Manhattan Diary


Hardline Bishop "excommunicates" Catholic Hospital

Posted on Friday, January 28, 2011 at 12:56 AM

RSS


Recent Posts

Archives

submit to reddit

The hardening of attitudes in our political culture has reached our Catholic hospitals.

Relationships between the hospitals and the increasingly hardline US bishops have become so explosive in recent months they're making national news.

In December the staff of Saint Joseph’s Hospital and Medical Center in Phoenix saw a dispute with their bishop escalate to the point where they were ultimately stripped of their affiliation.

"Saint Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center in Phoenix can no longer identify itself as Catholic," Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted announced during a news conference in Phoenix on December 21, just in time for Christmas.

The hospital was stripped of it's affiliation because it had conducted an abortion to save a mother’s life. The 27 year old woman would have died otherwise, the hospital said.

But the retribution for their fateful decision was as swift as it was unbending. Bishop Olmsted first excommunicated a nun, Sister Margaret McBride, who served on the hospitals ethics committee.

Olmstead's shocking move was seen as an attempt to intimidate the hospital from ever making a similar judgement. But of course it failed.  So that led Bishop Olmsted to press the nuclear button: in effect he has excommunicated the entire hospital - because they dared to make a wrenchingly difficult decision that the rest of us can only hope we never have to confront.

But two distinct things are happening here. Bishop Olmstead is protecting the Church's doctrine; Sister McBride is protecting the patients life.

Should theologians be making medical decisions? Should faith interrogate science? Is the doctrine of the Church worth more than the life of an individual? Those are significant schisms that have opened up; they have been everywhere in Catholicism for decades now. It's past time we confronted them.

You might think, given its recent history, that the conservative forces within the Church would have learned by now that the impulse to protect Church doctrine and the Church itself from scandal can quickly backfire (but you'd be quite wrong about that).

It's not hard to see why. Shining moral absolutes are very hard to give up. Shining moral absolutes stand firm and unbending against the tide of history and the general murkiness of life. They clarify, they stand for something, and they stand against something. In that sense they're just like the Catholic Church itself.

Moral absolutes create a world of black and white. Just like words on a page, just like the words in the bible, they spell things out for you, they give you a framework, and you can learn to overlook their shortcomings, and in fact you'll have to. Because in a world of color, which is where we all live after all, they can quickly run aground.

So the clash we're witnessing is between a conservative mindset that values rules, dogma, sanctity and moral absolutes - and a much more compassionate outlook that refrains from quick judgment and takes the sometimes brutal contradictions of life into careful consideration.

At the moment it looks like there can only be one solution: every Catholic hospital in the United States will lose it's affiliation. It's the only way to protect unbending doctrine from the decisions sometimes taken in American hospitals.

Federal laws protect a patient’s right to receive emergency care, including terminations where they are warranted, and Catholic hospitals cannot invoke their religious status if it jeopardizes the lives of pregnant women. The need to adhere to religious doctrine does not give health providers cover or license to risk someone's life.

So since the rules of this conflict have already been written, there can be no ultimate winner. To protect the Church the bishops must double down, and it looks like they intend to. They will do what they think is best: stand firm and unbending against the tide of history and the general murkiness of life.

But standing on principal can also be a cop out. It can simply mean you haven't bothered getting your hands dirty. You can survey all the sin and suffering in the world, and heave a big sigh, and you can retreat to your ivory tower. In protecting Christ's message you can forget his example. That's dissonance is exactly what so many former Catholics mean when the say the Church left me, I didn't leave it.

In this world it's much easier to be a saint than a sinner, after all. The rule book is mercifully short. You just have to say no and keep saying no. No to complexity, no to the drunkenness of things being various, no to other people's suffering, and ironically enough, no to life.

 



42 comments

Next Page 1 of 3 pages
All hospitals that use Federal funds (Medicare),including Catholic ones must follow Federal laws. These laws demand that the lives of pregnant women be protected over and above the unborn.This means that at times, direct abortions must be performed to save the lives of the mother regardless of whether the hospital is secular or Catholic. This conflicts with Catholic Directives. Catholic hospitals could stop taking Federal Medicare funds and would then be free to follow their Directives to the letter. Why don't they do this? Because they could not stay in business- they need the business of non-Catholics and taxpayer money which comes mostly from non-Catholics. Why should we non-Catholics support the medieval stupidity and immorality of the Catholic Directives which give sub-standard medical care and risk the lives of women? BTW,Catholic women are 25% of the female population and also get 25% of the abortions in the U.S. Also there is no statistical difference between the % of Catholics who use artificial birth control and % of non-Catholics that use artificial birth control. Interestingly, the group that most disapproves of abortion is gay males (I presume this would include pedophile priests).
The Catholic church is run by the Christano-fascist Opus Dei. Doe's that make the Vatican a Fascist state?
The Catholic Church lost the right to tell anyone what is moral and correct the first time it helped a priest get away with raping a child. And if the Catholic hospital system truly believed there should be no abortions in any way, form or fashion, they should stop talking money from insurance companies that offer a provision for it...but they won't; money trumps everything, even in the "holy see."
2bornot2b should try to differentiate between pro-choice and pro-abortion as many pro-choice do not believe in abortions in most cases. Quoting Catholic ethicist to justify the Vatican's position is meaningless. The decision to have an abortion is a personal and daunting one and we should mind our own business. The right cannot make rules or change laws to suit their agenda(or the liberals for that matter).Democracy means respect for all positions.
Apparently it's 2Bore&More who isn't into reading. He gets his info from YouTube and the radio!His ''experts''- Dr.s Pacholczyk and Nadal are not M.D.s. Does he even know the difference between Dr. and M.D.? Maybe someone can point him towards a YouTube video which explains the difference. Pacholcyzk and Nadal are R.C. priests, probably virgins like 2Bore.Still no word from 2Bore as to his source for his ''testimony from doctors'' that the woman's life was ''never in danger''.You are full of it, 2Bore! And nobody gives a d*mn about your little Catholic boy treatise on St. Joseph,either.
The Catholic Church,unlike all the other religions,makes no distinction between the born and unborn. So because of this obvious stupidity they have these dilemmas regarding pregnant women about to die unless the embryo/fetus is killed/removed. What's supposed to happen in these R.C.C.-made dilemmas, is that the ''faithful'' are supposed to make no effort to save mother or fetus,everyone is supposed to pray like crazy,and then God is supposed to waft in on the good Bishop's next gaseous emmission and save both mother and fetus. Or not, and escort both ''souls'' to Heaven.Either way - to the ''faithful'',this would be a job well done by ''God''. Unbelievable!
Also on the question "Should faith interrogate science?"... sure. As long as science is first allowed to judge whether beings worshiped by religion have any reality to them or not, to determine if religious opinion has any worth.
In nature both would have naturally died, which the religiously inclined would then say was God's will. Science and medicine being an artificial construct of man, therefore against God's natural will, allows us to save one or the other un-naturally. So it technically doesn't matter which you save. By nature they both would have died. Though if you save the Woman, she would be more likely to live being grown and strong, whereas the baby had not yet tried to live on its own out of the womb and might die of some complication, if it is even far enough along to live without a womb. So you have a definite yes, versus a 50/50maybe.
> Posted by seanomelbourne on Jan 29, 2011, 04:19 AM EST > If an abortion is murder when saving a mothers life therefore > saving the baby's life is murdering the mother... Which is a > sin against God? Both, see in nature both would have naturally died, which the religiously inclined would then say was God's will. Science and medicine being an artificial construct of man, therefore against God's natural will, allows us to save one or the other un-naturally. So it technically doesn't matter which. By nature they both would have died. If you save the woman, she can work to help raise the existing children, or if none might have another child some day without complication. If you save the child, it may live or have medical complications with living outside the womb and die. Saving the mother was a better bet. My father almost had to make the same choice about my mother who had a tumor in her womb at the same time she was pregnant with my sis. He said he would have picked his wife to save if he had had to chose. He felt he wouldn't have been to manage things without her. My sis couldn't blame him for that. You could say my sis is glad to be alive, but then so is my mother. They are both alive due to advancement in medical science.
If an abortion is murder when saving a mothers life therefore saving the baby's life is murdering the mother. cannot have it both ways choice Which is a sin against God?
The term ''murder'' is an unlawful killing of a human being. Abortion is (1)lawful and(2)the term ''human being'' refers to an already born alive person,not an embryo or fetus. Only a simpleton would be ignorant of these facts.The majority of Americans are not Catholic and do not want the medieval Catholic Directives imposed on them when they are brought as emergencies to the nearest hospital which happens to be Catholic. Had the doctors at St. Joseph's refused to perform the abortion and allowed the woman to die they would have been in violation of The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, a Federal law which all hospitals are subject to when they treat Medicare and Medicaid patients. If Catholic hospitals want to be in compliance with Catholic Directives which forbid abortions under all circumstances, then they must forego accepting Medicare patients and payments.Without Medicare payments they would soon be out of business and would be replaced by secular hospitals which have high standards of care for all aspects of women's reproductive health,including emergency contraception for women who have been raped,tubal ligations and abortions.This would be a social good!
Anyone in 2011 who fails to admit that an abortion murders someone is a scientific, medical and moral ignoramus.Step into the present century you "pro-choicers", it is no longer arguable.
Why should any of us care what the bishop has done? I read a wire service story today that says the big difference now is that mass can't be said in the hospital chapel, but can be said in the airport chapel. The bishop is irrelevant to all but those who can't see the hypocrisy and stupidity.
2bornot2b is clutching at cruciform shaped straws.He has drowned his own argument.
Thinkingartist – thanks for the information…afraid I can never square the US attitudes on abortion versus attitudes on gun control…both appear extremist by many on this side of the pond.
Next Page 1 of 3 pages




Log into IrishCentral with your Facebook account


or sign-in directly

E-Mail:
Password:
 Remember me Forgot my password
Not a member? Register Now!
print this article Print
email this articleE-mail