The Independent News Source
NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
Printer-friendly version
PDF versionSt. Joseph’s Hospital: A phoenix in the desert
by Jamie L Manson on Jan. 04, 2011
COLUMN
Just days before Christians celebrated Christmas, Jesus got evicted.
In a strange twist of fate, he was removed from a hospital named after his adoptive father, St. Joseph. The whole saga took place in a desert. Only this time it was in Phoenix, Ariz., rather than Egypt.
Because a mother of four had her life saved under harrowing circumstances, the sacramental presence of Jesus was forced to evacuate a Catholic hospital in the Valley of the Sun. It’s a sad loss, really, since the body of Christ dwelt peacefully at St. Joseph’s for over 115 years.
It would be impossible to count how many fears were comforted, mourners were consoled, and wearied staff were nourished by the Mass or by sitting quietly in front of the Blessed Sacrament.
Bishop Thomas Olmsted, the hierarch who made the decision to pull the Eucharist from the chapel at St. Joseph’s Hospital, has been called “ ‘a man of the rules and a company man’ who puts the institutional church ahead of people,” according to an NCR report early last summer.
|
You can sign up to receive email alerts each time Jamie Manson posts a new Grace on the Margins column. |
But one wonders whose rules he was playing by when he chose to rip the Catholic designation from this hospital founded by the Sisters of Mercy.
St. Joseph’s committee of ethicists employed both reason and compassion when they made their recommendation on this sad case of a woman whose pregnancy was literally killing her. Both the mother and the fetus were dying. If the mother died, this pregnancy could not be brought to term. Only the mother’s life could have been saved.
Olmsted seems to have had all the regard in the world for the unborn child. But where was his regard for the woman, or for her four children who would have been left motherless? Where is the regard for her husband? Isn’t it ironic that a bishop who is aggressively trying to preserve the institution of marriage and the sanctity of the family would be so willing to force a father into single parenthood? Would the church have stepped forward to help this father care for these four young children? Would they have offered him child care or free housekeeping or the benefit of an additional salary for the next 18 years?
Subscribe to NCR
Want to read more about important issues in the life of the Church? A subscription to NCR will keep you up to date and informed.
One cannot overlook the trauma that the bishop is inflicting on this mother and her family. As a mother of four, there is little doubt that this woman is grief-stricken over this tragedy. Olmsted’s actions have no doubt exacerbated her pain, and have created harmful and unnecessary shame for this family. Imagine living with the knowledge that the decision to save your life led to the highly publicized, permanent removal of the Eucharist from a hospital?
In addition to the bishop’s disregard for the mother and her family, this particular incident seems to be laced with misogyny. In removing St. Joseph’s Catholic designation, Olmsted disparages centuries of devoted sacrifice not only on the part of the Sisters of Mercy, but by all women religious throughout the world who have healed untold numbers of lives. Olmsted’s excommunication in May of Mercy Sr. Margaret Mary McBride, a hospital administrator who served on the ethics committee, appears particularly targeted. It has become all too typical of the hierarchy to stamp out an esteemed woman religious who dares to use her expertise and authority to make a moral decision about another woman’s life.
If anyone doubts that misogyny played a role in this case, one need only recall that Olmsted is the product of a Vatican that, in March 2009, defended a Brazilian archbishop who excommunicated the mother of a 9-year-old girl who received an abortion after being raped by her stepfather. The father faced no ecclesiastical punishment.
But in the midst of this darkness, there is an unexpected beam of hope. The response of the staff of St. Joseph’s has demonstrated as much moral courage as it has deep theological truth. Not only have they refused to allow the hierarchy to use the Eucharist to bully them into submission, they have reaffirmed the holiness of their daily work. “St. Joseph’s will continue through our words and deeds to carry out the healing ministry of Jesus,” said Linda Hunt, president of St. Joseph’s Hospital. “Our operations, policies and procedures will not change.”
The incident involving St. Joseph’s should be a moment of awakening for the hierarchy. Real division is emerging. The flight of Catholics from parishes over the past two decades has demonstrated clear unrest among the faithful. But now institutions are reaching a breaking point. Those who once trembled in fear when the hierarchy wielded its power now tremble in holy anger.
Though St. Joseph’s can no longer call itself Catholic, it heralds a new vision of church.
Its break with the diocese is a moment of groundbreaking promise. By continuing the heart of its mission, the hospital will practice as a true community living out the sacraments.
Though they will be denied the opportunity to celebrate the Eucharist, the Eucharist will rise out of St. Joseph’s every time the sick are healed, the frightened are comforted, the lonely are visited, the weak are fed, and vigil is kept over the dying.
[Jamie L. Manson received her Master of Divinity degree from Yale Divinity School where she studied Catholic theology and sexual ethics. Her columns for NCR earned her a first prize Catholic Press Association award for Best Column/Regular Commentary in 2010.]
Editor's Note: We can send you an e-mail alert every time Jamie Manson’s column, "Grace on the Margins", is posted to NCRonline.org. Go to this page and follow directions: E-mail alert sign-up. If you already receive e-mail alerts from us, click on the "update my profile" button to add "Grace on the Margins" to your list.
|
For more information on the Phoenix hospital and Bishop Olmsted, see NCR's continuing coverage:
|
Good point. What does it say
Good point. What does it say to a person when the hospital is punished for saving your life?
It says that most Catholic
It says that most Catholic Hospitals and their staff cannot be trusted to do what is best for patients. I have terminal cancer and have had to cross lots of T's and dot lots of i's to be sure that I do not become the next Terri Schiavo if I somehow end up in my local Catholic hospital. I'm very proud of St. Joseph's Hospital for their principaled, humane and christlike stand. It was the only position they could take and still remain a viable healthcare provider.
"St. Joseph’s committee of
"St. Joseph’s committee of ethicists employed both reason and compassion when they made their recommendation on this sad case of a woman whose pregnancy was literally killing her"
Whatever they may have claimed they were employing, their actions were in direct conflict with Church teaching. There is no ambiguity on this point at all. They chose to act against Church teaching. For you to then be surprised or angry about the Church responding according to Church teaching is idiotic in the extreme.
"Isn’t it ironic that a bishop who is aggressively trying to preserve the institution of marriage and the sanctity of the family would be so willing to force a father into single parenthood?"
The sanctity of the family is hardly preserved through abortion. The institution of marriage ends upon the death of one of the spouses. Furthermore, the Church wasn't "forcing" anything. They would not have actively killed the mother had they not performed the abortion.
Direct abortion is not allowed, period. The context is completely irrelevant. Again, this isn't something that should be the cause of vitriol against His Excellency. He was simply acting as a Catholic.
"Olmsted’s excommunication in May of Mercy Sr. Margaret Mary McBride, a hospital administrator who served on the ethics committee, appears particularly targeted."
He didn't even excommunicate her. She excommunicated herself via a lata sententia excommunication. Do you people even read anything about Catholicism? This is Catholicism 101.
"defended a Brazilian archbishop who excommunicated the mother of a 9-year-old girl who received an abortion after being raped by her stepfather"
Again -- THE ARCHBISHOP DID NOT EXCOMMUNICATE THE GIRL. She excommunicated herself lata sententia. Basic research please, Ms. Manson.
"The flight of Catholics from parishes over the past two decades has demonstrated clear unrest among the faithful."
Haha. Can you even prove that those "fleeing" were faithful in the first place? I don't see any unrest among the faithful whatsoever.
You are wrong, the ethics
You are wrong, the ethics committee followed exactly rule 47 of the Bishop conference which never has been rescinded. Which part do you not understand??? Why does Olmstead and you not read it again, and admit your error.
Well, you are very much
Well, you are very much mistaken if you believe there is no unrest among the faithful. Do you have your head buried in the sand? There are "grey" areas to all moral rules/teachings. Where did you take your moral theology courses?
And why do you hide behind anon? Behind every rule is a pastoral approach - something that seems very lacking in this prelate. I wonder if you can find a husband who will agree with the stance of the Bishop? This must have been a very difficult decision for these parents to make. By their making the decision, are they too automatically excommunicated? If the rule applied to the nun, why not to the parents? The doctors? The Nurses? Or anyone who had a role in this? And the stepfather who raped his nine year old stepdaughter? This is not wicked enough to cause excommunication? How very sad a world we live in where the double standard still exists. I will pray that God is more merciful in his judgments of all of us than many judgments that are made in the name of religion these days.
"If the rule applied to the
"If the rule applied to the nun, why not to the parents? The doctors? The Nurses? Or anyone who had a role in this?"
The automatic excommunication would apply to every single person who had or facilitated this abortion. So, yes, that would likely be the case.
"And the stepfather who raped his nine year old stepdaughter? This is not wicked enough to cause excommunication?"
Please do not conflate excommunication with wickedness. Physically harming the Pope also results in a latae sententiae excommunication; few would claim this is as morally outrageous as abortion (assuming they opposed abortion). Instances of automatic excommunication are narrowly delineated.
'Instances of automatic
'Instances of automatic excommunication are narrowly delineated'.
Sure... In St Louis The bishop now cardinal said.. To the trustees of St Stanislaus '
'sign the deed over to me' answer .NO...A/B Burke.'your excommunicated'
You see bishops are not to use guns when they threaten laity.
Regarding the parents, the
Regarding the parents, the doctor(s), the nurse(s), Committee members. and adminsitration, Olmsted pronounced self excommunication upon all who were Catholic who participated in the procedure and/or approved the procdure. Sr. McBride was the most prominent person to be sanctioned due to her status as a Religious Sister and the Chair of the Ethicks Committee. And he did it without an ounce of shame.
This may very well be the
This may very well be the most ignorant posting ever made on this site.
I'm in agreement with John
I'm in agreement with John Bondy on this. It's a clear mis-statement of what happened and of no value to understanding Catholism's proper place in the world. To publish such a misleading summary of what happened, and how the Hospital lost it's standing in our faith, shows a complete lack of editorial integrity.
NCR needs our prayers and support to be a much better steward of the truth.
do not despair, Mark, but
do not despair, Mark, but read Little Bear's always careful and learned response to this disgraceful anonymous hack job, below.
amazingly it is anonymous . .
amazingly it is anonymous . . .
Anonymous on Jan. 04,
Anonymous on Jan. 04, 2011.
You stated:
"St. Joseph’s committee of ethicists employed both reason and compassion when they made their recommendation on this sad case of a woman whose pregnancy was literally killing her"
Whatever they may have claimed they were employing, their actions were in direct conflict with Church teaching. There is no ambiguity on this point at all. They chose to act against Church teaching. For you to then be surprised or angry about the Church responding according to Church teaching is idiotic in the extreme.
"Isn’t it ironic that a bishop who is aggressively trying to preserve the institution of marriage and the sanctity of the family would be so willing to force a father into single parenthood?"
The sanctity of the family is hardly preserved through abortion. The institution of marriage ends upon the death of one of the spouses. Furthermore, the Church wasn't "forcing" anything. They would not have actively killed the mother had they not performed the abortion.
Direct abortion is not allowed, period. The context is completely irrelevant. Again, this isn't something that should be the cause of vitriol against His Excellency. He was simply acting as a Catholic.
"Olmsted’s excommunication in May of Mercy Sr. Margaret Mary McBride, a hospital administrator who served on the ethics committee, appears particularly targeted."
He didn't even excommunicate her. She excommunicated herself via a lata sententia excommunication. Do you people even read anything about Catholicism? This is Catholicism 101.
"defended a Brazilian archbishop who excommunicated the mother of a 9-year-old girl who received an abortion after being raped by her stepfather"
Again -- THE ARCHBISHOP DID NOT EXCOMMUNICATE THE GIRL. She excommunicated herself lata sententia. Basic research please, Ms. Manson.
"The flight of Catholics from parishes over the past two decades has demonstrated clear unrest among the faithful."
Haha. Can you even prove that those "fleeing" were faithful in the first place? I don't see any unrest among the faithful whatsoever.
--------------------------------------------------------
Your statements make you sound like a recruiting agent for the Jansenists who are on EWTN. So I am going to pick your answers apart as you did Jamie's.
1) There are plenty of different positions on the ethics of this situation. The problem with Bishop Olmsted and you---is that you are are color-blind---you only see in black and white. That human persons can be in situations that do not fall neatly within in those color ranges---is beyond your comprehension. The hospital's ethics committee explained and outlined the situation clearly. It is the bishop---who has failed to present, to document, to cite the points that led him to his decision. He just did it on fiat alone. He has shown himself to be more concerned with demanding obedience to law (by being an ecclesiastical policeman), than by illuminating by his life-style, his actions---how a Catholic/Christian lives. St. Paul tells us that "the law kills, but the Spirit gives life." Apparently, Bishop Olmsted has never read St. Paul either
2a) This marriage would have ended in the emergency room, if the hospital staff had not acted as it did. The woman would have died as well as her fetus (who was either already dead before the couple arrived at the hospital or dying as the woman was brought in). If you had bothered to read the accounts of the woman's history---she had not sought an abortion with her troubled pregnancy. But when her heart rate and breathing became labored (and one is dying at that point), she agreed to the procedure. No woman has to die along with a dead fetus. Canon Law may be barbaric in regards to pregnant women---but it is not completely brutal.
2b) The Bishop gained his education in Rome---but he has not studied the Gospels (nor St Paul's writings). He hasn't read where Christ commanded (and not just suggested) that the Apostles were to be Servant-Leaders. Their life-style, their whole manner of acting should be Christlike.
This bishop does not go out among his people---he doesn't know them----he doesn't understand them (does he even love them?). And if he is looking at the woman (and her whole family) and the staff at St. Joseph Hospital in this situation as though they were only abstractions from Canon Law----he is not worthy of the title "Shepherd".
3) In reference to the situation of the little Brazilian girl (age 9 and weighing 60 pounds) who was impregnated (with twins) by her step-father---you don't have YOUR facts straight. No one under the age of seventeen can incur excommunication. It was the MOTHER of the little girl and the medical staff who performed the abortions whom the archbishop stated were excommunicated 'via a lata sententia.'
But this is where YOU need to go back and study Catholicism 101-201-301-401 because unless the PEOPLE are named (as Sister Margaret Mary McBride was by Bishop Olmsted), there is NO EXCOMMUNICATION. There cannot be a blanket statement---without names---for an excommunication to be levied against individuals. The Brazilian Archbishop was whistling through his teeth. And we all knew it! He was trying to assert his un-Christlike authority---and the Brazilians were not buying his threats.
Nobody can 'undo' the sacraments that made you a Catholic to begin with. Nobody can scrape off the Chrism placed on the crown of your head when you were baptized---that declared that you are "Priest, Prophet and King.' Nobody can undo the effects of the Holy Spirit in Confirmation---that imprinted a special character on your soul---and nobody can declare that Christ did not enter, Body, Soul, and Divinity---into your heart and soul in the Holy Eucharist. Nobody. That is why I say to you---not only should you do careful research yourself (as you chided Jamie to do). I say that you should up-date your understanding of your religious faith. You are speaking like someone with only a 4th Grader's understanding of the faith---and a 4th Grader of 70 years ago.
4) Your last comment where you quoted Jamie was---- "The flight of Catholics from parishes over the past two decades has demonstrated clear unrest among the faithful."
Haha. Can you even prove that those "fleeing" were faithful in the first place? I don't see any unrest among the faithful whatsoever----"
There is nobody who has earned their faith. Faith is a gift freely given from God. And the Sacraments are also freely given so that we can share the life of God.
There are many means by we can rupture our life of faith, and do it ourselves---yes. But Christ recognized that others can also choke the life of faith in those who do believe. That is where 'scandal' comes in. Scandal is not just something from which to protect children and youth (certainly they MUST be protected). But adults can also be scandalized. Children are scandalized by what they hear. But older youths and adults are scandalized by what they see and experience. Catholics ARE SCANDALIZED by what they see and experience from the Official Church's (read Pope, Curia, Magisterium) actions, failures to promote justice, charity, decency, transparency. The Pope on Easter criticized the Chinese government for not permitting freedom of conscience for the Chinese people---and he was correct. But Pope Benedict failed to state that a good number of his cardinals and arch/bishops deny freedom of conscience to the people of their dioceses---and are worse than the Chinese Communists---the Hierarchs have NO excuse before God and people for their actions---none. And that is what is causing many Catholics to exit the Church doors.
You can deny it all you wish, Anonymous---but the proof is being recorded in studies that have and are taking place all over the nation. Jamie has done her research---you haven't.
1) He has no need to on this
1) He has no need to on this point. He met with Sr. Mary. It's a black-and-white issue: one who procures or facilitates a direct abortion is excommunicated lata sententia. End of story.
2b) Your rant is appropriately ignored.
3) See my erratum -- I posted girl when instead should have posted mother. This has already been corrected. Furthermore, latae sententiae excommunication takes place as soon as the act is committed, although a public declaration furthers the consequences. No one need be named for the excommunication to take place. Furthermore, the ramblings of your last paragraph are as unenlightening as they are poorly written. We should all know that the sacraments cannot be undone. I need not be told what is obvious already, although I appreciate your effort.
4) Thanks for yet another rant with no substance or support whatsoever, only vague and angry statements like "you haven't done your research."
I will note that although you say that, you can't seem to point out something I said that is empirically false. Hmm.....
Anonymous on Jan. 05,
Anonymous on Jan. 05, 2011.
You stated:
"1) He has no need to on this point. He met with Sr. Mary. It's a black-and-white issue: one who procures or facilitates a direct abortion is excommunicated lata sententia. End of story.
2b) Your rant is appropriately ignored.
3) See my erratum -- I posted girl when instead should have posted mother. This has already been corrected. Furthermore, latae sententiae excommunication takes place as soon as the act is committed, although a public declaration furthers the consequences. No one need be named for the excommunication to take place. Furthermore, the ramblings of your last paragraph are as unenlightening as they are poorly written. We should all know that the sacraments cannot be undone. I need not be told what is obvious already, although I appreciate your effort.
4) Thanks for yet another rant with no substance or support whatsoever, only vague and angry statements like "you haven't done your research."
I will note that although you say that, you can't seem to point out something I said that is empirically false. Hmm....."
-------------------------------------------------
To reptiles and those with lizard-brains---every thing is black and white.
Again----a person must be named to be excommunicated. If one is excommunicated, one cannot receive communion. But unless a person is named---no priest would know that the individual has been excommunicated, and these individuals could go to Communion.
I do believe that many of the 'so-called' excommunicated, do not believe in their hearts and consciences that they have sinned in any way. And I would concur with them.
Secondly, the correct term for this excommunication is "Latae sententiae" not 'lata sententia'.
My long discourse on the nature of the sacraments was because nobody can "un-catholicize" anyone. People who were excommunicated latae sententiae, are still Catholic. The callous manner of Bishop Olmsted in this case---is doing nothing to evangelize Catholics in his diocese.
It is little wonder that 86% of the baptised Catholics across the Western world have 'given up' on hierarchial Catholicism, and there are today more waiting at the bus stop to leave than there are those waiting at the doors to enter. I am sure that these hierarchs will be chanting 'we were right and everybody else in creation was wrong' when they are being frog-marched into Hades for their thinking and mandating.
Even when the fires have consumed them, they'll still believe they were the ones 'saved' and everyone else had been damned.
Trying to reason with the hierarchs (and you) is a more dificult task than trying to extinguish the sun. Ahhhhhhh, the wonder of having Divine certitude on your side.
"To reptiles and those with
"To reptiles and those with lizard-brains---every thing is black and white."
Fortunately, that list is not exhaustive of those to whom "everything is black and white," nor is that even an accurate representation of anyone I know, even the most legalist among us and other faiths (or no faith). If by "black and white," you mean the acknowledgement of "good and evil," then, yes, I suppose I do embrace that. I will preempt the possibility of someone claiming that I am myself evil by noting that that last sentence opened me up quite nicely for that pathetic claim.
"Again----a person must be named to be excommunicated."
Show me. Let me demonstrate to you what people with fact on their side do:
"Can. 1314 Generally, a penalty is ferendae sententiae, so that it does not bind the guilty party until after it has been imposed; if the law or precept expressly establishes it, however, a penalty is latae sententiae, so that it is incurred ipso facto when the delict is committed."
You are more than welcome to read the rest of the relevant Canons (in addition to paraphrased sources, such as Wikipedia) to confirm this. An excommunication incurred automatically does not require naming.
"I do believe that many of the 'so-called' excommunicated, do not believe in their hearts and consciences that they have sinned in any way. And I would concur with them."
What they believe does not matter as long as it does not diminish culpability. It's not up to the individual to decide whether he is excommunicated (if the infraction is one bearing an automatic excommunication).
"Secondly, the correct term for this excommunication is "Latae sententiae" not 'lata sententia'."
False. Your ignorance is more and more evident each statement. "Lata sententia" is the appropriate term when it is being used adverbially, not adjectively. Please brush up on your Latin, or at least do enough research to be able to hold your own here.
"People who were excommunicated latae sententiae, are still Catholic"
Those incurring a latae sententiae excommunication, or who were excommunicated lata sententia, are indeed still Catholic. I'm glad we established that.
"Trying to reason with the hierarchs (and you) is a more dificult task than trying to extinguish the sun."
I am glad that you recognize the immovable nature of God's will.
Anonymous on Jan. 13,
Anonymous on Jan. 13, 2011.
You stated"
("To reptiles and those with lizard-brains---every thing is black and white."
Fortunately, that list is not exhaustive of those to whom "everything is black and white," nor is that even an accurate representation of anyone I know, even the most legalist among us and other faiths (or no faith). If by "black and white," you mean the acknowledgement of "good and evil," then, yes, I suppose I do embrace that. I will preempt the possibility of someone claiming that I am myself evil by noting that that last sentence opened me up quite nicely for that pathetic claim.
"Again----a person must be named to be excommunicated."
Show me. Let me demonstrate to you what people with fact on their side do:
"Can. 1314 Generally, a penalty is ferendae sententiae, so that it does not bind the guilty party until after it has been imposed; if the law or precept expressly establishes it, however, a penalty is latae sententiae, so that it is incurred ipso facto when the delict is committed."
You are more than welcome to read the rest of the relevant Canons (in addition to paraphrased sources, such as Wikipedia) to confirm this. An excommunication incurred automatically does not require naming.
"I do believe that many of the 'so-called' excommunicated, do not believe in their hearts and consciences that they have sinned in any way. And I would concur with them."
What they believe does not matter as long as it does not diminish culpability. It's not up to the individual to decide whether he is excommunicated (if the infraction is one bearing an automatic excommunication).
"Secondly, the correct term for this excommunication is "Latae sententiae" not 'lata sententia'."
False. Your ignorance is more and more evident each statement. "Lata sententia" is the appropriate term when it is being used adverbially, not adjectively. Please brush up on your Latin, or at least do enough research to be able to hold your own here.
"People who were excommunicated latae sententiae, are still Catholic"
Those incurring a latae sententiae excommunication, or who were excommunicated lata sententia, are indeed still Catholic. I'm glad we established that.
"Trying to reason with the hierarchs (and you) is a more dificult task than trying to extinguish the sun."
I am glad that you recognize the immovable nature of God's will.)
---------------------------------------------------------
Let's cut to the chase. You are a lover of canon law, and are, at the same time, very cognitively rigid.
The use of dominative power, such as excommunications, is nothing more than a type of political power. It tries to influence events or others through coercion, punishment, and threats. It's an illusion that one person (like a bishop) can actually bring about a spiritual change in people by the use of force. God did not create the world or the church for the sake of social order and control. The use of excommunication is nothing but the constant temptation of "Churchianity" to misuse its power and authority.
In the Gospels, Jesus taught that the Apostles/Disciples were to be of service to the people. This was well well-practiced in the time of the Apostles and in the life of Paul. Paul labored, strained, and suffered in order to SERVE his communities. This is especially visible in both letters to the Corinthians.
But over the centuries, many church laws became mutations of Jesus' command of Servant-Leadership. Church laws were borrowed from secular counterparts---until Canon Law altered the very nature and use of authority in the Church.
Our Church adopted an imperial system that needs law, order and clear belonging systems more than it wants mercy, meekness, or transformational systems that are DEMONSTRATED first in the leadership of each diocese---so that the people can see and understand what Jesus taught through the virtues of community, patience, forgiveness and love.
These distortions of authority (as we see from Canon Law) might be compared to an over-grown garden. The whole appearance of the place is changed by growth out of control. The beauty and original plan are so obscured that it looks like only a field of weeds, and no longer like a cherished garden.
What the people who were excommunicated (in Brazil and Phoenix) BELIEVED that they were doing and trying to do---has every bearing upon this issue. Canon Law is NOT SUPERIOR to people's consciences! The doctors, and medical staff were trying to save the life that they could---the mother's life. That was what their consciences told them to do! And they had the understanding (from their medical-ethics study of Canon Law #47) informing them that they were in the right.
Rather than hold onto the obscurities of Canon Law (promulgated in the early 1980's---and when compared to the advancements of medical science---is horribly outdated), the USCCB---and bishops all over the world---ought to re-visit the sectons dealing with medical life and death situations--and bring those sections up to speed. How about consulting the laity WHO are in the field every day for consultaiion and imput? That is one way that the Church Leadership could really be SERVANT-LEADERS to their people.
You stated that the nature of God's Will is immovable. You should have stated that it is YOUR perception---that God's Will is immovable. I'm sure that your concept of the Trinity fits that perception. God, the Father is immovable, angry and distant. Jesus, the Son is the 'Righteous Judge' that we see in the Sistine Chapel (or the Pantocrator that we see in DC's Immaculate Conception Basilica)---and for practical purposes---the Holy Spirit is forgotten. That's not how Jesus described authority.
"But it shall not be so among you. Rather whoever wishes to be great among you shall be your servant, whoever wishes to be first among you shall be your slave. Just so, the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve." (Mt. 20, 26-27; Mk 10:35-45).
Excommunication is the work of using the hammer. And all it does---is to transform people into nails.
"Let's cut to the chase. You
"Let's cut to the chase. You are a lover of canon law, and are, at the same time, very cognitively rigid."
I am hardly cognitively rigid -- in this case, perhaps, but that is not a trait that I hold comprehensively. If we limit the scope of the statement sufficiently, then sure.
"The use of excommunication is nothing but the constant temptation of "Churchianity" to misuse its power and authority."
You are more than welcome to this belief (God gave us all free will).
"Canon Law is NOT SUPERIOR to people's consciences!"
It is if individual conscience is not well-informed. Of course, ignorance in some cases diminishes culpability (as it should).
"God, the Father is immovable, angry and distant. Jesus, the Son is the 'Righteous Judge' that we see in the Sistine Chapel (or the Pantocrator that we see in DC's Immaculate Conception Basilica)---and for practical purposes---the Holy Spirit is forgotten"
What a sad perception of God -- I hope that that is not one you hold. The Holy Spirit is very dear to me.
The Church is beautiful; Christ-like in one way, human in another -- hence the Church's dual nature as She, the Bride of Christ, and it, a collection of human beings under God, as part of His body. If you cannot accept this, then you are missing out on what it means to be Catholic -- to serve others, and to help others. The Church does this. The Pope himself is the Servant of the Servants of God.
Amen Anon! Well answered.
Amen Anon! Well answered. LittleBear likes appealing to the emotional side of things and your have showed him well how foolish he is. The law is not a guideline, it is a law.
By the way little bear, abortion was decided in the 70's. Given our medical advances, shouldn't we revise that too? Like the fact that Children's hearts begin to beat after 3-5 weeks?
Canon law is not empirical and scientific; by suggesting that it should be , LittleBear, you show yourself to be more narrow minded and intransigent than those who you fight.
Janus Lockius on Jan. 30,
Janus Lockius on Jan. 30, 2011.
You stated:
"Amen Anon! Well answered. LittleBear likes appealing to the emotional side of things and your have showed him well how foolish he is. The law is not a guideline, it is a law.
By the way little bear, abortion was decided in the 70's. Given our medical advances, shouldn't we revise that too? Like the fact that Children's hearts begin to beat after 3-5 weeks?
Canon law is not empirical and scientific; by suggesting that it should be , LittleBear, you show yourself to be more narrow minded and intransigent than those who you fight."
--------------------------------------------------------------
Janus Lockius----you would not be such a theorist----if your mother, wife, sister, or daughter was in the situation of this woman in Phoenix.
Canon Law has no means of being updated (thanks to JP II). Therefore it will continue to degrade into meaninglessness for the vast majority of Catholics. You don't know your zoology. All mammals' hearts begin to beat at a very early stage. Not just humans.
Wrong. I believe in dying a
Wrong. I believe in dying a holy person rather than living in such sin.
Talk about semantics!
Talk about semantics! Mr/Mrs/Ms/Rev whoever Anonymous is, is indulging in nothing more than trying to obscure the facts. The facts in this case have clearly been articulated and proven beyond doubt: that the Hospital was totally correct in its decision to save the life of this mother, to do otherwise would have been a gross dereliction of their duty. If they had acted otherwise and decided to let the mother die, what would have been the consequences? Can you imagine the outcry? 'Hospital Let Mother and Baby Die'. 'Hospital Accused of Murder'. The author of this blog hasn't considered the well-being of this family only the ridicules stance taken by the Bishop and the so called Catholic position. I am a Catholic. I go to Mass, I receive the Holy Eucharist and I believe in the Good News. However, I am ashamed that some people (like this anonymous blogger (you can say anything anonymously, where is the courage in that?)) has the temerity to to deny facts, call black white and then lie.
it will come as no surprise that I think this blogger and his Bishop, are loony tunes with absolutely no morality whatsoever.
"If they had acted otherwise
"If they had acted otherwise and decided to let the mother die, what would have been the consequences? Can you imagine the outcry? 'Hospital Let Mother and Baby Die'. 'Hospital Accused of Murder'."
You speak as if those things matter at all. The outcry is irrelevant. Their decision ran contrary to Catholic teaching, period. I'm sorry if that means that they would be derelict in their duties, or that they would be considered neglectful, or so forth. It was against Church teaching; the hospital was understandably reprimanded.
Heartless is the best way to
Heartless is the best way to describe your legalistic attitude towards church doctrine.
It's hardly legalistic. You
It's hardly legalistic. You first have to separate Ms. Manson's "article" into two large points:
1) Whether the Catholic teaching is correct
2) Whether the Church should uphold Her own teaching
In the instances you claim I am "heartless," I am merely invoking causality, i.e., my answer to question two is, "Yes." The hospital acted against Church teaching and should be reprimanded.
I also, as an aside, believe that the Church teaching is correct. It is their for a reason. The "legalist" attitude is hardly that, although it is clear that you, among others, misunderstand it whenever it is polemically convenient for you to do so. Rather, I already accept that the law and the justification thereof is correct, and therefore have no problem applying that same law, particularly when it is absolute, as is the case with abortion.
Please excuse my egregious
Please excuse my egregious typo, "their" should obviously be "there."
Catholic teaching in this
Catholic teaching in this particular area is, at best, confused if not downright hypocritical. An honest casuistry doesn't even come into play.
To address an ectopic pregnancy inside the fallopian tube, for example, it is necessary, per Rome, to cut and remove the section of the tube containing the human conceptus --- even though it is possible today to open the tube, remove the fertilized egg, repair the tube, and send the woman home. The Vatican, however, declares it is necessary to inflict permanent surgical damage to the mother --- even though the problem can be (or is?) the conceptus, not the tube since nothing is wrong with the fallopian tube! In spite of this medical knowledge, Rome insists the tube must be permanently damaged and rendered useless!!!!!
If I remember, it was only sometime in the early 1900s that the Vatican accepted the (then) controversial suggestion that the principle of "double effect" could encompass the surgical removal of the tube containing the human conceptus.
In light of new medical knowledge and advances in surgical treatment, will Rome change its position on this kind of treatment?
Ain't holdin' my breath.
In the meantime, I suspect, devout Catholic women with tubal pregnancies will apparently continue to endure permanent bodily damage in order to satisfy Rome's medically outdated (and hypocritical) approach to being "morally proper" in such cases.
"And Jesus wept."
Anonymous on Jan. 13,
Anonymous on Jan. 13, 2011.
You stated:
"It's hardly legalistic. You first have to separate Ms. Manson's "article" into two large points:
1) Whether the Catholic teaching is correct
2) Whether the Church should uphold Her own teaching
In the instances you claim I am "heartless," I am merely invoking causality, i.e., my answer to question two is, "Yes." The hospital acted against Church teaching and should be reprimanded.
I also, as an aside, believe that the Church teaching is correct. It is their for a reason. The "legalist" attitude is hardly that, although it is clear that you, among others, misunderstand it whenever it is polemically convenient for you to do so. Rather, I already accept that the law and the justification thereof is correct, and therefore have no problem applying that same law, particularly when it is absolute, as is the case with abortion."
-----------------------------------------------
Canon Law will continue to viewed and understood as legalistic as long as it refuses to recognize that the elements of human culture and science (in this case medical practice which proceeds from medical science) are nothing more than descriptors. Human culture, understanding, and science are evolving much faster than the official Church is able to respond (or even tries to respond).
The Church is failing to recognize that there are multiple factors in our culture which constitute the reality of the human community, which is also a graced community of faith, hope, and love. Those called to the ministry of canonists should be on guard that Canon Law does not become an instrument that either fetters freedom, or becomes an instrument of domination, despotism, coercion, intimidation, and control that stifles the Spirit.
From Vatican Council II---the Document "Gaudium et Spes" affirmed the "rightful independence of science". Medicine is a branch of science that has traveled light years since Vatican Council II. It has also moved way beyond the medical understandings of pathological conditions that can afflict pregnant women---that were known when Pope John Paul II promulgated the revised Canon Law in 1983.
The fact that Bishop Olmsted termed this procedure as "an abortion" is incorrect. An abortion has as its main focus and main focus only---the removal of the fetus---period. There are no mitigating circumstances---surrounding this decision. Abortions are procured because the gender of the child is not the desired one, or the child was conceived at the wrong time in a relationship, or the child will be a financial burden, or even---the child has Downs Syndrome (or some other medical disorder). None of these are lawful reasons to have an abortion.
However, in the case of the woman at St. Joseph Hospital in Phoenix, she was in a life-and-death situation---her life or her death. And no hospital---Catholic, Lutheran, Methodist, Jewish, or secular may merely stand by and allow a patient (in trauma) to die. That is the civil law. And the medical staff believed with their collective understanding and within their consciences that Canon Law also permitted them, in this instance, to work to save the life of the mother---even though the life of the fetus might be ended (if it wasn't already from the lack of oxygen because of the woman's condition).
In 'Gaudium et Spes' the Vatican Council's teaching affirmed the Catholic tradition on conscience, more that it developed it. The position can be described as the "ultimacy" of personal conscience, rather then its "primacy." It stated:
"Deep within their conscience individuals discover a law which they do not make for themselves but which they are bound to obey, whose voice, ever summoning them to love and do what is good and avoid what is evil, rings in their hearts when necessary with the command: Do this, keep away from that. For inscribed in their hearts by God, human beings have a law whose ovservance is their dignity and in accordance with which they are to be judged. Conscience is the most intimate center and sanctuary of a person, in which he or she is alone with God whose voice echoes within them." (GS 16)
And from "Dignitatis Humane" (December 7, 1965), we read:
"People grasp and acknowledge the precepts of the divine law by means of their own consciences, which they are bound to follow faithfully in all their activity so as to come to God, their end." (DH 3)
"Dignitatis Humane's" teaching has unmistakable implications for the Church's own inner life and operartions. The same respect, forbearance, and freedom to act and search for truth that the Church demands from civil governments must also be shown within the Church itself.
Bishop Olmsted wrongly ASSUMED that Sister Margaret advised and the medical staff, with evil intent, performed "an abortion." By stating that they all incurred excommunication because of this act, he demonstrated a tragic hostility, and a complete lack of understanding and compassion for the situation all were in (the woman, her husband, children, the medical staff and Sister Margaret)with the precious minutes of the woman's life ticking away.
Sister Margaret and the medical staff consulted quickly together. 'Dignitatis Humane' teaches that "the liberty or freedom from coercion in religion (and by religious officials) which is proper to all persons must also be allowed them when they act together (in communi agentibus)." (DH 4)
"There cannot be a tie in this debate. Until this point of time, you have not acknowledged my authority to settle this question"---words of Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted on December 15, 2010-----shows him to be either a hierarchial tyrant or mentally unbalanced----or both.
Dear God! If you are so
Dear God!
If you are so knowledgeable about "Catholicism 101," would you kindly spell your Latin terms correctly when you fling them about at others? It would build some credibility when you admonish others to do "basic research please." It is "Latae sententiae". You make it sound like something you can buy at Starbucks.
Latæ sententiæ is a Latin term used in the canon law of the Catholic Church meaning literally "given (already passed) sentence".
Dear R.F.L.L., You clearly do
Dear R.F.L.L.,
You clearly do not love Latin enough. "Lata sententia" is the adverbial form of "latae sententiae" (the adjectival form). I used it thus and was therefore correct.
Feel free to dig yourself deeper into a hole.
Haha. Can you even prove that
Haha. Can you even prove that those "fleeing" were faithful in the first place?
When talking about, dealing with and feeling what those "fleeing" faithful are suffering and how we share in that suffering, "Haha" reeks of inhumane and inhuman response. If I in any way occassioned such a feeling in my family, please forgive me. I am not a "fleeing" individual. I am lingering, wounded and asking tolerance. I am one of those sinners Jesus came to heal, forgive and save.
My soul is restless until it rests in You.
Paz y bien, Rolando, SFO.
*"GIRL" should be mother.
*"GIRL" should be mother.
Anonymous, You wrote:
Anonymous,
You wrote: “Whatever they may have claimed they were employing, their actions were in direct conflict with Church teaching.”
.
Latae sententiae excommunication for abortion, and the associated "current teaching”, has NOT always been the teaching of the Church or the thinking of the Church fathers. It has very political origins during the impaired papacy of Pius IX. Read your ecclesial history.
.
You wrote: “They would not have actively killed the mother had they not performed the abortion. “
.
WRONG. Failure to intervene and save the one life you can save, is a choice to do nothing and let that one life die. Doing nothing is an active choice, a choice to accept the one preventable death of the mother in addition to the inevitable death of the fetus (both were dying), and you cannot excuse yourself from what would have been medical negligence. It IS “active” killing of the mother, and in the worst case scenario could be prosecuted as negligent homicide. At the least, it would be gross medical malpractice.
.
You wrote: “Direct abortion is not allowed, period. The context is completely irrelevant. …He [Olmsted] was simply acting as a Catholic.”
.
Wrong again. Context is everything, even more so in medical ethics. Your legalistic (and simplistic) notions have only one purpose: to service Church law to the letter. It shows no regard for the human reality having no perfect outcome, rather than doing the least harm in the given situation. The least harm is to save the one life it is possible to save. Our Lord told us that God’s law is to be in service of humanity, not humanity in service of the law. You (and Olmsted) speak like the religious leaders of Jesus’ day, and we know the scathing rebukes he heaped upon them for their legalism and lack of concern for the suffering. Perhaps Olmsted should have focused more on “acting as” a CHRISTIAN instead of a "Catholic" Canon Lawyer.
.
You wrote: “He didn't even excommunicate her. She excommunicated herself via a lata sententia [sic] excommunication.”
.
Wrong again. It was the way the law of the Church was written — a law written by human men obsessed with controlling women’s reproductive organs — that pronounces the penalty without so much as five minutes of a hearing on the circumstances of the case. It is mindless and blind to human suffering. A layperson has absolutely NO power or authority to excommunicate themselves or to lift an excommunication. Catholic prelates wrote that unjust law and they can't weasel out of owning it. A woman who cannot gestate to term is condemned to death without even a trial — Period. There is NO justice in that, or any other law that forces a woman to choose between excommunication or a death sentence. Further, it has NOT always been the law of the Church. Again, read your ecclesial history… and not the sanitized Vatican version related to this unjust law. The religious leaders of Jesus’ day loved to intone “our law says…” right before some hapless person was to be put to death. They used similar words to call for the death of the Lord of the Church. Legalism can, and does, kill both body and soul.
.
You wrote: “Can you even prove that those "fleeing" were faithful in the first place? I don't see any unrest among the faithful whatsoever.”
.
Actually, I know of many who are faithful but ultimately fled from abusive prelates to save both their faith and their sanity. If you see no unrest, perhaps blind obedience is workable for some who are given to authoritarian rulers. Perhaps some have become victims of a kind of Stockholm Syndrome… the powerless beginning to sympathize with their captors and their harsh rules. Or perhaps you yourself are simply unwilling to see what is actually happening. Read Ezekiel 34 — the prophetic voices still speak to us today. Nothing has really changed among hireling shepherds, and the Lord of the Church is not caught off guard. His Holy Spirit is continuing to move among laity while Vatican clericalism is crumbling from dry rot.
.
"has NOT always been the
"has NOT always been the teaching of the Church or the thinking of the Church fathers. It has very political origins during the impaired papacy of Pius IX. Read your ecclesial history."
First, I don't need to -- it is against current Church teaching. I am perfectly aware of the origins of the articulation of incurred excommunication on account of abortion, as I am aware of various stages of Church teaching thereupon. Research on theology relating to abortion, however, will yield results -- early Church fathers also spoke against abortion. I am more than welcome to provide quotations upon request.
Basic research anon, I hate
Basic research anon, I hate to disappoint you but the nine year old girl was not excommunicated. According to the Bishop of Recife only her mother and doctors were. But then maybe the Bishop got it wrong and a faithful bishop like Olmstead would have excommunicated the nine year old as well.
Anonymous, real brave, my
Anonymous, real brave, my sister and her family (all having went to Catholic grammar, high school and college) all went to the Episcopal Church for Christmas Mass due to Olmstead's actions. May he be judged as he judges.
My prayers go out for you who
My prayers go out for you who has chosen outdated and short-sighted laws in favor of the teachings of Jesus the Christ. There is nothing moral in your diatribe and your "haha" in the last paragraph is downright childish. Furthermore, if you have not seen any "fleeing" it is because you have your head in the sand.
You see no unrest? You are
You see no unrest? You are blind.
anonymous diatribe!
anonymous diatribe!
You are not my church.
You are not my church.
You have no clue what you are
You have no clue what you are talking about on any count. First of all within 24 hours of this so-called "excommunication" Sr. Margaret McBride was cleared of any wrongdoing and in full communion with the Roman Catholic Church, from which she had never been removed. Secondly, if your concept of Eucharist is a tiny host, you are also, sadly mistaken. There will always be Eucharist in that hospital, probably more unfettered than ever whenever a person comforts the sick, tends to the grieving, and renders the presence of Christ to anyone. The day of Olmstead and his band of idiots is over. He is mad because he was made a fool of, by his own doing. Rave on, you have no idea! Check the facts, fool. I am sure Sr. Margaret will be back in her old job very soon. Might I add, she was never removed from the hospital.....or the Mercys. How about that!!!
Thank you for providing such
Thank you for providing such a reasoned argument for why no rational person would ever be or continue to be Catholic.
Jamie, at the end of your
Jamie, at the end of your column, you wrote:
"Though St. Joseph’s can no longer call itself Catholic, it heralds a new vision of church.
Its break with the diocese is a moment of groundbreaking promise. By continuing the heart of its mission, the hospital will practice as a true community living out the sacraments.
Though they will be denied the opportunity to celebrate the Eucharist, the Eucharist will rise out of St. Joseph’s every time the sick are healed, the frightened are comforted, the lonely are visited, the weak are fed, and vigil is kept over the dying."
*********************************************
But the Bishop has CANNON LAW on his side------he WON. All that St. Joseph's Hospital community has are the corporal works of mercy, the words of Jesus, and acts of love towards others! The community fought the LAW and the law won! Now, every Christian needs to take a position, as you suggested, are we going to follow the dogma and doctrine of the LAW or are we going to follow the example of Jesus and love and take care of one another.
It seems to me that this is the very question that Jesus asked his wannabe followers 2000 years ago. Are we going to take a stand with Jesus against the dogmatists and hierarchs [Scribes and Pharisees] or are we going to abandon him to those who promote the rules and regulations over love and compassion? It's a Jesus question and deserves a Jesus response-------one that cannot be found in a Cannon Law manual. Thank you so much, Jamie, for your Christian thinking!
Jamie, When one read's the
Jamie,
When one read's the Marquette theologians 24 page ethical discussion of this subject, it seems that Bishop Olmstead is mistaken when he uses canon law to support his tyrannical decision.
R. Dennis Porch, MD
When one read's the Marquette
When one read's the Marquette theologians 24 page ethical discussion of this subject, it seems that Bishop Olmstead is mistaken when he uses canon law to support his tyrannical decision.
---------------------------
I could not agree more. The hospital ethics committee says this wasn't an abortion and explained their reasoning. The canon law expert who reviewed their decision agreed and extensively documented relevant law and reasoning.
The Bishop just says "You're all wrong".
To me, St Joseph's people appear to be rational adults and the Bishop appears to be a petulant child.
If nothing else, Bishop Olmstead is seriously deliquent in his duties as a member of the Magisterium, the duty to teach. A significant number of people who are very knowledgable about canon law came to a conclusion opposite to that of the Bishop. The Bishop has an obligaton to teach by explaining in detail where and how they are wrong. He has not done this. He cannot meet this obligation simply by saying "You're wrong".
What is supposed to happen when a similar situation next happens? The only conclusion I can draw is that the hospital should do only palliative treatments and leave it to God whether the woman and/or baby survive.
What should the woman do in a similar case? Apparently allowing the placenta to be removed is automatic excommunicaton for an abortion. Refusing to allow it is suicide.
(Or at least the Church used to teach that life is a gift from God and not defending it is spurning the gift. As a historical note, a sermon given in Philadelphia in 1747 unequivocally equated the failure to defend ones life with suicide:
He that suffers his life to be taken from him by one that hath no authority for that purpose, when he might preserve it by defense, incurs the Guilt of self murder since God hath enjoined him to seek the continuance of his life, and Nature itself teaches every creature to defend itself. )
Bishop Olmstead owes all of us clarification.
"Now, every Christian needs
"Now, every Christian needs to take a position, as you suggested, are we going to follow the dogma and doctrine of the LAW or are we going to follow the example of Jesus and love and take care of one another. "
The decisions are one and the same -- following the law is following Christ and loving and taking care of one another.
Anonymous on Jan. 04,
Anonymous on Jan. 04, 2011.
You stated:
("Now, every Christian needs to take a position, as you suggested, are we going to follow the dogma and doctrine of the LAW or are we going to follow the example of Jesus and love and take care of one another. "
The decisions are one and the same -- following the law is following Christ and loving and taking care of one another.)
-------------------------------------------
Too often for Catholics, the temptation has often been to substitute conformity to church regulations for obedience to Christ and the law of the Holy Spirit.
The law of the Spirit is the "new law," the law of grace, and is identified with the presence and activity of the Spirit within us. That is, the law of the Spirit is not a set of morms outside of us, but a new source of energy, a dynamism within us. This is the "law" that is life-giving, the "observance" which leads to salvation.
The Epistle of James refers to this saving word of Christ as "the perfect law of liberty" (Jas 1, 25). It should make Christians "doers of the word" and not self-deluded hearers only. Peering into this "law of liberty" should lead to action. Reflecting on it should free true disciples to carry out the law in practice, to care for orphans and widows, to show mercy, and in doing so to obtain God's blessing.
Freedom is central to the new law, the law of grace. It is not only freedom FROM an old law which provoked transgressions (and those who slavishly follow Canon Law do commit many transgressions as well), it is a freedom FOR service and love. Christians have been set free to love one another in Christ, to "love one another as I have loved you" (Jn 15, 12). The church itself must always harken to the declaration that, "where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom" (2 Cor 3, 17).
"Too often for Catholics, the
"Too often for Catholics, the temptation has often been to substitute conformity to church regulations for obedience to Christ and the law of the Holy Spirit."
Again, you speak as if they are different -- Church teaching in many (not all) cases allows some leniency. To deny that it is worth following at all is undermining God's will. Obedience to the Church that Christ instituted is obedience to Christ himself.
Anonymous on Jan. 13,
Anonymous on Jan. 13, 2011.
You stated:
("Too often for Catholics, the temptation has often been to substitute conformity to church regulations for obedience to Christ and the law of the Holy Spirit."
Again, you speak as if they are different -- Church teaching in many (not all) cases allows some leniency. To deny that it is worth following at all is undermining God's will. Obedience to the Church that Christ instituted is obedience to Christ himself.)
---------------------------------------------------
They are absolutely different. Jesus DID NOT institute the institutional, monarchial Church that we have today. This was purely the result of human politics, the desire for power. And this has nothing to do with how Christ commanded the Apostles to carry out their leadership.
The official Church cannot continue to survive today by keeping within its own enclaves---and avoiding really interacting with the rest of the world. By interacting, I mean really listening to what it has to say. There is plenty of sinful behavior in the world. But the Church is also guilty of this---and by Church---I mean the leadership.
This kind of behavior, attitude, and example is contrary to Jesus' life and example. In fact, the official Church---has violated Christ's example and commands for centuries. Its leadership is power-crazed! It resembles the Jewish leadership at the time of Christ, more than it dares to admit. And it will have to answer to the Holy Spirit---who has been leading the membership to realize that the Laity---must take over and set the Church back into the footsteps of Jesus.
"They are absolutely
"They are absolutely different. Jesus DID NOT institute the institutional, monarchial Church that we have today. This was purely the result of human politics, the desire for power. And this has nothing to do with how Christ commanded the Apostles to carry out their leadership."
Sorry -- I thought we were confining the debate to Catholicism. As a Catholic, I believe that God did institute the institutional, hierarchical/clerical Church, and that the work of the apostles and that of the Church are intertwined; Christ's commandments for evangelizing and stewarding are perfectly embodied in the Church as the Bride of Christ.
"By interacting, I mean really listening to what it has to say."
The Church absolutely listens. If you are unable to see this, then the problem is your hidebound mentality or your ignorance, not the Church's alleged retreat into itself (speaking about the humans). The point of the Church is to be of this world but at the same time to be above it. Faith with no basis in reality and the social context has little value. The Church recognizes this. On the other hand, relativism is not synonymous with understanding.
Your vitriol is as misplaced as it is saddening... I hope that you open yourself fully to Christ in the future and realize the gift He has given us in His Church.
"[F]acts, as history teaches,
"[F]acts, as history teaches, carry more weight than pure doctrine" (Joseph Ratzinger, THEOLOGICAL HIGHLIGHTS OF VATICAN II, Paulist Press/Deus Books, 1966, p. 16; reprinted 2010).
Historical fact trumps (non-infallible) doctrinal belief.
Always.
Your comments reflect non-infallible doctrinal belief, not historical fact.
Jesus delivered the good news of our salvation and asked his disciples to preach this message to others. The institutional church with all its hierarchical trappings, etc., on the other hand, was a human creation to carry forth the gospel message.
Don't confuse doctrine with history.
Not the same.
"The decisions are one and
"The decisions are one and the same -- following the law is following Christ and loving and taking care of one another."
Do you not recall Jesus performing healing miracles on the Sabbath, and being challenged on it by the scribes and Pharisees? Canon Law is man made law, any way you cut it! Law made by celibate men with red hats with nary a woman with a voice in the room.
Amen. Amen to every word of
Amen. Amen to every word of that. You said everything I've been thinking while reading these comments. I've been wondering why no one else brought up these points.
What is the fuss about Canon Law? What about Jesus's life? What about what he taught? What about what he DID? Forget Canon Law. Be a Christian, for God's sake. And I'm not blaspheming. I really mean that we should be Christians for God's sake.
When did people of faith start putting Catholic regulations above being Christ-followers? Nevermind. That's a question whose ramifications I see every day. I live in a city full of disillusioned atheists in the middle of Europe. They got disgusted with this sort of thing a long time ago. Beware. These tiny squabbles add up.
Anonymous, this is clearly a
Anonymous, this is clearly a case where the two are not the same! The law, according to the bishop, requires that the mother's life cannot be saved if it includes the death of the child. The fine medical points regarding the mother's life and the child's life revolve around legalistic thinking. If we move out of that legalistic mindset and allow the mindset of Jesus to govern ["The law was made for mankind, not mankind for the law."] while we reflect spiritually on his life of LOVE and COMPASSION, I think we will draw a different conclusion than if we simply search in a Canon Law Manual to find an answer. This was the point of Jesus saying that "I do not want your rituals and sacrifices, I want your hearts." This is a whole different ballgame than anything that had gone before Jesus where laws, rituals, and sacrifices were the norm. Jesus wants our HEARTS, our lives, our souls, our love-----------we make serious decisions with him as our life partner NOT with a law book as our best friend!
It's not legalistic. The law
It's not legalistic. The law is not their arbitrarily or randomly. It is their because people listened to God and the Holy Spirit and trusted in the divine institution of the Church. You only claim "legalism" because it happens to be the law. There are certainly legalists following it because they have a blind adherence to the law, but they are not wrong on that count. There are many more -- the Church hierarchy included -- who point to the fact that it is the law as yet another piece of evidence for that position, which was thought out and reasoned and justified in myriad Church documents, all publicly available.
Love and compassion give rise to Church teaching. The Church teaches what is true after identifying it as such; it recognizes, and does not create, God's order.
Anonymous on Jan. 13,
Anonymous on Jan. 13, 2011.
You stated:
"It's not legalistic. The law is not their arbitrarily or randomly. It is their because people listened to God and the Holy Spirit and trusted in the divine institution of the Church. You only claim "legalism" because it happens to be the law. There are certainly legalists following it because they have a blind adherence to the law, but they are not wrong on that count. There are many more -- the Church hierarchy included -- who point to the fact that it is the law as yet another piece of evidence for that position, which was thought out and reasoned and justified in myriad Church documents, all publicly available.
Love and compassion give rise to Church teaching. The Church teaches what is true after identifying it as such; it recognizes, and does not create, God's order."
-------------------------------------------------------------
Canon Law was first compiled after Constantine---and was used to combine both civil and church regulations into one body of law.
The 'people' (laity) had absolutely no, no input into the formulation of Canon Law---even the revised form of 1983. And this revised form is obsolete in certain points---especially in those that govern what is and is not permissible in the area of medical procedures.
In the distant past, the people were largely uneducated and could not participate in the formulation of Church law. That is no longer the situation. Pope Leo XIII in 'Libertas praestantissimum' refers to lay people as the 'untutored or ignorant multitude that must be led and protected by the ruler' (whether civil or religious).
This seems to be the same attitude of Pope Benedict XVI who tried to silence Hans Kung in a sermon by stating that "the Christian believer is a simple person: bishops should protect the faith of these little people against the power of intellectuals."
What an insult to a large majority of people who are far from being 'untutored, ignorant or little people" (mentally puny?)!
We, in America, living under a democratic form of govenment, engender expectations of a similar exercise of authority in the church. Democracy is internalized and deeply ingrained in the American psyche. And IT DOES have an effect on a people's sense of ligitimate authority, rights of participation, justice and fairness, autonomy, and personal responsibility.
A few years ago, I was having a discussion with the Vicar General of my Diocese. At one point, he stated the old axiom "well the Church isn't a democracy, you know." He almost fell off of his chair when I told him, "that's because the official Church has hated democracy since it became the form of government of modern nations."
The dignity and respect of each individual person---(not just a collective group), must be defended by the Church. And the people who are governed by Church laws---must have great imput to formulating Church Law (particularly those laws that affect their lives). That was a belief of John Cardinal Newman. It shocks Church officials just as much today as it did in Newman's time.
Mon Dieu, Romano! The "Bishop
Mon Dieu, Romano!
The "Bishop has CANNON LAW on his side?" Oh, dear, what is this, some form of gun control legislation? You refer to "Cannon Law" twice. Is it possible that you mean, "Canon Law"? If you follow the doctrine and dogma so scrupulously, if not to the letter (pun intended), perhaps you could spell the main topic and focus of your undivided devotion correctly!
That bishop...he does want us to think he has big--uh--guns, though, right?
Is that the best you can
Is that the best you can contribute to this thread? I strongly suspect so.
Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea
Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa! You are absolutely right to correct my spelling error, perhaps there was some Freudian slip there with my spelling. I am afraid though with your obsessive attention to detail, you missed my SARCASM! My entire comment was meant to be sarcastic towards the good Bishop and totally supportive of Ms. Manson.
To be very clear, without any stylistic flourishes: Jesus is a God of LOVE and COMPASSION. The only time we ever see any negativity coming from him is when he addresses those, who in their devotion to the LAW, miss out on MERCY and LOVE. As he told us, "the law was made for mankind, not mankind for the law".
Perhaps St.Joseph's can no
Perhaps St.Joseph's can no longer claim to be "Catholic", but it can proudly declare itself Christian for seeing Jesus in the big picture and for following him. Thank God for the common sense and love shown by the hospital.
How many wake up calls does the hierarchy need?
They have absolutely no
They have absolutely no reason to not claim to be Catholic! However, they should not claim to be Olmsted Catholic.
Canon Law??? Whats that???
Canon Law??? Whats that???
It is of the hierarchs, by
It is of the hierarchs, by the hierarchs, and for the hierarchs.
And Raymond Burke's ascendancy to the top of Rome's legal apparatus is ample proof of this sad state of affairs.
Pharisees all.
And Burke the "Pharisee of All Pharisees".
Dot, 'Canon Law' is that tool
Dot, 'Canon Law' is that tool that the Bishops and hierarchs use to avoid being Christian. It is a carry-over from Judaism and all other pre-Christian religions. It allows non-Christians to avoid the unpleasant work of trying to think and act as Christ would act. In other words, from a Christian viewpoint, it is a cop-out!
Jesus didn't know anything
Jesus didn't know anything about CANNON LAW. He rejected the harsh "cannon law" of the Jews. And he gave us a new commandment, remember? "Love one another as I have loved you." And that's all the cannon law we need. And the staff of St. Joseph followed that law.
And I am sure that if
And I am sure that if requested patients will still be given the Eucharist from their local pastors and extraordinary ministers. There will be plenty of room for Jesus at St. Joe's. He'll just be in places where the bishop, like a pharisee, can't find Him.
Congratulations--another
Congratulations--another breathtakingly obtuse sleight-of-hand, in which the FACT that a hospital KILLED A CHILD is left on the cutting room floor like so much edited film....
UN-believable. Apparently ALL the other facts are important, EXCEPT for the fact that people who are supposed to SAVE lives KILLED SOMEONE to save a life.
But that's okay--right? It's OK to kill an innocent someone as long as we "save" an innocent someone at the same time--right?
Better to let both die. Is
Better to let both die. Is that your solution, Anonymous?
Actually YES If that were to
Actually YES
If that were to have transpired, then it would have been better. It is always better to let God be God instead of trying to play God ourselves.
The hospital staff who killed the child are not infallible tellers of the future. They can only give probabilities, not CERTAINTIES.
There is no certainty that a child or mother will both die in these situations--there is only an estimated possibility that this could happen.
BUT, even if we know with certainty that this is *going* to happen, WE don't get to play God and kill an innocent child to save the mother.
Similarly, take, for example, a deranged kidnapper holding a mother and a child hostage, saying convincingly to the police that, if they don't shoot and kill the child, the kidnapper will kill BOTH mother and child before the police can stop him.
Are you really trying to tell me that, under those circumstances, the police should just kill the child to save the mom from the kidnapper?
Really???
Apparently so. God help us.
Apparently so.
God help us.
Post new comment