and the Sister clearly made her choice based on that information.

My daughter (reading her the comments on the phone) says that to suggest that in ending an ectopic pregnancy, killing the baby is NOT the PRIMARY goal is “simply ridiculous” and that “someone is looking for excuses”. The GOAL is first and foremost to kill the baby. PERIOD.

Please explain Louise, and Colin, why doesn’t the doctor just kill the baby and leave the tube intact?

If the goal is to kill the baby, PERIOD, then that can be arranged.

Maybe YOUR goal would be first and foremost to kill the baby. Period.

There are those out here who still value unborn human life.

Colin, if the doc wanted to kill the baby as a first intent, that can be done.

Please explain why it’s not done.

I do not think we can turn away from issues involving life and death.
We are bound by our belief in God to ponder them and to seek to
reach the right decision about them.
Conscience demands this of us.
God demands this of us.
It is not easy, and we frequently encounter painful and difficult problems.
It is not “evil” to question an institution that attempts to control
decisions of life and death according to a code that seems flawed, unjust
and likely to result in unnecessary deaths.
On the contrary it is an obligation to question such an institution and
such a code.
And obviously the people who defend that institution and its code
have a moral right to do so, to present their case for what they believe
is right.
Life is worth that effort. Conscience is worth that effort.
I think the people on this blog, no matter how they feel
about these issues, might allow one another their good intentions.
Commenting on a post is one thing. Replying to an argument is one thing.
But damning another person as “evil” is another.
One reason Christians have lost so much respect in the
Public Square is that they have so little respect for conscientious people
who differ with them.
This is sad.
It is sad that those claiming to be followers of Christ take
such obvious malicious pleasure in insulting others, and seeking to bully them
and confuse them.
Confusion doesn’t really help anyone.
A good discuss here benefits all.

liseux, And how DARE you suggest I don’t value life? I chose to NOT ABORT my son. You can’t just make stuff up to fit your agenda.
They DO kill the baby and leave the tube intact if it is early enough. Next?
Again,
They DO kill the baby and leave the tube intact if it is early enough. Please explain.

Anne, Your last comment helped me a lot. I came here through your website while I was looking for the order of your books. In my old age, I am actually just now reading my first Anne Rice *novel*. Instead, I am crying and reliving an awful time in my life and arguing with someone who just won’t accept reality. I feel better now having read your words and I’m going back to my book now!
Liseux, I am LDS and I have a gay son. I have had to deal with my own Church ticking me off to no end. Sometimes, you have to sit back and think, would God just dismiss my child for being gay? Would he dismiss this woman for living? There is obviously a point in which morality has to take over, in cases of child molesters, etc. Jesus was compassionate. I try to be. I won’t argue anymore. I will pray for you.
I have to add that I am sad that a Communist group like Code Pink is in the middle of this. We need to save our Republic from them.

Our Lady, patroness of the unborn & Mother of the Church, pray for us!

Liseux-you are getting very close to obviously being sinful here.
Drs frequently kill the baby and leave the tube intact. Even if they did not, it doesn’t alter the fact that the FIRST INTENT is to kill the baby, be that by drugs, sucking out, or removing the tube it is in. It is done to KILL the baby. The effect is to save the mother from a painful horrendous death. According to your belief and the RC belief this is evil and I am astounded that you would countenance, let alone justify, the killing of little bay under any circumstances.

This is why Christians in the country are being marginalized. I don’t like the Communist/Socialist movement in this country. I want to educate people to what it is. But, I can’t go around jamming my ideas into other peoples heads. My Church shouldn’t do it, this church shouldn’t do it. I can comment, I can believe. The bottom line is, we can’t stop people from living their lives in peace. It’s just wrong. This Sister helped save a life. Everyone needs to remember that.

You know…I think there’s a lot more to consider here. If the mother died and the baby lived what would have happened to the child? Would it have been put up for adoption…would the family have taken the infant in…could they afford to financially? Did the mother have other children? If so, you know she wouldn’t have wanted to abort her child if there were any other way. But I think Christian society may think women are expendable. The fact remains the baby really didn’t know what was happening. I know I can’t remember being born, can you? No loss,no gain. Not to sound callous but the mother was already a thinking functioning human being. It’s a tough call. Not sure I could make it, but the hospital did. The only time a baby should be aborted is in a life threatening situation. Still, we shouldn’t condone abortion as a means of getting rid of unwanted pregnancies. But I think in this case Sister Margaret made the right call.

Liseux I addressed the topic in the first part of my post. Reread it if you have to. I’m not sure what the debate is all about. It seems cut and dry. A medical professional made the appropriate call concerning a patient who most likely was going to die. Thankfully doctors and nurses do it every day. End of story.

If you think my statement “but will allow pedophiles to continue the molestation of hundreds, maybe thousands of children” is inaccurate you are too disillusioned to even debate the subject. Have you been living under a rock? Archbishop Silvano Maria Tomasi reported last year that in the past 50 years, 1.5% and 5% of U.S. Catholic clergy has been involved in some type of sexual abuse cases. Do the math because it’s going to add up to more than 6 cases. The country they live in is irrelevant. They have been extremely successful in a massive conspiracy to cover it up.

I never said children in public schools weren’t being molested. Anyone who watches the news knows that. Not that a school teacher is any less a crime but a priest betraying and molesting a child is just the ultimate sin. Get a clue. If the smear fits, wear it.

This from a letter written by the ACLU to ask for an investigation into Catholic Hospitals.

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

Thank you Anne for passing along this information from the ACLU and helping to bring to light the sub-standard care and un-necessary health risks faced by women in Catholic-owned hospitals. I feel that you are correct in projecting that Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted and those who stand with him in attempting to bully Catholic hospitals into condemning women to die with their unborn children will bring about the demise of these very institutions they seek to control. Perhaps this is for the best. I offer that in keeping with the human experience, when controversial and corrupt practices are uncovered and exposed to the public resulting in scandal and the demand for truth, justice and accountability, it often clears the path for the necessary positive and modern solutions and reformations to take place. Such revolutions have been numerous and profound throughout our history in the movements to combat and correct evils such as slavery, gender inequality, genocide and institutional abuse such as the large scale sexual abuse scandal involving Catholic parishioners. I expect as we all examine this latest scandal involving the welfare of pregnant mothers in Catholic-owned hospitals, we will see many more of these tragic cases brought to light where women are forced to sacrifice their health and lives, where husbands must forfeit their wives, and children forfeit their mothers for unborn fetuses who never stood a chance at life inside a dying womb, women essentially disabled or abandoned to die in hospital beds for Catholic policy mandate with blatant disregard for the medical profession. Let us hope that such exposure can pave the way for medical care facilities that respect the value of a woman’s life and the ethical responsibily of medical practitioners to save the lives that they can. Let us hope that people like Sr. Margaret McBride are at the forefront of such movements with the tenacity to stand up to powerful institutional bullying and uphold their oaths to choose life rather than turn their backs on dying mothers in need. Thank you Sr. Margaret McBride for interpreting Gods will with the common sense he gave you. Thank you for your resolve in saving the lives you can. My heart goes out to the women and their families who are forced into these heartbreaking situations, especially those who must suffer them without the moral and lifesaving assistance of caring dedicated souls such as Sr. Margaret McBride. Yes, my heart goes out to the unborn children whose fate was death no matter the course of action. I offer this, if I as an educated fully functioning adult with all of my available resources and life experiences to draw on were placed in a situation where my death was immediately inevitable but my premature sacrifice could save my own mother’s life, how proud and honorable without hesitation would be my sacrifice to honor my mother’s life than for both of us to die without cause. And so this unborn child whose sacrifice was chosen for him or her in regard to his or her indisputed inability to do so through faith, education, thought, comprehension or experience and the inevitability of his or her death regardless of the course of action as deemed by medical professionals has not died in vain but honors the mother in allowing her life.

What right has THIS MAN, this Bishop to deny medical treatment for a woman. Who is the keetle calling the pot black. This man is a prelate of the “Holy” Roman Catholic Church, an organization that, with the sanction of it’s Führer, Der Papst, protects paedophile clergy from the Law. Paedophilia is a despicable crime to be committed by anyone, but worse for anyone who claims to believe in a “god” based on the worst book of fiction ever written that orders acts like those described in Numbers 31: 17-18.

I fail to understand how this discussion is meant to benefit by Anne proving she is THE Anne Rice, but nevertheless she has graciously met your irrelevant demands that she do so by posting a link to this thread on her well-publicized Facebook page. You’ve gotten what you wished for, now be warned: hundreds of thousands may follow to condemn your stance here. Those of us who frequent her page participate in meaningful debates such as this on an almost daily basis, and I imagine the vast majority will strongly disagree with the skewed perspectives of morality contained within many of these posts. I, for one, am horrified by much of what I’ve read.

I’m going to take the liberty of stating a few things which Anne herself may be too kind or too modest to include here. Remember, this would be inconsequential had not several of you made her identity such a point of discussion:

To the poster who said, “...the real Anne Rice, someone who quit Catholicism and accused many well-wishers of being anti-gay and a slew of other slurs. Please don’t throw scraps at her, she’ll only come back for more.”

First of all, Anne did not accuse any one well-wisher of anything. Certainly, she never slurred. As a public figure, she simply (and courageously) chose to distance herself from disputatious institutions where, among other things, the lives of women – as evidenced by Bishop Olmsted’s position – are clearly undervalued. Second, you are in discourse with one of the most widely read authors in modern history. Have some respect, for God’s sake. I should very much like to see a list of your accomplishments.

To those of you implying that because she made the decision to leave organized religion that she has no legitimate ground upon which to contest Bishop Olmsted’s actions – well, there is a reason why your posts have been ignored. Not only does she have the same inherent right of any other American to voice her opinion, she would be a poor activist indeed were she not to continue criticizing matters such as this which led to her break in the first place. Frankly, her presence here should be commended, given the scrutiny she is apt to face.

Finally, to the poster who said, “...how can someone who doesn’t accept institutionalized religion comprehend apostolic succession and authority?”

Have you read, I wonder, Christ the Lord: Out of Egypt and Christ the Lord: The Road to Cana? Have you seen the YouTube videos of Anne discussing her source material for these works with Rev. Joseph Cocucci? Have you heard the audio of The Forum at Grace Cathedral where she sat down with Bishop N.T. Wright himself, one of the world’s most renowned biblical scholars? If not, I invite you to do these things. Omitting the fact that her background is one of total immersion in the Catholic doctrine, Anne’s extensive knowledge of both theology and history is as respected and well-documented as her authorial prowess. Trust me, she “comprehends” it. So that’s who you’re dealing with, since so many of you HAD to know: an intellectual giant.

Now can we move on?

I applaud Sr. Margaret McBride for saving the life of that poor woman who sadly had to lose her child in order to survive. It literally frightens me to know there are so many of you who would have been so content to let both child and mother die. I shudder to think about it being my mother on that gurney, or my sisters, or my friends. I give thanks to God that it was Sr. Margaret McBride there on that day and not one of you.

I think it is quite telling that few (if any) of you have actually answered the questions Anne posed in a earlier post. I challenge you to address them, and will re-post them now.

Had you been in the Emergency room,
and found the case as the hospital has presented it,
would you have told the mother that you intended to withhold a life
saving abortion from her because she was in a Catholic hospital?
Would you have explained your moral position?
Would you have told her husband the same thing?
Or would you have withheld this info, and simply told her that
there was “nothing” you could do?
How do you think you would feel about your power in such a
situation, knowing that you had the ability to save her life but
you were choosing not to?
Suppose the woman and her husband had been outraged
and begun to plead with you and demand that you do the
life saving abortion?
What would you have said and done?
Would tears and desperate pleas for her life
softened your stance?
Would you have stood firm that she had to die?
What if they wanted to go to another hospital?
Would you have obstructed their efforts to do so, on
the grounds that you did not want the pregnancy terminated?
How far would you have gone in this case?
Would you, perhaps, have even suggested she go to
another hospital?
If her condition was far too critical for that,
would you have wheeled her gurney into a private room
and left her there to die?
Would you have called a priest to give the woman the
Last Sacraments?
If the woman had died, would you have been willing to stand
trial for murder?

Wow - So that is what leadership looks like.  I like it!  We need to figure out how to apply to same firm resolve to colleges and politicians.  You don’t have to agree with Catholics, but if you don’t then don’t call yourself Catholic.

KARLPRIGGE,  Catholics do not get a
legal dispensation to kill people in this country
just because they are Catholics. 
Bishop Olmsted is demanding that Catholics abandon women
in certain reproductive crises to die in Catholic hospitals.
If he prevails in this, the United States of America has an obligation to shut
his Catholic hospitals down.
We don’t allow people to kill others in our country
because of their religious beliefs.

I must be missing something here. If the “right to life,” and the “sanctity of life” are of such great concern, isn’t it the Bishop who should be excommunicated? After all, if his “guidance” was followed he would have been responsible for two deaths, not just the one that occurred.

If the Bishop was really interested in “life,” instead of writing letters to a hospital, he should spend his time corresponding with the Governor of Arizona, regarding the budget cuts that will eliminate the possibility of about 200 people receiving life-saving transplants (heart, kidney, lung, bone marrow, etc.)

He seems guilty of very “selective” caring. Standing up for the rights of the unborn is fine, if you are just as vigilant regarding the rights of the living.

Finally, here’s a hypothetical to consider. The mother is also a neurosurgeon and is the only doctor in the world who has successfully removed a specific type of brain tumor. It is discovered that the Pope has a tumor of this type.

Based on what people keep saying is “canon law,” the Bishop’s statement would be, “Let the mother die, let the fetus die, and let the Pope die.”

I guess that the term “rational Catholicism” is the ultimate oxymoron.

[Re-posting my contribution from another thread on this blog]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The point I made above, which Anne still hasn’t responded to, is that the doctors are incapable of *knowing* that the mother will die. They can guess, and their guess will be more informed than a non-doctor’s, but it is still guessing. It is a probabilistic assessment, and one that is not based on calculations (i.e. one could not apply statistical methods to it like one can to a throw of the dice).

Thus what was done was killing one person intentionally in order to *lower the risk* that another person would die. It is therefore not the clean ethics-textbook hypothetical—killing the child in order to save the mother’s life—that the hospital has presented it as. Real life (esp. in a hospital) involves possibilities and probabilities, not cut-and-dried dilemmas.

Anne wants us all to rely solely on the facts as the hospital has presented them, but still has not explained why we have to accept the hospital’s version of the facts when it clearly has liability, PR, and other interests that give it a strong incentive to present only those facts that help its case. (And it has been the one to leak all the facts that we do have access to, not Bp. Olmsted, and not Sr. McBride.) Just because we don’t have access to the medical records doesn’t mean we have to throw up our hands and say “We can’t know so we have to accept what the hospital says on faith.” It is completely fair to question the hospital’s version of the facts based on its known institutional interests.

More importantly, we don’t need access to the medical records in order to conclude that the hospital was balancing a guess about the mother’s risk of death against the certainty of killing the baby through abortion. It is in the nature of medical practice that guesses about the likelihood and timing of death are not certainties. (Think about all the times that doctors “give” someone X months to live and the patient goes on to live much longer.) The hospital doesn’t get to change its assessment of the *likely outcomes*—what it described to Sr. McBride—into an absolute certainty. That approach turns doctors into prophets, a role doctors (at least those unaccompanied by lawyers) do not claim or want.

That does not mean that we could not have a seminar with Prof. Singer and others about this sort of ethical hypothetical and think through different situations like scholastics counting angels. But those ethical musings would not be this case because we don’t, and the hospital doesn’t and can’t, have that level of knowledge. And though she may not want to admit it, Anne sees through a glass darkly, too.

ER, as I have said before
my interest is in this case as the hospital
and the bishop have presented it.
Your speculations are irrelevant.
To the best of my knowledge the bishop has
not challenged the hospital’s version of what happened.
He has condemned it.
Again, your speculation is irrelevant.
If you are not comfortable with the story as it is
then why post here at all?
This is about the bishop’s condemnation of the
hospital’s version,
not what you think might have been happening
at the hospital or why the hospital can’t be trusted
in your mind to tell the truth.

ER, there is a point at which the facts become moot.  The Church/hospital policy itself of requiring that both a mother and fetus die when presented with an early term pregnancy that will cause the imminent death of the mother, and, thus, the fetus, has Constitutional implications.  As a nurse, you should be well aware that there ARE situations where death is imminent, not just speculative.  There are clear biological signs that the body is preparing itself to die.

Thanks to this controversy, the national attention is on Catholic hospitals.  The public was clearly outraged by Sr. McBride’s excommunication and the bishop’s determination that the mother’s life was irrelevant.  As I stated above, there is no case or controversy for the federal courts to decide here.  The right legal decision was made to preserve the mother’s life, whether or not you agree with that.  Sr. McBride has been excommunicated, but that is not a matter for the federal courts.  She can have redress by appealing that within the Catholic judicial system.

However, as Ms. Rice has repeatedly tried to illuminate, Sr. McBride’s case has served as a catalyst for the wheels of justice.  Closer examination of this issue is a natural outcome.  You are focused in on the specific facts of Sr. McBride’s case, but the world has moved on to the bigger issues presented.  You keep trying to bring Ms. Rice back to argue the facts when the point is moot.  If you are unfamiliar with the concept of a moot point, please read here:  http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/moot_point

The search is on for those cases that will be worthy of going to the Supreme Court.  It has spiraled out of the control of the Church, much like the priest abuse scandal spiraled out.  The failure to perform life saving abortions has societal implications, as Ms. Rice has repeatedly argued.  She is focused on the big picture being presented here, and you are nipping at her heels like an angry Chihuahua. 

The focus is now on the national implications of Catholic hospitals failing to provide life saving, legal procedures to women, not on one particular hospital, one particular nun, or one particular bishop.  The debate has matured and moved forward.  You want to keep it where it is no longer relevant. You are frozen in time when this was first announced, Ms. Rice is speaking from the vanguard.  She sees what you cannot.

The tendency of some posters here and in other places to
want to change the facts of the story is striking.
Apparently the story as presented makes some of those
who condemn Sr. McBride very very uncomfortable.
There seems almost a conspiratorial “feeling” that the
hospital must be covering up some secret agenda to
do abortion on demand.
We have no evidence of this whatsoever.

@Anne Rice, who said, “The tendency of some posters here and in other places to want to change the facts of the story is striking.”  It is a function of groupthink, very easily recognized and explained.

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

I worked with the Sister, at St. Joseph’ Hospital, for almost five years. If I had to sum up both the hospital’s, and the Sister’s, philosophy in just a few words, they would be:

- compassionate, competent, care
- total transparency

Anyone who believes that the hospital is hiding something, or not providing all the facts, should either put forth their evidence or stop seeing conspiracies. If the “how do we know” suppositions are to be considered actionable, try this one on for size. How do we know that the Bishop was not once a child molester? The likelihood of that being true (given what has been revealed over the last 10 years about the “Shepherd’s opf thye Church”)is much greater than any hospital malfeasance in this regard. I do not know of a single case where St. Joseph’s has been taken to court for “failure to disclose” or providing incomplete/false records. On the other hand, when it comes to priests being in court…....

@Philip Barnett, who said, “I worked with the Sister, at St. Joseph’ Hospital, for almost five years. If I had to sum up both the hospital’s, and the Sister’s, philosophy in just a few words, they would be:
- compassionate, competent, care
- total transparency
Anyone who believes that the hospital is hiding something, or not providing all the facts, should either put forth their evidence or stop seeing conspiracies.”

Agreed.  It is merely done to obfuscate the issues and to chill the dissenting voices.

This quote is from an article by Jacob M. Appel
May 16, 2010, “After St. Joseph’s, Are Women Still Safe
in Catholic Hospitals?”  Easily found online.
“Olmsted has a reputation as a particularly stone-hearted and intransigent figure, even by the orthodox standards of Vatican hierarchy. He previously gained notoriety for refusing communion to a ten-year-old autistic child who could not swallow and later spearheaded an effort to incorporate local church parishes individually in order to shield the Phoenix archdiocese from suits by sex-abuse victims. He has also been a fierce and vocal critic of President Obama. But Mr. Omsted’s pronouncement—rather than the deranged cries of a renegade cleric—reflect a broader, deeply disturbing trend that is reshaping Catholic healthcare. Earlier this year, I drew attention to the revision of Directive 58, which now prohibits Catholic hospitals from honoring the wishes of patients—both Catholic and non-Catholic—who wish to be removed from unwanted life support equipment such as ventilators. The new policy, like the new abortion rule, is both patently illegal and widely regarded as unethical by mainstream secular and religious thinkers. Inevitably, both policies will be challenged in the courts. However, in the interim, pregnant women must ask themselves whether they can trust their care to any Catholic hospitals in the United States. Without overt assurance from the Vatican, I fear that the answer is a resounding NO.”

This is extremely alarming.
I say again, Catholic Hospitals will not survive this
crisis if the Bishop gets his way.

Philip Barnet, as far as I know everyone who has spoken about their experience with Sr. Margaret McBride has praised her.  There has not been one word to the contrary in any news report. She is universally admired. 
I say again, if only this Bishop had approached her with a
little humility and respect, he might have learned much that
would have helped him in shepherding his flock.
It is tragic that he missed this opportunity altogether.
If Catholic hospitals close as the result of all this,
which seems more than likely at this juncture,
I hope people remember that the Sisters of Mercy were blameless
and so was the valiant Sr. McBride.

Ms Rice,
I applaud you for your patience, respect, forthrightness, and all round classy way that you have joined this discussion.  You’ve been trivilized, patronized, and insulted, but you kept your composure throughtout.  Bravo to you, sister!  Keep up the good work.

I’m just watching a Canadian Broadcasting Company documentary on the Catholic Church’s response to child sexual abuse.  The secrecy directives, the coverups, and the present pope’s implication in the whole disastrous scandel.  Catholics in Canada are rebelling against having to pay monetary compensation to victims since the parishioners were not the responsible, the clerics were.  They have secured legal council and the Vatical has been found culpable.  Like the Catholic hospital scandel, the inability of the church establishment to make the necessary changes that would make it a moral force, it clings to it’s power and priviledge.  I believe it will be it’s demise.

Sandra, I thank you for your posts.
I think you have really hit on it when you
mention the church’s failure to make the necessary
changes to make it a moral force.
The tragedy here is that the church is no longer a real moral force at all.

I am still befuddled.

Sister Margaret agrees with a medical decision and one person lives.

If the Bishop was in charge nobody would have lived.

How can anyone who believes in the sanctity of life not agree with the fact that it is the Bishop who should be excommunicated were his “dictates” acted upon. At the least his punishment should be twice as great as her’s - or is he arguing that two sins are more acceptable than one.

I am still waiting to hear from any Catholic who agrees with the Bishop, but only if their explanation incorporates the words compassion, rational thinking, logic and “the greater good.”

I’m sure I will be accused of being incredibly sacreligious but it strikes me that the Bishop’s activity of choice is pontificating at funerals and, using his rule book, he would get to preach at two of them, instead of one.

Sexual abuse is a terrible thing but at least the victims live. In this case “Bishop abuse” is far worse because it’s apparent that this “man of the cloth” would have no problem standing at the mother’s bedside and saying, “I don’t care what is best, I don’t care what makes sense and I don’t care what you and your family want. I’m here to tell you that it’s time for you and your unborn child to both die. Your doctors have no say in the matter, your family has no say in the matter and you certainly have no say in the matter. I am God’s representative and I am doing his will. Now, I’d better leave so I won’t have to explain this to your children.”

I’ve always thought that one of the reasons that the Catholic Church opposed birth control was to insure that there would be more Catholics. If that is the case they are leaking water at the other end of their boat. First, the Bishop’s belief would result in the death of a Catholic, for no apparent reason. And second, anyone who has been wavering while thinking about whether to convert to Catholicism will probably run in the other direction.

Philip Barnett, you worked with Sr. McBride, right?  I was trying to find my way back to your post about that.  I have a burning question that I’ve tried to research and am getting nowhere.

Was Sr. McBride the only Catholic on that ethics committee?  I find that very curious.  I’ve been involved with ethics committees in the past.  The composition of those committees is not a matter of chance and any warm body available.  I would think that in a Catholic hospital they would not have the interests of the Catholic church in such a minority.  There had to have been other Catholics on that ethics committee, but Sr. McBride was the only one excommunicated.  Do you have any insight into this or know where I could go to find out the composition of that committee?  I don’t need names.  I just need to know how many Catholics and non-Catholics sat on the committee.

In answer to the question about the make-up of the ethics committee it is my understanding that it consists of a doctor, a nurse, an administrator and one of the several Sisters. Obviously, as a result of things such as illness, vacations, etc. the individuals would constantly be changing.

I’m not sure of the religious affiliation of the members, other than the Sisters. In fact, I’m not sure anyone knows as even asking that question of someone is probably a violation of discrimination laws.

I was in a department with 17 other people and, aside from one of the Sisters, I have no idea what anyone else’s religion was.

Thank you, Philip.  So, what you are saying is that this is basically an ad hoc committee rather than a standing committee.  I’ve never encountered one of those.  I’ve only dealt with standing committees at teaching hospitals.

I’m surprised, however, that since this is a Catholic hospital dealing with such an explosive issue that there wasn’t something more formalized to deal with a situation where there’s an ethical dilemma.  Surely even this committee had to realize the import of their decision-making process.

I suspect that the problem with “standing committees” is that they are not readily available when there’s an emergency - which is often what necessitates the type of decision similar to what happened here.

I admit I’m guessing here but logic said that there are “on duty” people who would be involved with something that has a degree of timeliness involved. I believe that one of the Sisters is always available to be part of any decision-making process.

Interesting, Philip.  I’d be willing to bet that this has had a chilling effect on the Sisters with the risk of excommunication.

I would like to know if this Hospital accepts patients of all Faiths, Beliefs, and No Belief.

St. Joseph’s accepts patients of any belief/reeligion, as well as those with none.

I can’t imagine why anyone would want to put themselves in a position where they are working at a place whose mantra is “Do no harm,” only to be lectured to a someone whose attitude was, the more harm the better.

If medical science does not come up with a pill to combate hypocricy soon, the Bishop may ends up choking on his own smugness, along with all the others who believe that being without sin is no longer required if one is going to be casting stones.

Folks, I am not disagreeing with the facts as revealed by the hospital (the Bp. has not commented publicly about the facts, despite what Anne has written, so I don’t think she is entitled to an inference that he agrees with the hospital’s account.).

What I am pointing out is that the facts **as described by the hospital** show that what the hospital did was intentionally kill (i.e. murder) one person in order to reduce the probability that another person would die. The doctors may have decided that the probability that the mother would die before the baby was viable (probably 12-13 weeks after the events in question) was 95% or 90% or 80% or 50% or 20%. But it was not 100%, and no doctor in this situation or any situation like it could plausibly say that it was.

The entirety of Anne’s argument is based on the conclusory statement from the hospital that it “saved the only life it could save.” That statement—the hospital’s expression of its *opinion*—does not change the underlying *fact* (common to this and any similar medical ethical situation) that the hospital’s conclusion was one reached based on guesses about the probabilities involved. That’s why they call them medical opinions, not medical facts. That’s also why every medical malpractice case involves dueling medical opinions based on the same set of ascertainable data. Different doctors can reach different opinions based on the same set of facts; juries and the general public aren’t required to accept the opinion of the treating physician as fact.

I agree with the comment that imminent demise is something that medical professionals can tell is going to happen with a high level of certainty. But that was not what happened here. Abortions aren’t performed on that basis, and in any case we know this situation was run through the ethics committee. Although some have depicted it as if this decision was made in an emergent context, that is not what the story as described by the hospital is. They did not perform an abortion while someone was coding.

In reality, Anne is the one who is fighting with the facts. She is making her argument based not on the facts presented by the hospital, but instead on the basis of the hospital’s opinion (“we saved the only life we could save”) which she has elevated to the status of fact. I have no illusions that anyone reading this board is going to credit my opinion over that of a prominent novelist’s, but if this case or one like it ever gets into court, pretending that the opinion of a treating physician/hospital is a fact rather than an opinion is not going to get very far.

Just for fun, how would Anne or anyone supporting her position determine the morality of performing an abortion based on a doctor’s assessment that there is an 80% chance that the mother would die before the baby was viable (23 weeks or so)? How about 20%? Is the justice of your position completely contingent on 100% certainty that the mother will die before viability? What is the cut-off probability threshold for intentionally killing the baby? And would that assessment change if the child involved were already born? (I used a hypothetical above about running down a staircase in a towering inferno, but you can substitute any variation you like—the infant about to cry while the Gestapo is looking for the hidden family, etc.) Since pretty much every similar situation involves uncertainty and guessing, it seems like the only sound basis for a decision about public policy is one that deals with the normal course of medical events, not claims of 100% certainty.

Anne Rice, your response to me is giving me facts which others on this Post have disputed.  The truth coming out is that the mother’s life was considered to be in danger but opinions of other experts felt there was no immediate danger to her life and under Intensive Care Unit observation, the infant would have attained the stage where the baby could be cared for under incumbation, develop to full-term and survive.  I have not read all the threads.  But I am confident that the Bishop had all the facts before he arrived at the decision and wrote to the Hospital stating the Church’s valid position with regard to any Institution which operates as a Catholic Entity.  All are required to adhere to the Teachings of the Church or lose the privilege of using the name Catholic.  The matter becomes more serious for the Catholic Church where the sanctity of life of the unborn and the duty to protect that life is disregarded.  I repeat, the Bishop was doing his job as the Shepherd of that Diocese and he had no intention to have his decision become the subject of a slinging match between the pro-life and pro-choice protagonists, not to mention the Catholic-haters. It is now blatantly clear that his letter was leaked to the media to create a forum to crucify him and open another arena for fighting the Catholic Church.  The language of most of the commentators on this Post clearly show their anger is not about what the Bishop said, but their attempt, once again, to pick this issue and demand the destruction of the Catholic Church.  The subject matter here, is only an excuse to advance this Agenda

On Sunday last I posted this: “What right has THIS MAN, this Bishop to deny medical treatment for a woman.”
I got a kind reply to my question if the hospital treats all beliefs and was told Yes. This woman in question, was it known what her faith was? I do not wish to breach privacy so don’t want to know what her faith was.

My position is this. I was a Roman Catholic. I refer to myself as a bedraggled refugee from the “Holy” Roman Catholic Church now Atheist. I was born into a Roman Catholic Family and given a Roman Catholic education in a Jesuit College in Australia. My reason for becoming Atheist was that I learned from my study of Science that everything in the Bible is wrong. This is not really the forum pursue this any futher.

I will say this. The Bishop is not a Doctor, I gather. He should not interfere in the medical procedural policies of the hospital. I will also say this. I fear for the future of America, or as it should be known, The United Christian States of America. I see what goes on in the Bible Belt States, how education is being wrecked by the insistence by Christians in banning the teaching of Evolution and teaching that “God” created everything in 6 days about 10,000 years ago.
Contrary to what about 60% of Americans think, it is not a Christian Nation. The Constitution bans favouring of any Religion.
The way the Roman Catholic Church is going in America it will die. It is dying in Australia. Only about 7% of Roman Catholics attend Mass every Sunday. We have some very officious Archbishops in Australia who invoke the wrath of even Roman Catholics in their many ststements and interference in Politics.
Im case you are wondering why I call it the Roman Catholic Church, that is because that is it’s official name. There are other Churches that call themselves “Catholic”, e.g the Universal Catholic Church.

Another point. Bishop Olmsted was Ordained a priest on July 2, 1973
Ordained a bishop on April 20, 1999. Neither his ordination, nor consecration are valid. These occured after the Vatican Second Council unduer a Heretical Pope changed the Mass and all other ceremonies against the rule promulgated by Pope St. Pius V at the Council of Trent, 1570 CE. It declared the Tridentine Mass, especially the words of the Consecration
were NEVER to be altered in any way, that rule being for perpetuity.
The Ordo Missae Novus is invalid and Heretical.

It doesn’t matter anymore what the particular facts in the case were.  The train has pulled out.  It is on its way to a Constitutional battle of the rights of pregnant women at Catholic hospitals.  You can debate what the facts were, you can debate possibilities, but the fact remains that it is moot, in this case, and that a Constitutional scandal has erupted because of it. 

Experts will always debate.  Percentage chances of survival become ridiculous if you’re on the bad side of those percentages.  Hospitals minimize risk, not embrace it.  If there’s a 20% chance that someone won’t die, they won’t bet the bank on that one.  That is risk management.  ER, you might be a nurse, but I’m a lawyer who has worked with risk managers at many of the top hospitals.  You know as well as I do, or I hope you do, that there is never 100% certainty that someone will survive or die.  Risk management works with how to minimize those risks in the face of less than 100%.

Again, you are straying off topic.  You need to realize the bigger picture here of pregnant women who are denied the care they need based upon theological positions.  This has broad Constitutional implications, as Ms. Rice has tried to alert you.  You are debating the color of the drapes while the house is burning.

The case of Sr. McBride and Bishop Olmstead is a catalyst.  It was the first high profile illustration to the public of this problem.  Even if Sr. McBride was reinstated, the train has pulled out and the wheels of justice are in motion to deal with this problem on a national basis.  No new facts, no clever argument of the facts can turn that back.  It is now bigger than the immediate circumstances and, as Ms. Rice has pointed out, illustrates far greater problems within the Church.  It is approaching the level of the priest abuse scandal.  It’s out of the control of the Church.  It has a life of its own.  It has careened out of control and is headed toward the Supreme Court.  The Justices will have the final say on this matter, not the Pope.

Why isn’t this case making headlines around the country?
Here is a Catholic Bishop demanding that a hospital commit
to breaking the law with regarding to the treatment of women.
He is insisting that laws be violated and that professional medical
standards be violated. 
This is very simply outrageous.
All Americans should be concerned with this.
If you are as concerned about this as I am,
I urge you to write to your local newspaper
about it, including a link to this blog in
your email.
Write to the New York Times.
Write to the National Catholic Reporter.
Write to Commonweal Magazine.
Write to America, the Jesuit Magazine.
Demand that this bishop be held to account for
what he is doing.
If this hospital caves to his demands and
commits to breaking the law,
it should be immediately stripped of all
federal funds on all levels.
It should be taken to court for a deliberate
commitment to deny life saving medical services to women.
Meantime, the ACLU should continue to
demand a full investigation of Catholic hospitals
throughout this country.
You want to live in America?
Then abide by its laws.
You want to live in a Catholic state?
Fine, find one and go there.

You see, my good people? My observations above have been vindicated by Robert Tobin and Abscissio.  They conclusively confirm that the vicious war at hand was deliberately started when the Bishop’s letter was leaked to the media as another golden opportunity for those who wish to see the Catholic Church sink and Its Teachings and the God of Truth thrown out of the window so that Satan can ascend onto the throne to advance his Agenda. This is the now popular worship of the god of carnal gratification and wholesale genocide of unborn babies in the name of the woman’s right to choose not to become a mother.  How? She proceeds to kill the innocent, defenceless unborn baby of God whom she could have avoided conceiving by simply abstaining from sex. But, Hey!! I am told. “Shut up you silly woman. It is my right to have sex whenever I want it, wherever I want it and with whoever I want. I MUST HAVE INSTANT SEXUAL SATISFACTION WHENEVER THE URGE HITS ME BECAUSE IT IS ESSENTIAL LIKE THE FOOD I EAT AND THE AIR I BREATHE!!!.  And if that egg dares to get fertilized as a result of my enjoying my Human Right, IT IS MY RIGHT TO FLUSH IT OUT. I CAN’T ALLOW IT TO MESS UP MY LIFE”. This is the doctrine behind this entire attack against the good Bishop. The fact that the woman in question in this case was sick, is beside the point. Yet, if we were honest and stuck to the matter at hand, we are all fully aware that all Catholic Institutions are obligated to honour the Church’s Directives and its Doctrine with regard to Faith and Morals on how they shall be run.  However, should any Institution decide to operate outside the Church’s Authority, they are absolutely free to do so by voluntarily withdrawing from the Catholic Church umbrella and operate as they wish.  In that case, it would not be necessary for them to stubbornly demand to continue being called Catholic or attempt to blackmail the Catholic Church in an effort to destabilize it by creating a scandal where there is none.  The same applies to patients.  If you do not like how the Catholic Institutions who operate faithfully under the Authority of the Church with fidelity because they know they are obeying God’s Law, then for God’s sake seek services in other Institutions which are not under the Catholic Church Authority and leave OUR ONE, HOLY, CATHOLIC AND APOSTOLIC CHURCH ALONE.  And we shall all live happily ever after

Precisely the issues, Ms. Rice.  I would only add that people should also write to the ACLU and voice support for their investigation into the infringement of the rights of women.

What on earth are you talking about, Mary42?  You’ve gone on a rant beyond the scope of the debate.  What does a mother of several children have to do with instant sexual or carnal gratification?  What have I said about the Bishop’s letter being leaked?  Nothing.

There are Constitutional implications for these Catholic hospitals.  That i the point I’ve made.  Please do not misrepresent what I have said to support your agenda.  I am here, primarily, to address the legal issues raised, not to debate sexuality.

Mary47, your obsessive talk of sex here is devoutly
unpleasant and beside the point, except in so far
as it does reveal perhaps a profound contempt for
women rooted in your own sexual hangups.
Not surprising. Yours is a church that sees women
almost entirely in terms of their function and their genitalia.
But the matter is nothing as simple as you indicate here.
If this hospital gives in to the bishop, it should and must be
shut down.
It is taking federal funds. It is operating under the laws of this
country.  It cannot independently decide that, because it is Catholic,
it will deny safe, legal and medically approved services to women, because
a bishop has told it to do so.
I suggest you try to quiet your own unwholesome sexual obsessions and sexual
fantasies about the young mother and
what she did or did not do; and focus on the moral
and legal issues here.
At least focus on the information as we have it.

Anne,

“Yours is a church that sees women almost entirely in terms of their function and their genitalia.”

Is this what you would call a focused attack that resides entirely within the bounds of *this* debate?  (Your comments at times seem to simmer over with this kind of contempt.)

I just wanted to check to see how you were holding up this morning (after the previous schooling put on by Diane!).

Honestly, I mean no harm (just a little brotherly jiving).  And I honestly hesitate in writing this, but I thought you could use a little help.

Whenever I am confused by a situation or unable to comprehend the immense profundity of an idea, I *will* discuss it or write about it, but only after I spend at least as much time in prayer.

My dad always gave me the fatherly little jab of: “We were given two ears with only one mouth for a reason.”  Listen.  Listen to your heart; listen to God.

The answer may seem terrifying, but if you follow him, His peace, love, and *joy* will follow.

Listen to God? If it’s a God that says it’s better that two people should die, rather than one, I’d rather listen to Glenn Beck - and I think he’s an idiot.

WOW! A lot goes on in the internet world of things when I am at work.

Thank you to those who are on here shedding rational light on the
serious situation at hand. I applaud Anne Rice,Philip Barnett, Robert
Tobin & Abscissio for your efforts and want you to know that I have
faith that there are many like me who are Catholic but who
wholeheartedly agree with what you have said here. In fact, in speaking
about this Sunday with my friends at church, not a one disagreed with
Sister’s decision, and all condemned the Bishop’s actions.

Anne, I agree, this needs to be brought to the attention of media outlets.
I am appalled to discover that so few people have actually even heard of
this case. This should be a serious concern, for women, for Catholics, and really for us all.

You see?  I knew I would be called a silly woman, faithful to an obsolete Church whose Doctrine is archaic and irrelevant,run by ignorant Bishops and a senile Pope. Those comments have been thrown at us in other Posts where we are holding fast to the Teachings of the Church on the sanctity of human life from conception to natural death - the protection of the unborn babies - and the sanctity of the Sacrament of Matrimony.  The Catholic Church does not hold women in contempt as my protagonists declare here.  Quite the opposite. How can it when Our Saviour was given to us by the Holy Mother Mary?.  She is our model and the Church holds all women and motherhood in highest esteem.  And we are proud of our positions in the Church as first Educators, mentors and Formators of dignified humankind in the Nuclear Church - the Family .  As I end, I repeat, if any Catholic Institution does not want to operate within the confines of the Catholic Church Teachings on Faith and Morals, the door is wide open for them to get out of the Church and operate as per the dictates of their desires.  But it cannot continue to hang on to the Catholic Church Identity while refusing to abide by the tenets of the Church. And the war will end there. If I come to America and become a citizen of your country, I must abide by the Rules and Laws of your country.  If I feel I want to live outside your Laws, then I have no right to demand that I be permitted to live outside your laws and insist I remain an American citizen. My citizenship will be revoked and I shall be deported back to my country Simple!!!!!!

Mary42, if Catholics in Catholic Hospitals
cannot abide by the laws of this country, they
should get out of the Catholic Hospital business. Simple.
You cannot operate a hospital in America and go by
your own religious laws.
Muslims cannot enforce Sharia here.
And Catholics cannot force pregnant women to die
in a fatal and failing pregnancy, rather than offer them life saving abortions.
We are a nation of laws and standards,
and under those laws women are full individuals and full
citizens.  You cannot withhold safe,legal, and medically recommended
and appropriate treatment from them simply because you are Catholic.
Either abide by the laws, or close the hospitals down.
The Bishop, as things now stand, is demanding that St. Joseph’s hospital
commit to breaking the law.
That is not an option in America.

And please keep in mind that Catholics far and wide
have supported Sr. McBride and the hospital.
I support her as well.

You see, Anne Rice, we are talking at cross purposes here. God’s Law is Divine and Supreme to man’s laws.  His Edict: “You shall not kill”. We have free choice to decide to respect and abide by His Law or reject it and tell Him to leave us alone to decide for ourselves. And we throw at Him our opinions as valid to do what we want. That is why He gave us free will. He will sort out the matter when each one of us stands before Him at His Seat of Judgement.  For now all what we are arguing about is moot. God’s Will endures for ever.

You people quote “God’s Law” and from the Ten Commandments “Thou Shalt No Kill (Exodus 20: 13)
But in Genesis 19: 23-26
23The sun was risen upon the earth when Lot entered into Zoar. 24Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven; 25And he overthrew those cities, and all the plain, and ahl the inhabitants of the cities, and that which grew upon the ground. 26But his wife looked back from behind him, and she became a pillar of salt.

Then in Deuteronomy “God” slaughters more people:
Chapter 2:
21A people great, and many, and tall, as the Anakims; but the LORD destroyed them before them; and they succeeded them, and dwelt in their stead: 22As he did to the children of Esau, which dwelt in Seir, when he destroyed the Horims from before them; and they succeeded them, and dwelt in their stead even unto this day: 23And the Avims which dwelt in Hazerim, even unto Azzah, the Caphtorims, which came forth out of Caphtor, destroyed them, and dwelt in their stead.

These are two of the many examples of genocide done by your “God”. Now you can’t pick and choose. You either accept the Bible as the Word of God or reject the whole Bible. The Bible is NOT the word of “God” but a collection of books written by desert wanderers who plagiarized it from Egyptian Asthotheology with Sumerian and Babylonian Myths thrown in. Certainly the names of the actual authors are unknown and there are no original authored manuscripts in exstence. All we have is mis-copies of mis-translations badly redacted.

And Archaeology has not found any evidence to confirm the Bible. Certainly the Exodus never happened.

Your Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church was founded on the basis of ancient myths.

Robert,
there’s a lot of angst in your words.  Find where it comes from and let it go…

“How tragic it is that they who have nothing to say are continually expressing themselves, like nervous gunners, firing burst after burst of ammunition into the dark, where there is no enemy. The reason for their talk is death. Death is the enemy who seems to confront them at every moment in the deep darkness and silence of their own being.”
—T. Merton

Red Beard claims that you can’t murder someone even if you really really want to.

Well, apparently you can.

A cursory study of history would show that the invasion of Iraq did not meet the Church’s criteria for a just war, and didn’t even meet the US’s criteria.  But I didn’t hear any official position taken against this illegal and immoral slaughter of innocents by the RC Church or the majority of Catholics.  So, apparently, if you really really want to, you can murder.  Whoops, I guess that will be dismissed as pop feminism, whatever the hell that is.

And Gabby, dismissing what Anne Rice has contributed to this discussion as “emoting” and pop feminism” makes you an unworthy participant. 

When woman passionately state something it’s deemed as being too emotional.  When men do the same thing, it’s called being rational and reasonable.  Cut with the double standard crap, OK?

Sandra, I am with you.
I have from the beginning on this blogs, argued
that the church imposes a hypocritical and double standard
on pregnant women endangered by failed and fatal pregnancies.
That no American bishop to my knowledge has ever questioned any
Catholic soldier about the “morality” of joining a volunteer army
to fight in Iraq or Afghanistan, and soldiers are not “grilled” about
collateral damage (the killing of civilians including pregnant women,
children, etc.) when they come home.
I appreciate your reminding people of this.
The church, in these blogs, in my opinion, stands indicted of hypocrisy and
inconsistency,
of denying women the same protections they give abundantly to men.
One has to ask:
what is the “abortion issue” really about?
Is it about life, or is it about controlling women?
I argue that Roman Catholicism is not pro-life.
And it never has been.
It uses “the abortion issue” against women.
We need honesty and transparency from the church in
examining these issues.

Sr. McBride was pro-life.

This just in:  Diocese Ends Ties with St. Joseph’s Hospital: Bishop Also Announces Excommunication Of Nun

http://www.kpho.com/news/26206651/detail.html

PHOENIX—The Phoenix Catholic Diocese has ended its relationship with St. Joseph’s Hospital in Phoenix, which was ordered to comply with church teachings or lose its Catholic status.
Bishop Thomas Olmsted made the announcement during a news conference Tuesday morning.
He had made the demands in a letter to Catholic Healthcare West, the parent of St. Joseph’s Hospital, after an abortion was performed at the hospital.
“Communication with leadership at St. Joseph’s Hospital and Catholic Healthcare West has only eroded my confidence about their commitment to the church’s ethical and religious directives for health care,” Olmsted said.
“They have not addressed in an adequate manner the scandal caused by the abortion,” Olmsted said. “Moreover, I have recently learned that many other violations of the ethical and religious directives have been taking place at Catholic Healthcare West facilities in Arizona throughout my seven years as bishop of Phoenix and far longer.”
Other issues identified by Olmsted were contraceptive counseling and administering contraceptives, voluntary sterilization, and abortions due to the mental or physical health of the mother or when a pregnancy is the result of a rape.
Olmsted also announced that a nun who helped in the hospital’s decision making has been excommunicated.
The Diocese said Friday Olmsted extended the deadline to Dec. 21 because of ongoing communication and attempts to rectify the situation with St. Joseph’s.
Olmsted had said he wanted more oversight over the hospital’s medical practices to ensure it complies with Catholic health care rules.
If the hospital didn’t comply, Olmsted said he would prohibit Mass and some religious items at the hospital.

More breaking news from the local paper that originally reported the situation:

Phoenix diocese strips St. Joseph’s Hospital of Catholic status

http://www.azcentral.com/community/phoenix/articles/2010/12/21/20101221phoenix-diocese-strips-st-josephs-hospital-catholic-status.html

The Catholic Diocese of Phoenix has removed St. Joseph’s Hospital and Medical Center’s status as a Catholic hospital for failing to strictly adhere to Bishop Thomas Olmsted’s demands that the hospital comply with church moral teaching.

The decision, announced at a Tuesday news conference by the diocese, came after negotiations between Catholic Healthcare West and the bishop failed to resolve major ethical differences.

Catholic bishop warns hospital on practices |  Bishop Olmsted’s letter

The diocese and the hospital spent months trying to reach agreement over the bishop’s belief that the hospital violated the church’s Ethical and Religious Directives for Health Care in a case in which the pregnancy of a terminally ill woman was ended to save her life.

Olmsted has declared the surgery an abortion, while St. Joseph’s has argued that the procedure was allowable under church-approved exceptions to the abortion policy. The exceptions allow for termination of the fetus if that is not the direct purpose of a surgery, such as in cases of uterine cancer or a blockage of a fallopian tube.

The bishop, in a letter dated Nov. 22, said he disagreed with an extensive analysis by Marquette University theologian M. Therese Lysaught that argued that 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.

Discussions between the bishop and officials of Catholic Healthcare West, St. Joseph’s parent company, have been going on for more than a year, ever since the surgery was reported to the bishop. Hospital officials later said they did not believe the informant violated federal health-care privacy laws.

The ultimatum from the bishop followed his request over the summer that CHW provide him with a moral analysis of the case. The request for the analysis was passed on to Lysaught in August. She completed her work and forwarded her analysis to Lloyd Dean, CHW president, in late October. By the end of November, the bishop had rejected her conclusions.

GREAT NEWS.  GREAT NEWS.  GREAT NEWS.
THE BISHOP CANNOT AND WILL NOT BE ALLOWED TO CONTROL THE HOSPITAL.
THANK GOD.
THANK GOD for women everywhere.
Thank God for this great country in which we live.
Thank God that the hospital has stood up to the bishop,
and thank God for the courage of Sr. Margaret McBride.
Health care in Phoenix will not be compromised.
The people of Phoenix are safe from Bishop Olmsted.

This is great news. Now St. Joseph’s will be able to practice the quality of medical care that everyone deserves.

In the words of Grouch Marx, of all people, “I wouldn’t want to belong to any club who would have me as a member.”

This is the ultimate win/win, aside from what has happened to Sister Margaret. Those who opposed what the hospital did can join the Bishop and continuing venting their venom in what is now a vacuum. And those who disagree with his position can feel comfortable that his anti-life position need not be practiced at St. Joseph’s any more. Can you imagine any sane person refusing to give a condom to a person with AIDS?

Finally, the Bishop mentions the word “scandal.” The only scandalous action here was by the Bishop who preached that two deaths were better that one. WWJD? Certainly not what the Bishop has done.

One last thought. Suppose a woman, about to be raped, pleads with her attacker to at least wear a condom. His response is, “I can’t. I support the Bishop.” Is there a person alive, Catholic or not, who would support that response?

Let’s hope Catholic Hospitals everywhere stand up to
bishops, and this will be the beginning of a new era
for the Catholic Church in America.
I urge all to write to the hospital expressing support
and praise for their endurance in this awful crisis.

Anne,

Your obsession with the Catholic Church is moving into stalker territory now.  If you were an ex-girlfriend, a restraining order might be called for.  You left the Catholic Church.  Now be a big girl, accept your decision and move on with your life.  Or repent, go to Confession and be reconciled with Christ’s bride.  Okay?

But this weird in-between, obsessive-conflicted behavior simply won’t do.  It’s painful to watch. 

Pax.

What is painful to watch are those who believe dogma supercedes life, that blind faith trumps logic and reason. Why not ask yourself WWJD? The answer to that should provide the proof you need - proof that Ms. Rice is correct while you are involved with a faith that has supported pedophelia and that encourages the spread of AIDS.

I am very tired, getting sick, but cannot suffer many of these comments anymore.

The wave of ultra conservatism that has torn apart our country, our schools, our churches and just about every institution in its wake.  Ms. Rice, I and many others come from a different tradition. 

While I am not Catholic myself, Catholicism is very much a part of my extended family.  Were it not for my grandmother being sexually abused by a priest in the early 1900’s, I would be Catholic.  All of her siblings remained Catholic and many of her children married Catholics.  I have been raised with many of the traditions and beliefs.

I suspect that many of you are too young to recognize the Catholic tradition in which Ms. Rice was raised and with which she speaks so eloquently here.  It is the same Catholic tradition within my family and the principles of social justice which are so instilled in my very being.

That Ms. Rice left the Catholic church is an act of civil disobedience, if you will, not a loss of faith in God or Christ.  She is fighting for the Church she loved and the principles and values that were ingrained in her by the Church itself.  Everything she says is consistent with her very Catholic upbringing.

You are acting as if your thinking is the only way of thinking within the Church.  Right now, it appears to be the dominant, controlling way, as it does in certain segments of the Protestant faith, but it is not and has not always been so.  And there are many within the Catholic faith who share Ms. Rice’s values, based upon this very Catholic tradition that is unrecognizable and repugnant to you.

We come from an era that was shaped by the Great Depression and the aftermath of WWI.  Widespread poverty, wealth disparity, inequality, and a host of other ills of society gave rise to movements to right the wrongs, to create a just, fair world.  We are not from an era defined by Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, and the great divide between the red and blue states.  We learned our faith and values at the kitchen table, in our churches and in our communities.  While we are educated, our values were already well formed before we went off to college.  We weren’t polluted or poisoned there.

I recognize and applaud the tradition from which Ms. Rice speaks.  She is a world renowned writer.  She cares deeply and passionately for the Catholic church and the Catholic tradition in which she was raised.  She is fighting for its very existence.  You, who only know and appreciate your own limited viewpoint, mistake it for heresy and an attack on Catholicism itself.  You have not read her memoir of her return to the Catholic faith, nor her books on the life of Christ - widely praised by both mainstream Protestants and Catholics.

A great, wise and learned woman is amongst you and all you can do is take cheap, vulgar shots at her intellect, art and faith.  You “debate” like children on the playground.  You posture and spit.  It is an insult to the faith itself that you claim.

GUILTY. THEY DIDN’t wait to see how god would have intervened.

And if was your daughter, in that hospital bed, and her doctors said, “Here’s what we have to do to save her life,” I gather you would have told them, “Not so fast. Let’s wait to see how God intervenes. And, if he doesn’t, well I might as well lose my daughter as well as the unborn child.”

GUILTY? You are absolutely correct - and the guilty party is you, a person who would let her daughter die while waiting for an intervention. If Jesus had a say in this matter he would insist that both you and the Bishop be excommunicated as it’s obvious that both have no idea what your own religion is suppose to be about.

To the return comment who said I was guilty and that I should be excommunicated; I know of a case where God didn’t intervene and both the mother, daughter, and unborn child were saved. Doctors are not God and trust me doctors are not perfect and are guilty, often times too. And the word you see in the picture to submit this e mail comment was europe52.

As far as I understand the position from the point of view of an Australian, what this Olsted has done is punish the hospital and Sr. McBride in violation of the decision in the Roe v. Wade case and he did that under the provision of Canon Law 216 (http://canonlawblog.blogspot.com/)

I gather Canon has no legal standing as far as the secular laws of the USA are concerned.  Olmsted, therefore as breached US Law by attempting to deny patients the right to medical treatment and demanding that doctors break the Hypocratic Oath. Olmsted has the right under Canon Law to refuse the saying of Mass and the keeping of the Blessed Sacrament in the Hospital Chapel. THat he is entitled under Canon Law, 1983 CIC 934 § 1, n. 2.

I would like to add my personal comment about the Holier Then Thou attitude of so many Roman Catholics here, people who have been brainwashed into obeying the Church without queston. At least Anne Rice has the guts to do that and I congratulate her.

A comment objectional to me was posted by dh on Tuesday, Dec 21, 2010 9:36 AM (EST):Robert,
there’s a lot of angst in your words.  Find where it comes from and let it go…
I don’t know who you are and where you come from, but I do not appreciate insults like that. I am a member of a group of people that are the least liked in the UCSA, the United Christian States of America, they being Atheists. We are hated before Blacks and Gays. Didn’t your Jesus preach love of all mankind?
I consider myself lucky I don’t live in you country run by religious bigots.

Abscissio writes: “I suspect that many of you are too young to recognize the Catholic tradition in which Ms. Rice was raised and with which she speaks so eloquently here.”

Some of us may be young, but that does not mean we cannot recognize in Bishop Olmstead’s actions the same doctrine and exercise of apostolic authority which characterized the Church for…well, the 19 centuries that preceded the 1960’s, recorded faithfully in the annals of the Church and any objective history.  The last couple of decades of which timeframe, by the way, very much include the “Catholic tradition in which Ms. Rice was raised.”

Indeed, at any time during that long two millennium history, a bishop in Olmstead’s position would have done (could have done) much more: placement of the entire management of the hospital under interdict, and employment of the civil authorities to seize control of the hospital for its restoration as a Catholic institution.  And they would not have taken six years to do so. 

The outlier here is not the bishop’s actions.  It is those who would overturn two thousand years of apostolic teaching and authority to conform themselves instead to reigning attitudes regarding sexual ethics.  *That* is what has no place in the Catholic tradition, and to suggest otherwise shows complete and utter ignorance of Church history and teaching.

An innocent life has been deliberately snuffed out, and those who did so and remain unrepentant of the deed will have much to answer for.

To Robert Tobin.

The only bigotry I saw was in your comment.  The bishop is responsible for making sure that a “Catholic” hospital is actually “Catholic.”  What a shocking idea!

Well, he is removing the name “Catholic” from this hospital so that the will not confuse Catholics who go there expecting a hospital that abides by Catholic moral teaching.  That’s completely reasonable - at least to reasonable people.

I just read an article about the whole situation here:

http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1005213.htm

You call two deaths being better than one “reasonable?”

You must be using a totally different dictionary than the reasonable world.

To Shari
I see you back up you comment to me with an article from the “Catholic News Service” not exactly an unbiased organization. However this paragraph interested me:
“St. Joseph’s Hospital is involved with the Mercy Care Plan—an organization that provides health care through Arizona’s Medicaid program. By virtue of its involvement in the plan, the hospital has been “formally cooperating with a number of medical procedures” against Catholic teaching—a fact that the bishop said he learned about in the past few weeks.”
So the Hospital gets funded by Medicaid plus like the whole of the Roman Catholic Church gets tex exemption. I would also say that, if Olmsted takes this attitude towards the Mercy Sisters, they should be known as the “Sisters of No Mercy”.

Either the Roman Catholikc Church supplies Heath Care under the requirements of the Law of the Land and under the true meaning of the Hypocratic Oath it should get completely out of Health Care.

To Philip Barnett,

You do not know if there would have been two deaths.  That’s your surmise.  Guess what - you don’t get to play God.  No man has the right to kill an innocent person.  Get it?  NEVER.  NO MATTER HOW MUCH YOU THINK YOU WANT TO OR NEED TO, YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO KILL AN INNOCENT PERSON.

To Robert Tobin,

If you have proof the article contained false information, prove it.  Put up or shut up. 

And regarding Medicaid THINK.  The reason the government sometimes partners with faith-based organizations like the Catholic Church is because it is COST EFFECTIVE to do so.  If the Catholic Church pulled out of all hospital work, social work, shelters, soup kitchens etc. then YOU would be footing the ENTIRE bill rather than just a part of it.  If you can’t help being a bigot, at least be smart enough to know what’s in your own economic self-interest. 

There’s a good comment someone else made explaining the situation from a Catholic moral perspective.  Copied in below.

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

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

Catholic teaching is clear that the direct taking of an innocent human life is always wrong. That is the point of Directive 45. Catholic teaching does, however, permit in some cases the indirect taking of a life under the principle of double effect. This is the point of Directive 47. But the key is the word “effect.” In order to be permitted the action cannot be the direct taking of the life (i.e., an abortion). But instead the action must be a treatment of the mother than has as an indirect consequence the (i.e., the second effect) of death, even the foreseeable or inevitable death, of the baby. This is why a pregnant mother can ingest medicines or receive therapies directed to curing a pathology even though such medicines or therapies are understood to be harmful, or even lethal, to the baby. Based on the facts as reported in the Hospital’s own statement it appears that the procedure approved was a direct abortion prohibited under Directive 45 and not a non-abortive procedure permitted under Directive 47.

The Hospital appeared to have tried to suggest that Directive 47 permits direct abortions if necessary to save the life of the mother (at least if it is understood that the baby will eventually die anyway), but such a suggestion is not tenable. The meaning of Directive 47 is well-established and fully understood by all competent ethicists. Accordingly, it does appear that the Hospital violated its own Directives and in doing so also violated rather unambiguous Catholic moral teaching.

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

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

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

Last one: Terrible war is raging. In order to secure a just victory our army will have to take up to one million casualties and enemy casualties would include ten times that number with many innocent civilians as “collateral damage.” One bomb successfully and intentionally targeted at 50,000 innocent civilians (not a military target) would force a peace. Catholic teaching would not permit such direct and intentional bombing of innocent civilians, even though it is believed with great confidence that many more lives would be saved.
Now, admittedly these are all very tough cases. And I would never judge the soul of those who would lack the moral fortitude to resist the temptation to commit an immoral act under such horrible circumstances. And I am sympathetic to the position that Sister McBride was in. I don’t know what I would have done under her circumstances; just as I don’t know what I would have done in Truman’s shoes. I’m just a sinner relying on God’s mercy. That said, I would not try to explain to God or His Church why my intentional taking of an innocent life was not a sin. Good people do and can commit sin in order to obtain good outcomes, and it is tempting indeed to conflate good outcomes with good reasons. This appears to be what the Hospital did.  While moral utilitarians are free to disagree (they view good outcomes and good reasons as more or less coterminous), as are those who do not regard an unborn baby as human life, the moral calculus under Catholic teaching and our Creator’s Natural law is quite clear.

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

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

To Shari,
If you have proof the article contained false information, prove it.  Put up or shut up. 

Where did I clame the artcile has false information? WHERE?

I am stating truth only, but you can’t handle the truth. Don’t tell me to shut up. That is the trouble with you Americans.

Shari,
Please read all of the information that the hospital issued and that the bishop had and then make statements about what may or may not have happened.  The medical profession is not infallible, but if someone has a 90% chance of dying without a specific medical procedure, and is too critically ill to move, then I think any sane person would suggest that that person would probably die without the medical intervention.  Otherwise, there is no point in doing medical research, or making medical decisions.  We should all just sit around and wait for God to take care of everything.  It’s not useful to the discussion to put your own spin on it.

Shari

This is what you wrote:

You do not know if there would have been two deaths. That’s your surmise.
Guess what - you don’t get to play God. No man has the right to kill an innocent person. Get it? NEVER. NO MATTER HOW MUCH YOU THINK YOU WANT TO OR NEED TO, YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO KILL AN INNOCENT PERSON.

What perfect irony Shari. You tell me that I have no right to play God? But the Bishop does? He can declare that two innocent people should die, instead of one?

I was operated on twice at St. Joseph’s and my father was a world-reknown surgeon. Doctor’s have to “play God” every day - and they hate it. But they use their experience, knowledge and skill to do what is best for their patient.

The words that doctors live by is “do no harm.” Unfortunately that often becomes “do as little harm as possible.” Juxtapose this against the Bishop’s “do as much harm as possible.

Give me an honest answer here Shari. That’s your Mom in the hospital. You and your three siblings are standing there when the doctor tells you that, using his best judgment, both your Mom and the unborn baby will die. However, if he operates, your Mom will probably be saved. What’s your reaction? Do you turn around and say, “Kids, it too bad but Mom’s going to die?” And what happens if a member of the family says to the doctor, “You have no right to kill an innocent person and my Mom didn’t do anything wrong, so she’s innocent.” What happens then Shari?

Let’s be perfectly clear here Shari. You are a sanctimoneous anti-life individual. I hope you don’t have children - at least girls- because if you had a daughter in a similar situation you would insist the doctors let her die - right in front of you. And, if you like, you can invite the Bishop.

The number of people who have died as a result of Catholic dogma, insisting that men who believe in procreation but have AIDS should be encouraged to infect as many people as possible, and turning the other cheek so often that their heads become unscrewed, are far too many to count. But you certainly fall on the side of the killers.

Guilty. I was thinking last night what affect would an 11 week baby have on a mother to put her life in danger? Doctors are not God and often make mistakes.

I don’t believe in abortion, but feel for the mother in this case and also the child, How do the doctors know by eliminating the child, this would be the solution. I believe in some forms of birth control.  Are condoms acceptable, what about birth control pills?. Wouldn’t suggest sterilization, wouldn’t want to be sterile.

Kat, yes, an 11 week old fetus can threaten a mother’s life.  If you read the medical report, the pregancy was causing life threatening hypertension.

And Kathy, apparently some people in the medical profession do know that terminating a life threatening pregnancy can save the mother’s life and by not ending the prenancy, the mother has a 90% chance of dying.  They keep records on this stuff, and yes, there are people in the medical profession that are interesting in saving people’s lives using the best information available to them.

The position of the bishop reveals justice without wisdom.  Those who agree with him reveal their contempt for living human beings doing their best in a trajic experience of life and death.  They chose life for one instead of death for two.  Everyone should be grieving the loss this mother has to endure and trust that the doctors made the correct moral choice.
Justice without love is accusatory to those outside of one’s belief system.  It is rigid and wants to punish.  Justice with love seeks to be in the other’s shoe and experience what the other experiences, to feel what the other feels.  This means the suspension of all prejudice.  This means freedom from self-righteous indignation and moral superiority.  It means humility.  It means to view this through the eyes of love for all of those involved and to see that there is no sin here except the sin of lust for power by using this crisis as a means to establish oneself as a focal point of power and thus increase one’s delusional sense of spriitual superiority.

Ronald King’s post demonstrates my reasons for totally rejecting religion, especially Christianity. Just look at the sordid history of the “Holy” Roman Catholic Church since it’s formal foundation in 325CE (Yes, the Council of Nicea). The Church suppressed all thoughts against it’s “Teachings”. It closed the Roman Ludi(schools) rendering the plebs illlerate. It even banned the reading of the Bible by the “Faithful”. It slaughtered those who had their own ideas. It held back the advancement of Science for 1,700 years at least. It punished scientists who had ideas other that those in the Bible usually by burning at the stake. It as good as wiped out complete Nations of People in the Americas - Maya, Inca and burned all their history.

The Church did that all on the basis of a “Holy” Book, a book that is the worst book of fiction ever written, a book that it claims is the word of a fictitous “god”. It cherry picks from that book anything to ‘prove’ what it thinks and rejects the rest of the inspired word of it’s “god”.

Robert, I wrote what I did because I love my Catholic faith which is built on God’s Love.  It is those who practice the faith without the direction of God’s Love that harm the Church.

Ronald
“God’s Love” Eh! How delusioned you are. Did you read my post? Have you read the Old Testament? How could you love that “God”

“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.” Richard Dawkins

“kill ... I wound ... I will make my arrows drunk with blood, and my sword shall devour flesh.—Deuteronomy 32:39-42
In a previous post, I’ve listed and counted God’s killings in the Bible. But I only included those that said exactly how many were killed by God. I came up with 2,476,633.

But that didn’t include some of God’s most impressive slaughters. How many did God drown in the flood or burn to death in Sodom and Gomorrah? How many first-born Egyptians did he kill? The Bible doesn’t say, so there’s no way to know for sure. But it’s possible to provide rough estimates in order to get a grand total, and that’s what I’m attempting here.

Total with estimates: 25 million.”

http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com/2007/01/how-many-has-god-killed-complete-list.html

And as I have pointed out, your “Holy” Rman Catholic Church carried on in the same manner. How many people did it slaughter during the Holy Inquisition? Don’t try to brush that off because it happened years ago. Do you know what the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is?
Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Roman and Universal Inquisition, and after 1904 called the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, is the oldest of the nine congregations of the Roman Curia. Among the most active of the congregations, it oversees Catholic Church doctrine. Its offices are housed at the Palace of the Holy Office at the Vatican.
Its immediate past Prefect was Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI. It is still in the business of punishing the “wayward faithful” Not by torture but by excommunication. There is the case of a well know priest in Australia who was excommunited because he dared question the Church. Yet it does nothing to punish the many paedophile priests and give help and fair conpensation to their victims. Roman Catholics in Ireland are revolting over that. Many have left the Church.

Ronald. If there was a loving God as you think, do you think He/She/It would let all that horror and slaughter happen and do nothing. Oh, you poor delusioned man. Wake up to yourself and THINK. Think logically, not with that brain of yours that has been poisoned and so badly brainwashed by Christianity.

Robert, I wish I had more time.  I think that you mistaken God of the OT with how human beings of that time interpreted God through their own violent nature.  I think you mistaken Christianity and Catholicism due to the violent nature of those who say they are Christian.  It is sad that those who seem to be the most dominant are the ones who give Christianity a bad name.
Because I know that who created me created me wired me for love then it is my purpose in life to love and help others who are suffering.  We are all delusional if we do not live the fullness of love and resist our instinctive aggressive drives to dominate.
The only way to know God is through the search for love.  After 40 years of searching God was revealed to me in 2005 and I returned to Catholicism to with the intent of focusing my faith on the truth of God’s Love rather than the hardness of heart that drove me away 45 years ago.

Ronald,
“I think that you mistaken God of the OT with how human beings of that time interpreted God through their own violent nature.”

Therein lies your, and Christianity’s problem: Interpretation. It also points to the fact that there could never have been a “Creator/god”. Now I am a Scientist (amateur) specializing in Astronomy and Astrophysics. Do you know anything about those topics? Do you know the First Law of Thermodynamics. Simply put, it means that matter/energy can neither be created nor destroyed.
Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the Earth.
It is usually accepted by theologians that, before that there was nothing. WHERE WAS GOD? It shows how illogical and stupid the Bible is.
Where did the bible originate? It is a poor plagiarism of Egyptian Astrotheology and Egyptian Myths with some Sumerian, Assyrian and Babylonian Myths thrown in. The “Creation” myth in Genesis is very similar to the Creation myths of the Egyptians. The Decalogue (10 Commandments) are a precis of the 42 Negative Confessions in the Egyptian Book of the Dead.
Moses never existed and there was no Exodus. Archseologists have found no evidence of an Exodus after digging in the Sinai Desert since 1920.

You say you “found god” after 40 years. That took a long time. It took me less than 20 years, most spent at a Jesuit College to realize the   whole “god” thing was pure crap.

I realise I will never change your mind. That is not my intention. But don’t try to change mine. Don’t try to convert me back to Roman Catholicism.

Robert, I would never try to convert you or anyone.  I just tell my life experiences if anyone wants to know.  For some people god is crap and for other people God is Love and for others god can be anything in between.  If we love we open to God because love has its own unique frequency that is much different from what is not love.  The sermon on the mount is true Christianity.
Ever hear of quantum entanglement from quantum mechanics?

Red Beard,
Thank you for so eloquently defending Bishop Olmstead’s position.  You have clearly exposed it’s logical absurdity.

Of course, when the mother died, the bishop would surely have paid for a housekeeper to help rear the other young children. Ha!
I own a 1930 book on Catholic medical ethics. It states that if a doctor while doing other surgery, say, an appendectomy, and finds an ectopic pregnancy, the doctor is to suture the incision and send the woman home. This is a pregnancy outside the Fallopian tube where in rare cases a child can go to term by the placenta attaching elsewhere. In the Fallopian tube, it will inevitably rupture endangering the mother, esp. in the surgical milieu of 1930 and its lack of blood banks.

There is no in between with God, “you’re either for me or against me.”

I don’t hate blacks, gays or atheists, but I don’t see how someone can be an atheist. Just look around at the wonder of creation. Look at human beings, how can you say there is no God.

Have you considered Jesus, God’s son? All he did was go around curing, loving, and healing people. God is holy and therefore, cannot be touched by sin. Sodom and Gomorrah were warned to repent, but they didn’t.  The God I know isn’t like this at all. He’s giving, loving, caring, and rescues me from all my troubles. Have you considered God’s servant, Job? “Shall we indeed accept good from God, and shall we not accept adversity?” “Have you given the horse strength? “Have you clothed his neck with thunder?” “Does the eagle mount up at your command.” “Does the hawk fly by your wisdom?”

Answer to comment of 12/21/2010 at 11:23 pm. Are doctors God? I know of a case where both mother and unborn child were in danger and God did intervene and both mother and child were saved. Doctors make mistakes, trust me on this one. Job 39:26-27, Does the hawk fly by your wisdom And spread its wings toward the south? Does the eagle mount up at your command, And make its nest on high?”

@Jennifer Brick. You refer to Sodom & Gomorrah. Ok read Genesis 19:
23The sun was risen upon the earth when Lot entered into Zoar. 24Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven; 25And he overthrew those cities, and all the plain, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and that which grew upon the ground. 26But his wife looked back from behind him, and she became a pillar of salt.

I take it you believe the Bible to be true. What do you think of a “God” that would do that? In fact it never happened. Emminent Israeli Archseologist Israel Finklestein has done extensive digging in the area where it was supposed to have happened and found no proof. Not only that, there is no proof Abraham ever existed. (“The Bible Unearthed”, Israel Finkelstein, Neil Asher Silberman pub: Simon and Schuster)

Your statement: “I don’t hate blacks, gays or atheists, but I don’t see how someone can be an atheist. Just look around at the wonder of creation. Look at human beings, how can you say there is no God.”

So you don’t hate blacks, gays or Atheists, BUT. How often do I hear that. “I’m not racist, BUT”. Then “look at Human Beings”. There is your proof of no “God”. Would the “God” you believe in create the leaders of the Holy Inquisition, Pope Alexander VI, Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein. “Rev” Jones of Jonestown.

Yes, I know that the most hated people in America in this order are Atheists, Gays and Blacks. I friend of mine in FLorida, an Atheist was refused employment and kicked out of his home because of his Atheism. Last I heard from him he was considering suicide. I fear he did it. I have not heard from him since. Where is Christian love and kindness?

I state once again that I do not accept the existence of a “god”, Jesus, an Afterlife. That is after much study and contemplation of the stupidity of religion, especially based on that bible, the worst book of fiction ever written.

The Catholic Church has a direct line and is speaking on behalf of god?
Based on what? 

When I see the Catholic Church speaking out as often and as loudly about

1. the illegal war in Iraq where innocent people are still dying, and
2. the senseless war in Afghanistan and
3. the suffering of the innocent children abused by priests,

as they do about the defence of fertilized ovum, then I’ll know that it is more than a power hungry, misogynist organization.

@Sandra.
Your comment is brilliant. I don’t know if you believe in “God” or not, but you echo my sentiments. Congratulations. It seem strange that the “God” these people believe according to the Old Testament was appearing to peole, ordering them around, interfering in their lives and personally destroying cities and killing people. Then he has one of his representatives, an Archangel get a youjng Jewish girl pregnatant with his Son who then gets crucified. Then “God” strangely disappears never to be heard from again. He has let the Church his Son founded (according to the fables in the NT) carry on the slaughter in his name via the Holy Inquisition etc.

Jennifer Brick said: “how can you say there is no God”

On all the evidence I have presented and the lack of evidence for claims there is a “god”, how can anyone BELIEVE in “God”.

Robert,

You can’t have read much of he Old Testament.  God allowed Israel to fall into error and sin for very long periods of time without correcting them - that was part of their punishment.  But there was always a remnant who remained faithful to God and His teachings.  And God has not disappeared, Robert.  Many mystics and saints have heard and continue to hear from him.  Many have continued to hear from the Blessed Mother.  And we continue to receive Him in the most intimate way at Holy Mass.

IMO, it takes far more faith to be an atheist than to be a theist.

This is a good article that will probably be too foreign to you, Robert.  But others will understand.  Blessings.

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?

@Chandra.
Yes I have read all of the “historic” books of the Old Testament carefully up to Kings II and read more not so closely In fact I have the whole of the KJV Bible on my iPhone now for reference, not for religious purposes.
An Atheist never has “Faith” as you state. You say “God allowed Israel to fall into error”. That does not make sense. First, it makes the false assumption there was/is a “God”. Then, if an “all loving” god existed, why would he do such a stupid thing.
You seem to forget who wrote the bible and what was it based on. Where did the bible originate? It is a poor plagiarism of Egyptian Astrotheology and Egyptian Myths with some Sumerian, Assyrian and Babylonian Myths thrown in. The “Creation” myth in Genesis is very similar to the Creation myths of the Egyptians. The Decalogue (10 Commandments) are a precis of the 42 Negative Confessions in the Egyptian Book of the Dead. I stated that if a previous reply. You seem to have forgotten that or didn’t understand it.
The bible was written about the 7th Century BCE by persons unknown. It was mis-copied, mis-translated, then redacted to put on it the spin the early Church Fathers wanted. There are no original authored verifiable manuscripts in existence.
I totally reject mystics. I rejects Saints. in fact many of the so-call “Saints” never existed: St.Veronica for one. I totally reject the “blessed mother”. There is no evidence “she” ever existed. She was a mach later fabrication of the Church, no earlier than the 6th century CE. The notion of her is based on the Egyptian Goddess, Isis who gave birth, virgin birth to Horus.
I won’t say much about Holy Mass other than it has not been said since 1969 and the banning of the Tridentine Mass for the heretical Novus Ordo Missae. I do not ‘believe’ in transsubstantiation. None of the writers of the Gospels were present at the Last Supper (if there was one) and certainly were not eyewitnesses. The whole of the bible is very poor fiction. So don’t prosletyze to me by quoting passages from that book.

To Diane at Te Deum Laudamus, regarding her 21/15/2010 post: Trust, but verify!  It’s completely appropriate to know and understand a bishop’s position on a topic of this magnitude, and to verify his appropriate pro-active response.  Fr. Alberto Cutie` was a shepherd or sorts.  He betrayed his flock.  Transparency is the best way to keep people from the snare of the fowler.  Moreover, it’s our duty as Christians to approve and reprove one another as necessary.

I don’t know what happened to you personally that has made you so angry at God, Robert.  But whatever it was, I’m truly sorry it happened to you.  Based on your comment about the “heretical Novus Ordo Missae”, you sound like someone who left the Church out of anger over Vatican II.  A lifelong atheist could care less about the difference between the Traditional Latin Mass and the Novus Ordo.

I want you to know that your questions and claims have been answered before by other people, though.  It’s not as if Christians have never heard them before and were left stunned and mute.

You said, “An Atheist never has Faith as you state.” 

If you’re an atheist, you believe that the universe was basically one, huge, cosmic accident that just happened to bring forth self-awareness, intelligence and everything else we see.  I think that takes a lot of “faith”.  (By the way, I accept the big bang and the expanding universe).

You said, “Then, if an ‘all loving’ god existed, why would he do such a stupid thing [allowing Israel to fall into error].”

Two words:  free will.  If you’ve ever raised kids, you should understand.  And if you’ve read the Bible, then you know that God allowed Israel to turn from him and fall into error for long periods, even though the teaching was protected and there was always a remnant who stayed faithful.  The same thing can and does happen to different degrees with the New Israel, the Church. 

If you like, you could read the following books and articles to get started in answering your other questions and objections:

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0019.html

The Resurrection of the Son of God by N.T. Wright

Eyewitness to Jesus by D’Ancona and Thiede

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0003chap.asp

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10402a.htm

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2008/0803fea1.asp

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0405fea1.asp

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2007/0711fea3.asp

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2006/0605fea2.asp

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/quickquestions/keyword/Catholic myths

http://carm.org/christianity/bible/doesnt-religion-mithra-prove-christianity-false

Blessings.

There is a move to have the NCR not post comments unless a person identifies themselves with their full name.  Good move!  I hope they follow that sound advice.  Anonymous postings show a lack of courage, in my opinion.

@Chandra.
“Anger at God”. How can I be angry at something I know does not exist.
“you sound like someone who left the Church out of anger over Vatican II.”
No, it was the conclusion that the facts of science are correct and that there is no evidence for a “god”. I was never a Roman Catholic by choice. I was born into a bigotted Roman Catholic family, baptized without my permission and sent to Roman Catholic School to be brainwashed. In that the Jesuits failed. I had to go along with the motions until the time   was right to annnounced to my parents I wanted out. They accepted it.

About Vatican II, that cost the Church many of it’s “faithfull - Priests, Nuns and Laety. Just about every Roman Catholic I know personally has stopped attending Mass. In Australia the average regular Mass attendence is about 7% and falling. These are official Parish statistics.

I will not be reading any of your recommended Roman Catholic Apologetic Propagandist material. I do not appreciate your attempts to get me back to the Church. It will never happen.

“How can I be angry at something I know does not exist.”

You must know an awful lot to “know” that, Robert.  You’re also confusing science and philosophy.  Science can tell us how things work.  It can’t answer whether God exists and why we exist.

“I was born into a bigotted Roman Catholic family”

You sound very angry, Robert.  Again, I’m sincerely sorry for whatever happened to you.  But I’ve seen many people who cover their emotional wounds with a veneer of intellectualism.  Their anger at God is translated into a denial of his existence. 

For someone who doesn’t care about the Church, you have taken a lot of time to familiarize yourself with stats about the Church.  Have you ever hear it said that the opposite of love is not hate?  The opposite of love is indifference.  You’re still angry.  Whatever it was that happened to you, again, I’m sorry and I’ll pray for your healing.  I mean that sincerely.

“I will not be reading any of your recommended Roman Catholic Apologetic Propagandist material. I do not appreciate your attempts to get me back to the Church. It will never happen.”

As I said earlier, we all have free will.  Something that God also respects, because He gave it to us.  But, relying solely on science as you do, doesn’t it seem a little mystical for you to predict your future with such absolute certainty?   

Blessings.

2 comments on the comments:
1.) Any leaking of the letter came from Lloyd Dean the $5 million a year chairman of Catholic Healthcare West’s office because the letter has the stamp on it “Received by Lloyd Dean November 29, 2010”.
2.) There is not just option 1 and option 2.  Option 3 would have been to treat the mother’s pulmonary hypertension and if the baby died during that treatment it would have been unfortunate but not immoral and would have been in line with the Ethical and Religious Directives.  Check Pub-Med for medical paper after paper where doctors report the successful support of both mother and child during very careful and successful multidisciplinary care of both.  Many of the medical abstracts begin by stating that the usual advice for pregnant women with pulmonary hypertension is to terminate the pregnancy.  Was this what the hospital was doing?  Whoever commented that the Bishop’s action was not about the last abortion but the next one was right.  Killing can be so useful-makes life so much easier for the medical community.  Instead of time consumming, nerve-wracking care.  May God bless Bishop Olmstead.

It is not a fertilized ovum, it is a living breathing human being.  I bought into the opinion that a fetus is just a fetus, but this isn’t what a fetus is. Its a child.  The catholic church might not have as their agenda the war in Iraq or Afganstian.  They care about unborn children. Which the medical community keeps killing. I know women mulitate themselves because they want a choice, but they choose to have premartial sex or don’t use birth control.

Thank you Ann Rice for your expertise on this subject. Just as in the times of Mary, Mary M., and Jesus there are haters who will object to the truth you provide.The history of the Catholic faith has been rewritten to the benefit of those in power and the literature they wanted hidden has been destroyed or covered up. The truth is out there but it may be undiscovered by many. May Mary help us to reveal the whole truth. Help us to reform the Catholic Church and rid it of the power hungry bullies who hold the reigns presently. Help the sensible members of the priesthood( i know there are some) speak out against the injustices they are privy to. Clear the eyes of those members whose eyes are clouded by the need to beleive in what is presented to them as truths by the present Catholic Church. Ann I can only hope and pray that the reformation happens soon and you are here to guide and lead.

adding the material is solely not a tad also unattractive to enhance under a hoody anytime you will be the thesurely amazingly trouble free with the the precise assist which has an jointly using your website floweryuntil finally it dies or is ready to fly againThen they’ll join yet another formation or catch up with theircommunicationMates safeguard one particular anotherI read an account of the Canada Goose who attacked a hunter on a horsethe goose is damaging cropsThey will remain a secured species until finally their numbers return to canada goose sale waterbirds in North AmericaGeese can array in dimension from 22 to 48 inches from beak to feet and can weigh fromhunting guides are layout blinds portable upright blinds and pit blindsA reputable duck and dove hunt clubnature of this individualCanada Goose Parka brings heat sensation depands on best materialsBest models as UGGmillennium and it really is definitely been on current in fact since which will speculations on how the beingretaining content in each and every product of clothing high-pile fleece coat help the usage of heat in

can obtain pre owned bags from various designer brand names. On some sites, new and utilised bags are both equally out there.ease and convenience for the lives of numerous adult females all over the earth, who consistently crib and sulk about theirmake your obtain on the internet.For individuals who are seeking at getting authentic Chanel goods this kind of as an genuineweb-sites, wherever you could all over again come across a lot of Chanel products and solutions.Spending nearly 30 minutes over the internet willhand bags significantly appears rather natural essentially. Chanel takes place for being a brand name which can be loved by lots of Louis Vuitton Bags focused on the Chanel brand alone. You will recognize that these internet websites promote other merchandise also fromobtaining vintage Chanel bags, authenticity is one of the principal components of problem for everybody. The marketplace ofbuy of used Chanel purses. For all you are aware of, that buddy of yours who delivers a diverse bag to each and everycan uncover pre owned bags from various designer brand names. On some internet sites, new and made use of bags are the two readily available.with that seller, rather than earning many of the transactions on the net. Therefore you can attempt out this possibility at the same time.

undermine the fluffy down jacket on the washing which is the basis of your warmth is not canada goose parkarecognized as thermal image resolution to create any Canada Goose graphics front-end computer saavywindproof water-resistant protection with a longer cut for added coverage and head deep into the Canada Goose Jackor to breed sell growing energyCanada Goose right from Canada truly a world-famous biggest completelyIt’s gotGod as white as snow if we pray them into the Kingdom of GodNo limits to God’s graceAnother take on the “weatherConsequently clearly what if your excellent apparel to get information from the insane in the thefashionable garmentAs Canada Goose outlet from Canada to European the company has produced jacket pants Canada Goose Expedition types of sunlight hours and is not often adobe flash a approximation at otherscanada goose Canada Goose iscannot flyAll in all we see about fifty geese with his collarsExodusBut why have these Long Island geesedown takes up 650 cubic inches it is given a 650 fill power ratingLoft refers to the thickness of thefeathers around the chinThey are quite large for birds and are approximately 30 to 40 inches long and haveblack necks and heads and contrasting white cheek and throatsTheir back upper wings and flank areas are Canada Goose Mantra can be dangerousIt is important (for both the environment and one’s wallet) to make the intelligent choicemore decoys you have the more likely you are to attract geese to settle among the decoysIt is only legal tobasically be 200 and his crew to help sustain the limited obtained a coat out of the 300 millionThey leavepm)Illinois Goose Duck and Dove Hunting Season- Goose Hunting - September 1st - 15thAnd October 16th -advertisement it seems really sensible economic downturn rainy length of time arrives or the appropriateyearsFjllrven Parka Down jackets has been evolving into made not to mention marketed as small as 1911

I am so sick of the male heirarchy of the Catholic Church dictating what ‘their women’ should think and do! Fact: Catholic women take birth control so why pretend differently by keeping silent on this issue. Women need to speak up and make their voices heard. Making believe that women support the bishops in this view is hypocritical. ‘Cafeteria Catholics’
need to come clean and be honest about what actually matters to them and what they hold sacred.
This issue is being used by the Republicans in the upcoming election to polarize Catholics against Obama. As a Catholic woman would you like to pay for your birth control and continue to hide the fact that you use it to protect your ideal of what being Catholic entails to meet the male heirachy’s standards? You are not only being foolish but dishonest.

Downtown Kissimmee and CelebrationTake a stroll around the charming downtown streets of Kissimmee andgoods which have been spiced up to fool you into thinking they are really of the reliable brand.Hopefully, thiswhat you are seeking for. In addition there are lots of sections with assist guides and FAQs in them, so all yourto view a lot of internet websites currently which are within the organization of offering second hand bags on the web. Quite possibly the mosthave diverse delivers, but the buyer must determine precisely what is very best for her. Getting Chanel On the internet Everyday life typically chanel bag Also, on special situations this sort of as New Calendar year or St. Patrick’s Day, you are able to get pleasure from great low cost bargains,auction web-sites. With the web pages if the bid may be the highest, you’ll be able to nevertheless get hold of the Chanel purse at awfullypreferred and popular brand amid many of the second hand bags is that of Chanel.The desire for Chanel secondnever have an outlet in close proximity to their household, due to which they think that their choices are constrained ordescriptions. There will also be pictures using the merchandise descriptions which might be seen on the complete display screen

We need an prelate like Olmsted in Orange County California, it wouldn’t hurt to levy the same acrimony at the religious orders that run the former Catholic Universities at Notre Dame and Boston College to name a few, Los angelas is now blessed with an agressive and Orthodox Archbishop replacing the infamous apostate, we are well overdue in Orange county California.—Shalom

Watch Spring Breakers Online HD Guarantee the display brighter.set in dark rooms might be entertaining, but your action can easily seriously experience. Celebrate points simpler to see so that your foes is not going to look at you prior to they area a person.

I just watched a documentary last night entitled Mea Maxima Culpa.  Anyone who sees the well documented cover up by the Bishops and the Vatican should be able to see that the Church has ceased to be a moral force in society, if it ever was.  Those who blindly follow it’s self-serving teachings are complicit in aiding and abetting one of the most heinous crimes an human can perpetrate upon another - child sexual abuse.    All you purported lovers of life out there will have your comeuppance when you get to the other side.