73 Comments

• eiriamach | Dec 08, 2012, 03:15 PM EST

  BigDaddy, aside from RC, mega-churches and media churches, how many Christian churches are structured hierarchically? One of the founders of the American republic, who helped write the US Constitution and vigorously defended separation of church and state, also wrote the Constitution of the Episcopal Church of the US--an enduring testament to the compatibility of reason, faith, and political progress. Even beset by all the chaos that attends reform efforts, the Anglican Communion cannot decide any issue authoritatively. It's bound by absolute democratic decision procedures, so progress happens slowly, but it happens. Bureaucratization, hierarchy, and power-tripping are not inherent, not as long as Christians, following the Gospel, insist on keeping the apostolic fishing boat in good repair (ecclesia semper reformandum). Perhaps I am optimistic because I know women priests who, together with laity, saved their churches, which had strayed down the paths of sex abuse, financial abuse, and authoritarian-political manipulation of the faithful. The demise of the church era is not inevitable. Although many other Christian action groups are competing with-- or reshaping-- the churches, their source of strength and community-- the liturgy --is not to be found outside the churches.

• BigDaddy | Dec 08, 2012, 11:30 AM EST

  eiriamach...Over the last 30 years, I have felt as you do maybe even believed as you do. However, in my experience, the problems facing the RCC are the same ones that will eventually face ALL churches that grow in size to the point where they must be managed by a hierarchy to make sure the "corporation" doesn't stray from its intended purpose. Such things are rarely, if ever, left to the Holy Spirit. They are usually left to men who make political decisions about where the church goes. That is how men operate because that is how men have always operated. I do not condemn them for being human; I condemn them for pretending to be "spirit led" while being all too human in their dealings.

• eiriamach | Dec 06, 2012, 06:06 PM EST

  BigDaddy, I don't question your take on Roman Church history. But when I write of Christians, I don't have in mind the corporate Vatican with its global outposts, like the USCCB. I have in mind people who try to bring the Gospel into their mundane work and relationships, rather than desperately seeking authority figures in clerical garb to tell them how to live. Where such people gather, churches contribute to progress. ~~~~~ jacers, we don't yet know enough about "nature" to know whether an event is a miracle, or "super" natural. It's a huge leap from "We can't explain this event with our knowledge of natural science" to "Therefore, this event has a super-natural cause." Accordingly, Jesus did not offer the 'miracles' reported in the Gospels as 'proofs' of his divinity or of the existence of God. He offered them as examples of the power of faith in action. As Buber wrote, it's not that, when we have faith, we possess the power of God, but the power of God possesses us, and we accomplish work that earlier generations only dreamed of or began but could not complete. Faith enables progress and gives meaning to it. As in the curing of the Centurion's servant: “Go! Let it be done just as you believed it would” (Matt 8:13).

• BigDaddy | Dec 05, 2012, 10:34 PM EST

  jacers...If the subject scares you, you need not posit the blame on me. You obviously cannot defend your point of view. I must say I do object to the mealy mouthed manner in which you avoid addressing the facts I put forth from the Bible. I waited and hoped that you might have something positive to offer but I was wrong. I accept that your "proofs" exist as empirical evidence in your mind as does the existence of your vision of a god-head. I was willing to discuss any subject with you but you are not brave enough to discuss the "inspired word of your god". I am not surprised because most people who are brainwashed react to facts as you do. They try to diminish the truth because they cannot accept reality as it exists; they are only comfortable with delusions because they feel safer hiding from the real world. Please do not address me again as I may not be able to restrain myself from telling you what I really think of you. Thanks in advance.....BD

• seanomelb | Dec 04, 2012, 05:49 PM EST

  Thomas Jefferson presient of the U.S ofA and woo's sliding off on a tangent. In your case it's a slippery slope.

• jacersagain | Dec 04, 2012, 04:44 PM EST

  Sorry BigDaddy, I think you’re going off on a tangent w/ yr latest comments (typical of those who won’t face up to truths fired at them) and I’m not going to pursue your thoughts in that respect. Introducing ‘mind-control’ and ‘communistic’ stuff is, imho, rubbish. It’s about faith and beliefs in an entity which we call ‘God’, based on empirical evidence e.g. miracles which are mind-boggling proofs, not mind control. >>> @seano, sorry but I’ve no idea who the ‘Jefferson’ you refer to was/is… Anyway, Jefferson, whoever he/she is, as a human being, is entitled to his/her opinion, as I am mine. >>> I don’t think we’re all going to find common ground here, so let’s drop it… The subjects seano and BigDaddy introduce might be better discussed under the “How Catholic are You?” topic. The simpler you keep a problem, the less chance there is of losing sight of resolving it. Anyway, sliding off on a tangent risks belittling the main topic of this article. Slán libh go fóill.

• BigDaddy | Dec 03, 2012, 11:29 AM EST

  eiriamach...I would agree with you that when Christians, as a group, gather in the spirit, what you find is counter to the prevailing status quo. But after Nicaea and the codification of "Christian beliefs" the church became more a corporation that a church. It worried more about its social standing than about continuing Christ's true teachings. The very rich and societal elites weren't going to abandon their wealth, privilege and lavish lifestyles so the church accommodated their needs and people who spoke out against this were killed. And if the word communist scares you, don't use it. Capitalists have made the word anathema much like they have made the word liberal because they need to have people believe these are terrible ideas. But, given the union of church and businesses today, it should come as no surprise that mind control is at the core of the success of both enterprises. How else can someone make people believe that Christ's teachings (love, charity) and their opposite (greed, self-interest) are compatible?

• eiriamach | Dec 02, 2012, 01:48 PM EST

  I suppose Big Daddy can call the early Christian Church "communist" with historical justification. Unfortunately, since the Cold War era, the word "communist" has been synonymous in American minds with "atheist," so I prefer to consider the early Christians "collectivist." Their mission was (and still is) global in scope. Early ministers-- male and female-- lived simply and shared all they had (most importantly the 'Good News') with others, according to Jesus' teachings. "Collectivist" contrasts with "individual" and "individualistic," i.e., the American mythos and ideology. I think American Christians are rediscovering their collectivist roots. As a result of the recent political campaign, people are awakening to the need for collective action--groups of people working together for social progress. That's why I think a "church" approach is indispensable for Christians. But I differ from Big Daddy about mind control. When that group spirit enters, the mindset is most often counter-cultural and anti-ideological.

• seanomelb | Dec 02, 2012, 01:26 AM EST

  Maybe jacer would like to ponder on why Jefferson did not believe Jesus was the son of God,but a man with a philosophy

• BigDaddy | Dec 01, 2012, 11:01 PM EST

  jacers...Do you believe in the Holy Trinity? The Tripartite godhead being of one mind and all is something you should believe in, correct? Well, the church inspired by the Holy Spirit on Pentecost was a communistic enterprise according to the Acts of the Apostles and that makes Jesus a communist. Over the next several hundred years, the teachings of Christ and the inspiration of the Holy Spirit was cast aside and those who tried to speak out against the abandonment of these teachings were called heretics and killed. Does this not qualify as trying to control the mindset of the faithful followers? Take your time and I'll check in from time to time.....BD

• BigDaddy | Dec 01, 2012, 01:17 PM EST

  jacers...I believe your first request was that I prove that all religions practice mind control. I would think that would be a given but if you need to to explain I will try. How else can religions, governments, cults, abusive spouses, the military exert authority without first attempting to control what their subjects think? Now you may think it unfair to lump all these groups together but they all have a commonality that needs to be recognized. At one time, or in one way, or another, they all need to control the thinking of others to gain their co-operation. Whether the government is capitalistic, totalitarian, or theocratic, they must make the people under them believe they have no recourse or they will suffer severe sanctions. Whether imprisonment, death or excommunication, you are made to conform through mind control. Can you agree with that assessment or need I expound further?

• BigDaddy | Nov 30, 2012, 01:05 AM EST

  jacers...it is not possible for me to answer you in depth tonight as I am on the road. I will answer you after I consider your proofs for a bit. That is only fair I believe. btw I was an altar boy for 4 years and I had considered entering the priesthood in my youth. As an adult, I was a member of the Holy Name Society in my local parish, a lector and spoke to local high school students about the benefits of attending retreats. I have also had the pleasure of directing dozens of students in our parish elementary school in a live version of the Stations of the Cross. I believe we will understand one another better if we do not assume things. See you soon.....BD

• eiriamach | Nov 29, 2012, 01:21 PM EST

  I'm shocked to see Jacers writing about "all empirical proofs" of God's existence. I thought Jacers was a man of faith. Where there's empirical proof, there's no need for faith. In fact, it's just silly to entertain beliefs when we have for-sure knowledge or "proof." It's also sad to see the spiritual dimension of human life reduced here to empiricism. It's easy enough to learn science if that's where you think you'll find God. The spiritual dimension of human life, however, calls for something different, including faith, I believe.

• seanomelb | Nov 29, 2012, 12:21 AM EST

  Jacer!! as long as your happy with your beliefs .Fine!! but do not push your beliefs down my throta as "fact" when in fact it is not a "fact" Btw I have read many books on Fatima and lourdes and many yaers ago saw the stage production of 'Bernadette" by John Wainwright(Dublin). How do you explain people recovering from illness's when given a placebo?? Lourdes and Fatima were a mass hysteria outbreak.

• jacersagain | Nov 28, 2012, 07:20 PM EST

  (…more) Hope you enjoy the fascinating research! Keep in mind that undeclared miracles happen to everyday Christians, not necessarily of the physical healing kind but also of events in ordinary day life: as New Advent explains “… God, in answer to prayer, confers not only spiritual favours but at times interferes with the ordinary course of physical phenomena, so that, as a result, particular events happen otherwise than they should”. One more thing: there is a prayer out there that goes “My God, I believe, I adore, I hope and I love Thee! I beg pardon for those who do not believe, do not adore, do not hope and do not love Thee!” It’s not mine and I never say it as part of daily prayers but I’d agree with its sentiments apart from the “white knight” righteous tone! May God (the Biggest Daddy of all) go with you and Seano and other non-believers… and may He find you if you’re lost, as does a shepherd find his precious lost lambs, like me. Christmas is coming… #Hark now... Listen to what they say. #

• jacersagain | Nov 28, 2012, 07:15 PM EST

  (… more) So here are my few proofs for BigDaddy and Seano, following - but you must research each one of them in the great variety of internet sites (or simply: Google or Bing for them) and make up your own mind. 1 - Jake Finkbonner (present-day). 2 - “The cures at Lourdes recognised by the Catholic Church” – this has highly scientific, medical descriptions of the nature of the illnesses cured by what we believers call “Divine Intervention”. In looking at this document, remember that, though Lourdes is famous for its miraculous waters, factually the majority of recognised miracles in Lourdes occurred during processions of the Holy Eucharist as It passed by the ill person during religious ceremonies there. 3 – Audrey Toguchi (present-day). 4 – “Three Secrets of Fatima” through Wikipedia and other sites (I’d actually recommend reading the book “Fatima in Lucia’s Own Words” which Wikipedia uextracts from). These are all empirical proofs that you claim do not exist and that’s only four out of thousands. (more…)

• jacersagain | Nov 28, 2012, 07:12 PM EST

  (…more) If you google ‘New Advent’, the Catholic Church’s official online encyclopaedia, you will find a 13,000-word well-discussed article on miracles (once on the site, read the Original Preface bit under the alphabet letters as a starter, then click on the letter ‘M’ of the alphabetical index and then scroll down for Miracle; ). BTW – miracles also occur in Orthodox, Coptic and other religions associated with our Christ and are equally vigorously investigated. A vision of Our Lady appearing over a Coptic Church in Egypt, witnessed by some 10,000 people, Christians and Muslims, was recorded by several video cameras a couple of years ago (see them on you tube). Coptics call the Catholic ‘Our Lady’, St. Virgin Mary. (Muslims also believe in the Virginity of Mary; Muslim and Christian pilgrims flock to the House of Mary and (St.) John in Ephesus, not far from Kusadasi in Turkey. I was there too).

• jacersagain | Nov 28, 2012, 06:58 PM EST

  (…more) One of the experts appointed to examine the case is always a non-believer, e.g. a respected humanist or atheist with a medical or scientific background, the so-called ‘devil’s advocate’ member, whose duty it is to examine the claim of a miracle dispassionately given his/her speciality (e.g. cancer, orthopaedics etc). The process of investigation takes many years, usually at least 5 yrs; some have gone on for 50 yrs and longer (no case for a miracle claim is ever closed to investigation). For a cure of a person to be declared a miracle, it must be a) complete; b) instantaneous; c) durable (i.e. – the sickness or physical ill-condition does not return) and d) the investigation must, after all physical matters has been exhaustedly examined in detail, admit natural forces alone could not have produced it, and the only rational explanation is to be had in the interference of a Divine agency (which we call ‘God’, or through Jesus Christ His Son, or through the intercession of a saint or of Our Lady). (more…)

• jacersagain | Nov 28, 2012, 06:55 PM EST

  BigDaddy – I’m going to try post the follow up (…more) comments to mine of 11.04pm yesterday that failed to appear last night. I think from your comments you are not a baptised Catholic like Seano is (though by his own admission he’s now lapsed into disbelief). That makes it more difficult for you to appreciate what believers like me say or offer as proofs. I’ve scoffed at claims of a Hindu miracle some years ago where milk was ‘miraculously’ drunk by statues of elephants in India. The Catholic Church adopts a similar careful “should we believe a miracle claim?” before declaring one. It launches a thorough examination of a miracle claim by a team of medical and theological experts. The Church views with utmost gravity all claims of miracles. (More…)

• jacersagain | Nov 28, 2012, 06:52 PM EST

  Seano, you choose that "in the mind" option of chickening out of belief. I made the choice to really find out for myself what this Christianity "lark" was all about and found it was anything but a lark... It's deadly serious; I hope you do too. Cheers... I'm hoping my full replies to BigDaddy get posted; hold your breath...

• seanomelb | Nov 28, 2012, 05:13 PM EST

  Jacer!! you beg the question on God. JE only exists in the mind and if you wish to believe a fairy tale thats your perogative. I choose to deal in facts not fiction. The proof of the existence of God is your burden not mind.

• BigDaddy | Nov 28, 2012, 10:18 AM EST

  Such as when the RCC tells people in poverty stricken countries

• BigDaddy | Nov 28, 2012, 10:17 AM EST

  But I'm OK with that

• BigDaddy | Nov 28, 2012, 10:15 AM EST

  jacer, I never said I couldn't. But watching you assume I said that gives me a greater appreciation for what seano said; you really have no proof just inferences. But ImO with that. Perhaps you will try to understand that inferring things works both ways. Such as when the RCC has people in poverty stricken countries that condoms do not help prevent AIDS, wouldn't that be an attempt at mind control? Lying to people to get them to conform to your dogma would definitely be seen as mind control by most people, don't you think?

• jacersagain | Nov 27, 2012, 11:06 PM EST

  Back tomorrow... comments saved this time...

• jacersagain | Nov 27, 2012, 11:05 PM EST

  ICental binned me follow on comments again!

• jacersagain | Nov 27, 2012, 11:04 PM EST

  (…more) Empirical science HAS established that there are things happening in our world that it doesn't totally understand but yet totally accepts that they happened, specifically, in this discussion, relating to unexplainable events in ordinary people’s lives. They are all factual, physical occurrences called Miracles of some kind. You graciously asked for 3 or 4 proofs of the existence of an entity that we believers call ‘G*d’ and a place called ‘He*ven’ and (by extension) that there is an entity known as ‘Sa*an’ and a place called ‘H*ll’. You would need to look up the Catholic Church’s definition of a miracle on the Vatican’s website to fully appreciate what it means. The most difficult miracle most unbelievers have is in the resurrection back to life of the dead founder of Christianity but it is recognised by believers to be the prime example of why miracles still happen in our own present days. I could offer lots more proofs to intrigue you but for now… (more…)

• jacersagain | Nov 27, 2012, 10:54 PM EST

  BigDaddy: apologies if I seemed to cast you as a bully. In my post, I was influenced by memories of a famous wrestler called Big Daddy who acted the bully in the wrestling ring but was a kind-hearted man outside it and a huge favourite with sports fans. I’m an eldest male like you and so is one of my sons, so I guess by your Sth States of America understandings we’re all “BigDaddies”. *High Fives!* >>> I have to refute your claim that I’m turning ‘the issue’ on its head. Seano made the initial claim (Black moving first?? Forget the inference (I don’t regard Seano as ‘black’ in the sense of evil as black chess figures are seen against the whites (no racial tones pls, good vs evil allowed under popular perceptions as in white cowboy hats vs black cowboy hats); discussing the existence of a God is not a chess or cowboy game). I invited him and you to offer proof of your dismissing claims. Both of you have said you can’t, it’s impossible. Thank you both for that acknowledgement. (More…)

• eiriamach | Nov 27, 2012, 11:02 AM EST

  From RTE: "The report of the confidential Maternal Death Enquiry (MDE) in Ireland says that there were 25 maternal deaths for the period 2009-2011.... two of these deaths were due to suicide." This tally does not include women who fled to the UK or the mainland for crisis abortions, nor does it count women who died in crisis pregnancies outside of Ireland. How many deaths of pregnant women are acceptable to the Irish? Do the Irish consider it a morally relevant fact that prompt abortion can save lives and destroys no lives that could be saved?

• BigDaddy | Nov 26, 2012, 05:48 PM EST

  jacers...first things first. BigDaddy is what people in the Southern part of the US call the eldest male member of the family. So, put your fears aside and know that I am not a bully. Now, if you would kindly share your "proofs" with me I would be most happy to acknowledge them as valid or to dispute them as the case may be. You need not offer thousands of them, 3 or 4 should work for a start. As for offering proofs that seano's assertions are true, I have to believe that you would do what you are doing now if I presented them to you. i.e., turning the issue on it's head. To claim there exists an omniscient being which looks after you and sometimes appears as a burning bush and impregnates young Jewish girls is at the least narcissistic (at the most delusional). To then ask me to prove that it doesn't exist is what a madman might do. To try and answer such a question would take an even greater madman but maybe I am just that. In the spirit of greater understanding, let me say that I am more than willing to offer you my proof but I assume that you feel as if you are the righteous party in this debate or the one wearing the white hat if you will. As such, the first move belongs to white, correct?

• seanomelb | Nov 26, 2012, 05:42 PM EST

  Jacer your request is ridicolous. You cannot prove the existence of a superior being you rely on the writings of mere mortals. If proof of the existence of God was available no one would doubt it. Ypu prove to me that a divine being exists and I will attend mass tomorrow. It is because no proof is available that people choose not to believe. You talk below of proof of God but fail to give it.You overplay your part in the discussion by stating "I know of them" are you now playing God by seeing into my mine "Ni feider leath".

• jacersagain | Nov 26, 2012, 04:24 PM EST

  Oh yes, BigDaddy (that name sounds like what a bully would call themselves... eh?) we believers can offer hundreds if not thousands of proofs from centuries gone by and not a few present-day proofs to counter Seano’s “myth” claim and your claims, none of them based on what you call faith. They are physical proofs confirmed by scientists. Seano actually knows of them but refuses to accept them, as is his free choice – a sad, unfulfilling choice imo. To borrow President Obama’s words spoken in our own native Irish language “Sea, is féidir linn” (“Yes, we can”). Neither you nor Seano has risen to my challenge for you two to offer proof of Seano’s assertion. Ní féidir libh (You can’t).

• stanchaz | Nov 26, 2012, 12:50 AM EST

  Most holy Bishop: Would Christ even recognize the inhuman business that you have made of his Church?

• BigDaddy | Nov 25, 2012, 07:37 PM EST

  We who belief can offer a myriad of reasons why your statement is incorrect.... @jacers No, you cannot! You who "belief" can offer no proof of your claim since it is not reason or empirical evidence that you rely upon; it is faith. If you believe that there is an elephant god, a carpenter god or a monkey god, all that can really be said is that what you believe in has emerged from the mind of another or yourself. Is it your contention that you have SEEN any of these "gods"? If you had claimed to have seen a god, you would institutionalized. Surely if you told the police that you were told by a bush to do certain things that seemed odd to the police, your explanation would not be greeted with any degree of acceptance unless the police had been indoctrinated as you had been indoctrinated. If someone saw you with a knife, getting ready to plunge the blade into the chest of your son, is it your contention that they would accept your explanation that "your god, (one only you can see, hear or talk to)told you to sacrifice your son's life but later reconsidered and decided that such a sacrifice to be ill-advised? Aren't you turning things on their head by asking for proof that your delusions are false; isn't the burden of proof yours to bear?

• jacersagain | Nov 25, 2012, 06:36 PM EST

  Sometimes, I get exasperated reading eiriamach’s comments, even when they have a modicum of truth, because she continues to twist things around, avoiding facts of various matters staring her in the face. I have refrained from commenting under this article’s topic relating to Savita’s tragic death or related examples, like I said I would until the results of the Savita inquiry is published… but Gearoid4 correctly sticks to facts and says all I would have otherwise said. Thank you, Gearoid4… I’m out on the Savita case or anything like it until the "Savita jury" returns its deliberations.

• jacersagain | Nov 25, 2012, 06:23 PM EST

  Seano, I'd like you to offer proof that a myriad of religions "are based on myth and have no substance and they all have on thing in common MIND control". We who belief can offer a myriad of reasons why your statement is incorrect. Please, provide the proof that your assertion is correct. Please??...

• seanomelb | Nov 25, 2012, 05:56 PM EST

  Well Gearoid!! you are entitled to your beliefs, but that does not make them right.Hindus believe their beliefs (which are thousands of years older than Christianity and so on)also believe they are the righteous ones and then there's a myriad of other religions. They all have one thing in common they are all (incuding Christianity) are based on myth and have no substance and they all have on thing in common MIND control.

• Gearoid4 | Nov 25, 2012, 01:55 PM EST

  @Eiriamach, We cannot speculate about a medical report that has not been published and the law as it stands in Ireland is more than sufficient to save the life of a mother or her child if so required. There is no justification in liberalizing the present law so far abortion is extended or made easier. People who are looking for this are usually ideologically-driven in terms of motivation and usually use such cases as a means of getting abortion-on-demand. This should not be allowed to happen in Ireland or elsewhere. We simply do not know if an abortion would have saved Savita or not, due to the complications that she already had i.e septicemia and the E. coli ESBL. The child was not a direct cause of these life-threatening conditions and anything else is speculation. In the Phoenix case, the Bishop was fully entitled to see the direct killing of a fetus in the womb as breaking a sacrosanct right-to-life code and this case like others generates more imponderables with more questions than answers. These are indeed very difficult situations where quick thinking and reactions are required but again one should not target the fetus or embryo as if he or she were an alien species that needs to be exterminated. In relation to your answer to my question on the rights of the fetus in the Irish constitution, indeed the mother should display her maternal instincts to protect the fetus, as this seems more in line with a flourishing feminist ecology, than one which requires the fetus or embryo as surplus to requirements and subordinate to th one's selfish needs.

• eiriamach | Nov 25, 2012, 12:49 PM EST

  Gearoid, The report due to be published Tuesday in Ireland but mentioned by Reuters today calls for clarification of conditions under which a woman with a crisis pregnancy may lawfully have medical assistance in aborting. Apparently enough is known about the Halappanavar case to warrant some life-saving liberalization of Ireland's anti-abortion stance. Whether or not the inquiry in that case finds that the delay in abortion caused or contributed to her death, such a delay is not standard procedure in cases of miscarriage, and it has been clear all along that the medical staff did not quickly enough do everything they could have done to prevent her death. Because Irish law does not "criminalize" their inaction, no one can call the doctors criminals, and I have not. As for the Phoenix case, you say "there would have been no problem" if doctors had treated her escalating blood pressure and not aborted the fetus. Who's second-guessing cause/effect now? The experts in that case concluded that the women would have died without an abortion. While it's possible that an abortion might not have saved Savita, nothing could have saved her fetus, which her body was trying unsuccessfully to abort. Pregnancy, including miscarriage (spontaneous abortion) drains the body's resources for fighting infection and stabilizing other problems. In these two cases, abortion was warranted in the efforts to save the women's lives, and Christian ethics calls for us to save the lives we can save and forbids us to allow needless death. You ask, "Is the fetus which does not have a voice to speak for him/her in relation to the protection of their rights, deserving of any protection under the constitution?" Women protect the fetuses developing in their wombs. How inhumane that when women take on that responsibility, the law abandons protection of their right to life!

• Gearoid4 | Nov 25, 2012, 11:56 AM EST

  @Eiriamach, The case is question has not reached the inquiry stage, and yet we have know-alls criminalizing the medical staff at the Galway hospital for not saving the young woman's life through an abortion, even they were very far removed from the situation itself. In fact the latest medical reports speak of the E. coli ESBL(an antibiotic-resistant strain of the bacterium) and blood poisoning being the cause of death of this young woman. It is hard to seen how aborting the fetus would have stopped this potentially fatal bacterium from spreading through her system. It seems that the death of the fetus would've been the only desired solution to suit the ends that they are striving for So you think that the Irish Constitution's guarantee of equal protection for mother and child is "a death-driven, obstructive and impracticable mandate". Is the fetus which does not have a voice to speak for him/her in relation to the protection of their rights, deserving of any protection under the constitution?. I repeat, there is no bar to medical staff anywhere in Ireland doing all that is practicable to save the life of the mother(which sometimes ends in the undesired death of the fetus/embryo). You castigate Bishop Olmstead in a calumnious fashion by describing him as a "callous sadist" when he was validly enforcing discipline with respect to the gross violation of Christian ethics which took place at the hospital with respect to the direct abortion of a fetus who was not the cause of the mother's condition. If the medical staff concerned concentrated on the saving the life of the mother without intending to destroy the life of the fetus, then there would have been no problem. Again I repeat, if the fetus (without being the target of an abortion)dies during the saving of the mother, it is permissible within the bounds of Catholic medical ethics.

• eiriamach | Nov 25, 2012, 09:16 AM EST

  No, Gearoid, the worst I've accused the Irish staff of the Galway hospital of is a failure of moral courage, and I tried to explain why that failure is widely shared and understandable. Yet if Irish medical practitioners were to adopt a clear preference for saving pregnant women's lives in comparable medical emergencies, their actions would have the effect of nullifying or changing the constitution's death-driven, obstructive and impracticable mandate to protect the fetus' and pregnant woman's lives equally. They might be prosecuted for such action, but they would win in the end because reason, compassion, and morality are on that side. Medical practitioners must deal with reality, and the reality is that attempts at equal protection of the two lives lead to loss of both lives when saving one life was possible for them. That's a tragic outcome, a failure, perhaps misogynist but not sadistic. If I were going to use words like "callous sadist," I'd apply the words to Bishop Olmstead, who ordered the Catholic hospital staff to swear never to perform an abortion directly to save a pregnant woman's life but to let both woman and fetus die as 'the will of God.' I imagine divine wrath aimed at Olmstead and disappointment aimed at the Galway physicians.

• eiriamach | Nov 24, 2012, 08:43 PM EST

  I think the Bishop Thomas Olmstead is overestimating his self-importance and should be refused medical treatment at all hospitals except Catholic hospitals since he has determined that the previously Catholic hospital is unworthy of treating people who would die otherwise. The appropriate analogy is that one would believe he should refuse treatment from non-Catholic medical personnel and not go to a hospital that does not religiously adhere to his interpretation of the Catholic faith.

• Gearoid4 | Nov 24, 2012, 07:17 PM EST

  @Eiriamach, Without knowing all the facts of the "Savita" case, you are portraying the medical staff who treated the young lady, as callous sadists who deliberately sacrificed her in order that the fetus should live. The medical staff in Ireland are among the best in the world in relation to obstetrics and gynecology and this is why Ireland has the enviable record of having one of the lowest mortality rates for both pregnant women and their babies in the world. I recognize that there are situations where health complications can arise, which Tempranillo has effectively elaborated on to broaden out my original points. Difficult calls have to be made when time if of the essence. But these experiences should not be misused to push for the grave evil of abortion to be widely available when the best medical help is already on hand with no legal bars to doctors doing all they can to save a pregnant woman's life(even if the fetus dies an unintended death during the surgical intervention). @seanomelb The Phoenix case was an example of a situation where an emergency decision had to be made, but there was nothing stopping the medical team from doing everything within their expertise to treat the woman successfully without directly targeting the fetus. The fetus is not a tumour to be excised, but has his/her own dignity as human life in transition. This is not to say that the doctors should have prioritized the life of the child over the mother. If the fetus dies as result of the treatment given to the mother without being the direct target of an abortion, this regrettable outcome is recognized and accommodated within Catholic ethics. I can sleep easy too Seano, the 2000 year old Catholic Faith is still as relevant as it was during the first apostolic age and will survive all man-made ideologies which promised a better earth but ended up being dystopias as the 20th century revealed to our cost.

• pilib04 | Nov 24, 2012, 05:41 PM EST

  I am sure that the hospital is not losing any business (or sleep) over this Olmsted's ramblings. Linda Hunt, the hospital president has it right. My guess is that if Olmsted had an emergency life threatening situation he would go to that hospital.

• seanomelb | Nov 24, 2012, 05:37 PM EST

  Maybe Gearoid4 would like the return of the good old nurse Cadden days. In this case the doctors prolonged the suffering of a woman knowing the fetus would die. Neither priest or any mythological God have a place to play in the rights of a women. Gearoid I sleep easy with(as you describe)"secular liberal ethos. Your right wing religious beliefs are as old as the dinosaurs. Come to think of it you probably believe they roamed the earth 6,000 years ago. Humanism is the great morality not the writings in some mystical book.

• tempranillo | Nov 24, 2012, 04:56 PM EST

  <> Gearoid4 characterized the Roman church position accurately though I would argue many associated issues questions remain unanswered. As an example, extraordinary means are not required to save a fetus deemed unviable by medical and ethics experts even if the birth would likely result in the mother’s death. To conclude otherwise is presumption—experts are not perfect. However, secondary consequences are ignored: effect on family; viability of new born; effect upon the mother. Yet, triage principles would lead to a different conclusion, as responders must judge who has the greater chance of not surviving AND whose demise would engender the lesser harm. In other words, one would not save the condemned person on the way to the gallows in a triage situation. Situational ethics—though in the case of mother & fetus, such situational analysis does not apply.

• eiriamach | Nov 24, 2012, 04:50 PM EST

  The rest of the history of midwives in a nutshell: Their abortions put them out of business. Not because the Catholic Church at that time waged war against abortion as it's doing now, but because the medical profession was organizing itself-- setting up med schools for men, hospital practices for men in obstetrics, licensing, etc. But immigrant women and other traditional women still preferred to give birth at home with the assistance of other women, the traditional midwives. The medical profession could not outlaw the practice of midwifery, so it outlawed abortion and drove women out of the practice and some into prisons. It has taken a long time to bring midwives back, and we're still fighting for the single-minded attention to families' health care needs that the midwives gave.

• eiriamach | Nov 24, 2012, 04:28 PM EST

  This mother's case and Savita's case trouble us because they underscore the difficult choice confronting medical staff. No one, not even the family of a woman in crisis pregnancy, welcomes a decision to end life developing in the womb. More than a century ago in the USA, midwives delivered infants; they also performed abortions when pregnancy threatened a woman's life or the birth of an abnormal fetus with little chance of survival threatened to kill her. Perhaps it was less difficult for midwives to perform abortions because they worked in homes where a woman's children, husband, and parents gathered around with obvious concern for the life of the woman they knew and loved and needed. The impact on family life is missing from the sterile atmosphere of a hospital. I'd guess that some doctors welcome Article 33 of the Irish Constitution because it tells them they need not choose between killing the fetus and allowing a pregnant woman to die. However, as Savita's case shows, refusing to choose IS to choose by default; often, refusing abortion MEANS allowing the woman to die. They think they avoid a difficult choice by refusing to make it until, in the end, death *only looks like* fate or the will of God rather than the consequence of their refusal to choose. MDs are responsible for Savita's death because they undertook her medical care and then refused to provide it because it was just too difficult a choice for them to make. The Phoenix hospital staff gave that care, chose, and saved a woman's life.

• BigDaddy | Nov 24, 2012, 03:50 PM EST

  it broke THE most important and sacred rule that determines and defines it's Catholicism...Really? If the RCC is truly the church of Christ, that which defines them should be compassion, shouldn't it? Christ was not about strict adherence to orthodoxy. In fact, I believe I've read where he spoke out against it. It was in that book you wave at people outside abortion clinics; surely you've read it.

• BigDaddy | Nov 24, 2012, 03:47 PM EST

  The inability of the medical staff to save both mother and baby shows a failing on their behalf.@ mairint and ken...wouldn't that inability be on the part of the Almighty, thereby negating the claim to that very title? Or, if you prefer, it was God's wish that the baby be terminated because he placed it in a position to die. Maybe God "inspired" the ethics staff to make their decision. Since we can assume, though not definitively, the mother didn't use contraception, she ostensibly kept up her Catholic commitment; why did God place her in that position? Was it simply to reinforce the belief that if she sacrificed the life or herself and her baby that God would be glorified? Let me know when your claims start to sound like BS to you; they've been sounding that way to others for years.

• Gearoid4 | Nov 24, 2012, 03:18 PM EST

  The Catholic Church does not prioritize one life over the other and hence the two have equal dignity during a pregnancy. Where it is applicable, both lives should be saved in an emergency,but the mother's life rightfully will always receive the most attention in order that her life will be saved(even though this sometimes tragically ends in the fetus unintentionally dying). Your depiction of a medical team's refusal to enter into a speedy "termination" is described by you erroneously as "horribly horribly wrong". Competent medical teams can perform procedures like a C-section to remove the child when he/she is in the wrong position in the womb But extreme cases(which are thankfully rare)as in ectopic pregnancies(where a growing baby is trapped in the mother's Fallopian Tubes and this potentially can be fatal to the mother), doctors are entitled to take all measures to save the mother's life, and this often ends in the death of the fetus. Such scenarios should not be broadened out to include a whole raft of other situations where there is no medical emergency and where counselling and maternal support services can halt any recourse to the local abortuary. Cases of financial hardship are no excuse for abortions, and these cases require sensitive counselling and post-natal back-up for mothers in those situations. Your accusation that I "would condemn any mother to avoidable death" is just plain wrong and my previous comments will bear this out. My concern would be for both mother and baby equally, but in emergency cases, the medical team should do all they can to safeguard the mother's life without intentionally destroying the fetus or embryo. If the fetus/embryo dies as a unintended result of the treatment, then this is tragic and unfortunately does happen as in the cases of ectopic pregnancies.

• eiriamach | Nov 24, 2012, 02:13 PM EST

  Gearoid, I do not misunderstand your position, but I surely disagree with it. My point is that in actual practice, in real medical emergencies of pregnant women, it proves impossible to give "equal" life-saving treatment to both the pregnant woman and the fetus. It is often necessary, in many such cases and virtually always in an incomplete miscarriage, to intervene deliberately to end the pregnancy. As you say, the Roman Catholic Church cannot approve of deliberate abortion to save the life of a pregnant woman. But trying to save the lives of both woman and fetus too often results in the death of both, when the life of one might have been saved by timely deliberate intervention. The right to life of a pregnant woman is not a "selfish need," especially when (as is most often the case in abortion) she already has other children to care for. Refusing to intervene by speedy termination in such cases is wrong, horribly wrong, and your Church is wrong to refuse. It is irrelevant that in some cases (a minority of cases), unmarried women elect abortions, but statistics tell us that they are most often under severe financial constraints. While poverty is not comparable to life endangerment, I'd never condemn a women in such a situation for seeking early abortion. You, however, would condemn any mother with a crisis pregnancy to avoidable death. The law must unequivocally safeguard the right to life of women with crisis pregnancies.

• Gearoid4 | Nov 24, 2012, 12:24 PM EST

  @Eiriamach, You distort my position unintentionally or deliberately. I support fully the position of the Church on the matter under discussion. The lives of the pregnant mother and her child are deserving of equal respect and all should be done to save the lives of both when under threat. There are causes when doctors/surgeons need to intervene to save the lives of the mother and the as an unintended consequence the child in the womb dies. The Church allows for this, as the original objective was to save the life of the mother(and life in the womb if possible). The vast majority of abortions are not carried out under the above conditions or necessity but because of some indefensible "social" reason. The option for abortion has become too easy and at the end of the day the ideology of the pro-aborts is about one's selfish needs trumping the rights of the growing child in the womb. Abortion for "limited" reasons is merely the prelude to abortion-on-demand for many.

• Gearoid4 | Nov 24, 2012, 12:23 PM EST

  @Eiriamach, You distort my position intention or deliberately. I support fully the position of the Church on the matter under discussion. The lives of the pregnant mother and her child are deserving of equal respect and all should be done to save the lives of both when under threat. There are causes when doctors/surgeons need to intervene to save the lives of the mother and the as an unintended consequence the child in the womb dies. The Church allows for this, as the original objective was to save the life of the mother(and life in the womb if possible). The vast majority of abortions are not carried out under the above conditions or necessity but because of some indefensible "social" reason. The option for abortion has become too easy and at the end of the day the ideology of the pro-aborts is about one's selfish needs trumping the rights of the growing child in the womb. Abortion for "limited" reasons is merely the prelude to abortion-on-demand for many.

• eiriamach | Nov 24, 2012, 11:51 AM EST

  On 11 Jan 2011, the National Women's Law Center published a summary (online) of widespread violations of law by Catholic hospitals that refuse life-saving emergency procedures to pregnant women. The governing law, which Bsp Olmstead demanded medical workers at a Catholic hospital violate, is the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA). Common violations include refusing to treat ectopic pregnancies with Methotrexate, the standard of care for ectopic pregnancy, because this drug causes abortion of the tubal pregnancy threatening a woman's life. Delays in treating this condition result in rupture of the fallopian tube, and substituting surgery for the drug damages the system. Other violations include "numerous instances of women who suffered delays in receiving stabilizing care for miscarriages.... For ex., a Catholic hospital refused to provide the uterine evacuation necessary to stabilize a patient having a miscarriage, saying that it would only give her blood transfusions as long as there was still a fetal heartbeat." Catholic hospitals also refuse to inform such women that they can transfer to hospitals with abortion facilities, rather than continuing to suffer and deteriorate in a Catholic hospital. They follow the USCCB's "Directives" rather than US law in pregnancy emergencies, and they account for more than 16 percent of hospital care in the USA.

• eiriamach | Nov 24, 2012, 10:36 AM EST

  Gearoid, get this: your position absolutely deprives pregnant women of protection for their 'right to life.' The "best available treatment to save the mother's life," as you put it, in the Phoenix hospital case as well as in Savita's case was to abort the pregnancy quickly. To continue to protect the 'right to life' of a fetus when it jeopardizes a woman's life is the same as depriving her of her right to life and preferring the life of a likely-doomed fetus--there's no "equal right to life" in that scenario. Any woman who has ever been pregnant knows what it means to undertake risks, but we expect the help of medical science in a medical crisis. What do you suppose the reaction would be if every woman were presented with a contract stipulating that IF she becomes pregnant and pregnancy threatens her life or health, medical workers will refuse to end the pregnancy? How many women would agree to such terms and sign such a contract before having sexual intercourse? Wake up and smell the coffee; where medical science can reduce maternal mortality, death is not an acceptable part of the deal for bringing new life into the world.

• Gearoid4 | Nov 24, 2012, 08:56 AM EST

  @Sean, Get this. People will not confine their moral values to their homes or churches and will not be constrained in terms of the areas that they comment on, which may not suit your secularist, liberal ethos. The hospital involved in this case was established by a Catholic order of nuns, and it's ethics is supposed to be solidly Catholic. Now this ethical code of practice was gravely violated when the medical team targeted the fetus in order to abort him/her when they should have been concentrating in providing the best available treatment to save the mother's life. It is never permitted in Catholic ethics to deliberately destroy the life in the womb while treating the cause of the condition that is threatening both the mother and the pregnancy. If the child dies as an unintended consequence of such treatment, it is a terrible tragedy but it is recognized and accommodated by the Church's laws regarding medical and reproductive care. As for your contemptible comment concerning the association of all priests and child-rape, no comment is ncessary

• seanomelb | Nov 23, 2012, 11:16 PM EST

  The woman has the last say in a life or death situation regarding abortion. You catholic zealots need to get out of the doctors surgery and the bedroom. The only time a priest lies down is to rape a child.

• olovely | Nov 23, 2012, 06:44 PM EST

  The bishops would rather that you die rather than their ideology.

• mairint | Nov 23, 2012, 06:17 PM EST

  Well, all you little soap box opinionated chatterers...get this : The hospital, as with thousands around the world, was established by a Catholic order of sisters (Mercy in this case). If a hospital wants to continue as Catholic then it must be Catholic. It cannot be involved in killing preborn babies, disabled, elderly, vulnerable. One cannot be safe in many secular institutions today (speaking from experience, Holland, Canada). The Bishop of Phoenix was perfectly right in his action. The inability of the medical staff to save both mother and baby shows a failing on their behalf.

• eiriamach | Nov 23, 2012, 05:55 PM EST

  Of course Sr Margaret McBride, the hospital administrator, chose the right course. Olmstead pronounced her excommunicated, along with everyone else involved in the abortion. Choosing to end the life of a fetus may be onerous, but if one or another death (or both) is inevitable, an onerous decision is unavoidable: doctors choose death deliberately by ending a life-endangering pregnancy, or they choose death by default by refusing to perform an abortion. The only questions are whose choice it is and which life to try to save. Law should protect women's right to choose abortion at early stages of fetal development. In medical emergencies, if a woman cannot choose, medical personnel must try to protect her life by abortion or premature delivery when necessary. This choice becomes less difficult if we realize that "‘equal’ right to life" as enshrined in the Irish Constitution is mere illusion --or worse, an excuse for doing nothing to save a life. Placing an 'equal' value on the two lives incurs the risk of avoidable tragedy. The longer lawmakers delay making this choice, the longer women with crisis pregnancies will continue to die in Ireland if they can't get to the UK in time to save their lives.

• merefalow | Nov 23, 2012, 05:51 PM EST

  theocracy has NO.NO.NO. PLACE IN A MODERN SOCIETY,THIS MAN IS LOST IN THE DARK AGES,A LONG LOST COUSIN OF TORQEMADA.UNBELIEVABLE IGNORANCE, AND THEOLOGICAL MISEMTERPRETATION.HAVE THEY NEVER HEARD OF SCIENCE ,REASON,MEDICINE,HEALING,HUMANITY.WITCH DOCTORS LOST IN THE DARK AGES.

• CitizenWhy | Nov 23, 2012, 05:42 PM EST

  Didn't the Irish bishops just announce that saving the life of the mother rather than the fetus is acceptable?

• seanomelb | Nov 23, 2012, 05:38 PM EST

  The bishop is a petty little dictator.. He has no right to choose who lives and who dies. He's a meglomaniac who thinks he's God

• alisaann | Nov 23, 2012, 04:55 PM EST

  THE LIFE OF THE MOTHER SHOULD BE MORE IMPORTANT THE THE FETUS....IF THE MOTHER LIVES, SHE "MIGHT" BE ABLE TO GET PREGNANT AGAIN.....I'M SICK OF THE CATHLOICS PUTTING THE MOTHERS LIVES BELOW THAT OF A FETUS.....IT'S JUST NOT RIGHT....THIS IS THE 21ST CENTURY. ALISA

• darao | Nov 23, 2012, 03:54 PM EST

  PhlutiePhan... 1. sorry for you losing your mother and that there were medical issues. 2. When a Bishop pushs a policy of willful neglect of a woman dying and needing a safe abortion it is a horrendous abuse of his position/ 3. If catholic policy is to let women die when they can be saved this surely cannot be anything but evil. 4. The good thing is that the religious imfluence is being removed and rejected as not only bad policy but policy opposed by the vast majority of caring people. The church can only gain its legitimicy back by eliminating the cancer of such policies that result in abuses or women, children and indeed destruction of the lives of priests. Let us hope that those with more rational and caring thoughts will come to lead all churches and those with their bully medieval ways are pushed into the irrelevance they belong to.

• occassio | Nov 23, 2012, 01:16 PM EST

  I would like to know how much of this Arizona hospital’s revenue is being jeopardized by Bishop Olmsted’s disavowal. How will it be impacted?

• Ms.Gail | Nov 23, 2012, 12:52 PM EST

  It is a shame that a secular organization acts on higher moral values than a religious organization. This hospital is better off.

• rose528 | Nov 23, 2012, 12:39 PM EST

  no hospital should be following the religious beliefs of an organization started in order to control the masses

• PhlutiePhan | Nov 23, 2012, 12:26 PM EST

  Here in the Midwest, my mother died last December 1 at Mercy Hospital. She was elderly and developed a heart problem when being treated for a hernia. One doctor said more salt, another said less salt. Her heart went out of whack and she died. This was negligence. Mercy Hospital took down the crucifixes and put up a logo of a combination crucifix and company logo and glued them on the wall in every room. Mercy sold to Coventry and it is no longer a Catholic organization which has compassion for the elderly. Bishop Olmsted is not wrong. It is his obligation to ensure that Catholic hospitals impliment Catholic policy.

• Proud Canadian2 | Nov 23, 2012, 11:21 AM EST

  What is the point of a child living without his/her mother anyway. I certainly wouldn't have wanted to.. The Catholics have to butt out of peoplws business and let people live there own lives. I applaud this hospital and staff for saving this womems life, hopefully she can go on and try to have another child and succeed this time.

• Portia777 | Nov 23, 2012, 11:02 AM EST

  The hospital is blessed to be rid of the Roman Catholic dictatorship. This is a hospital that deserves the utmost respect for fulfilling its oath- FIRST DO NO HARM. Now we need the Roman church bully boys removed from all medical decisions.

• Portia777 | Nov 23, 2012, 10:15 AM EST

  Good riddance to that Bishop and his organization. They have no business in health care decisions. When an organization behaves and is structured like a dictatorship and tries to bully people it loses its legitimacy. As the spokesperson said - the hospital acted with values of dignity and justice which is something obviously missing in the religious organization.