The Independent News Source
NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
Printer-friendly version
PDF versionThe bishops have lost control
by Phyllis Zagano on Feb. 02, 2011
It’s not just in Phoenix, where Bishop Thomas Olmstead erased “Catholic” from the identity of St. Joseph Hospital. That’s only the latest public issue, some would say scandal, to hit the headlines. A lot of folks could care less what any bishop thinks, and it’s happening all over.
You know the Phoenix story: a twenty-something woman, pregnant with her fifth child, was hospitalized with pulmonary hypertension. The placenta of her 11-week pregnancy was pumping out progesterone, in turn damaging her heart. The medical opinion at the time: continue the pregnancy and they both die. The hospital ethics committee concurred. So the hospital allowed the procedure. The mother lived. The baby died.
One can argue the particulars forever. Once the Phoenix situation hit the news an obviously angry game of “My Ethicist Can Beat Up Your Ethicist” began. Opinions flew, literally, left and right. At the time it allowed termination of the pregnancy, the hospital ruled it an indirect abortion and a necessary medical procedure. After the fact, the bishop called it a direct abortion.
Each side has dug in its heels. The fight will continue in general and scholarly journals, and in the press. It does not make anybody look good.
From the outside looking in there are several points.
First, no matter nice letters between the presidents of the Catholic Health Association and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. It seems the bishop and by extension “the bishops” have lost control of medical ethics in general and Catholic health care in particular. The bishop of Phoenix had to declare a hospital (after 116 years) is no longer Catholic because he cannot convince its administrators to comply with his understanding of Catholic health care requirements.
Second, it appears a large segment of the medical and ethical community, in and out of Arizona, agrees with the hospital’s determination. The hospital most forcefully states it attempts to save the lives of both, but in this case only the life of the mother could be saved.
Third, and we cannot forget this very difficult point, a woman religious who was a member of the ethics committee received a formal notification that her compliance with the procedure incurred a latae sententiae excommunication. We don’t know if any of the other six or eight ethics consult team members got the boot. Neither the bishop nor the hospital will say.
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.
Here we go again. In 1984 or so I was snowed in at a conference in Bloomington, Ind., along with Mercy Sr. Agnes Mary Mansour. In 1983, with her bishop’s permission, she became director of the Michigan Department of Social Services. When push came to shove, Mansour supported Medicaid funding for abortion.
That sent the hierarchy into a swivet. Anthony J. Bevilacqua, now the retired cardinal archbishop of Philadelphia and then an auxiliary bishop in Brooklyn, was the Vatican emissary who gave Mansour 10 minutes to decide whether to leave her job or her religious community. I remember her explanation quite clearly. She spoke quietly, as the pounding snow closed roads and airports. The poor, she said, deserved equal access to abortion. She had to leave her community. When she left her state job in 1987, Mansour became an advisor to Mercy Health Services Special Initiative to the Poor.
Which brings us back to Arizona. In the mid-1980s Catholic hospitals in Arizona sponsored an initiative called the Mercy Care Plan, essentially a means of obtaining Medicaid funding. As it stands now, and until 2013, these hospitals are locked into a state program that provides coverage for direct sterilization, IUDs, and “medically necessary” abortions, administered by and contracted out to third-party providers. Looks like a bit of a mess to me.
So, where was the bishop of Phoenix when all this was getting started? Where were the rest of the bishops? About 25 years ago abortion became the single issue in the Catholic identity crisis. There was, as now, lots of political blather one way and the other. There was, as now, precious little serious teaching on the matter reaching the church as a whole.
The result? It’s called “invincible ignorance.” If Bishop Olmstead is correct, and the medical procedure was an unnecessary and direct abortion, then objectively speaking the ethics consult team members voted the wrong way. However, they never would have gone against their consciences. So they would be guilty — at most — of invincible ignorance.
So, if this was a direct abortion, who is ultimately responsible? The problem is not with the ethics consult team. It’s with the bishop, his predecessors, and his confreres who are unconvincing and increasingly ignored in matters of faith and morals.
[Phyllis Zagano is senior research associate-in-residence at Hofstra University and author of several books in Catholic Studies. Her book Women & Catholicism will be published by Palgrave-Macmillan in 2011.]
| Editor's Note: We can send you an e-mail alert every time Phyllis Zagano's column, "Just Catholic," 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 "Phyllis Zagano" to your list. |
WAY TO GO, PHYLLIS!
WAY TO GO, PHYLLIS!
Take Heart; Hierarchy
Take Heart; Hierarchy stupidity and un-Christlike activities hasten the demise of this corrupt feudal-monarchy, which needs to die. Let's Hospice our Church.
There are so many pictures of Olmsted in his mitres, one might think he sleeps in one; even wore one visiting prisoners!
There are so many pictures of
There are so many pictures of Olmsted in his mitres, one might think he sleeps in one; even wore one visiting prisoners!
--------------------------------------------------------------
Somebody forgot to tell the bishop, he's wearing a clown hat. I wonder if he has one with pearls and jewels in it like B16?
"...even wore one visiting
"...even wore one visiting prisoners!"
OMG!
The system of determining
The system of determining church teaching is broken. Theologians with any paying job are loathe to honestly address doctrinal development in every conceivable area because of possible recriminations - they have families to support.
This leaves the Magisterium at a double loss: the loss of much-needed scholarship to aid them in their teaching and governing of the Church, and the loss of credibility and power as they scramble piteously to uphold and enforce underdeveloped doctrines. All the players know they are at a stalemate.
Thank you for this article.
Thank you for this article. In my wildest imagination I cannot wrap my head around the idea that it is ok, in any shape or form, to allow a mother of 4 living children to die when there are means to save her, even if it means the termination of her 11 week old fetus who would not survive anyway in such circumstances.. What kind of church would condemn a mother to death? As a practicing Catholic and a health care provider, the answer seems too terrible to believe and it shakes my faith in Catholicism to the core. One wonders: who is the ignorant one?
Our faith is not to be in
Our faith is not to be in Catholicism, but in Christ Jesus, and him crucified. Faith in an institution is, I believe, always misplaced. We can certainly attest to faith in what the institution represents at its best, but institutions are human devices. If our faith is in them,it is in false gods!
Our faith should be in the
Our faith should be in the truth and only the truth. The rest is simply conjecture and superstition.
Amen!
Amen!
Mansour was a perfect name
Mansour was a perfect name for Sister Agnes. She was sour on men.
Anonymous on Feb. 02,
Anonymous on Feb. 02, 2011.
You stated:
"Mansour was a perfect name for Sister Agnes. She was sour on men."
--------------------------------------------------
And you had personal dealings with her to verify that??? Or is that something that you only see from within your labyrinths of distorted mirrors?
What possible difference
What possible difference could that make to your life?
If you think the Church
If you think the Church and/or U.S. bishops have not consistently spoken against abortion, I'm afraid you're the one who's invincibly ignorant. Most Catholics would say they've heard more about abortion than they cared to, and that the bishops' messages border on monotony, not subtlety. I think Bishop Olmsted acted unwisely in the Phoenix case, but to argue that he had not made known the Church's teaching about abortion, either in Phoenix or in his previous assignment in Wichita, is dishonest. As the physicians who blog here have said repeatedly, the issue should have been decided by medical ethicists, not bishops asserting control. I hope we listen to medical ethicists as time goes on, and let go of the us vs. them games.
It's not about what they
It's not about what they said--it's about whether anyone listened.
And what happens, Robert G,
And what happens, Robert G, when those "medical ethicists" don't share our Catholic Christians beliefs???
Milbo, I want to try and
Milbo, I want to try and gently ask those reading this article respectfully: What happens when those medical ethicists (no quotes; they're for real, and they don't deserve to be mocked) DO share our beliefs and find themselves in the position of discerning a medical outcome different than what a bishop might mandate?
Kent, I guess we will have to
Kent, I guess we will have to wait until that situation occurs. As of yet, I'm not sure that the situation you propose has occured.
Not invincibly ignorant but
Not invincibly ignorant but just plain ignorant!
Phyllis, you make a lot of
Phyllis, you make a lot of sense. When your book comes out, I'll be sure to get a copy and I'll share it with my friends. Thanks for this article.
Here's my problem with the
Here's my problem with the bishops....they sat by for YEARS and allowed children to be raped doing NOTHING to protect them or help them heal....instead THEY were treated with scorn and disbelief and the priests that RAPED them were treated with compassion and another chance, at another parish, to do it all over again. Teachers of faith and morals???? I think not....not ever again.
The DA in Philadelphia has
The DA in Philadelphia has charged Monsignor William Lynn for transferring problem priests who raped boys to other parishes. Monsignor Lynn was not involved in the rapes. The other local DAs should also charge church supervisors who covered up these crimes as well. You can Google “Monsignor William Lynn charged” to read more about it.
The bishops may have lost
The bishops may have lost control, but something about the nuns seems to remind me of the Christ I learned about when I was a child. The Catholic Hopsitals have been named the most ocmpassionate in the US. Network looks after the poor and disinfrachised. And one by one, the valient women make sense....thank you sisters. Please continue to show the way.
I think it's time the
I think it's time the Catholic hierarchy got in tune with societal needs!
I simply cannot conceive how
I simply cannot conceive how anyone who claims to be Catholic can try to find nuance in the issue of abortion. Simply put, abortion is the termination of human life, innocent human life. It is a mother choosing to end the life of her unborn child. How can anyone defend that? How can a supposed religious woman say that the poor have an equal right to abortion - how can she say that anyone has a right to abortion?
There is never a justifiable reason for a mother to end the life of her unborn child. It is as simple as that.
And it is nice to know that Miss Mansour had enough integrity to leave her order rather than violate Church teaching. It is profoundly sad, though, to see how little her vows to Christ and to His Church meant when it came to the so-called "Sacrament of the Left", abortion. It is profoundly sad that she chose the murder of innocent human life over the Church and her Lord.
What part of "Catholics have
What part of "Catholics have rejected and will continue to reject Church teaching on abortion" do you not understand?
Yes, it was the termination
Yes, it was the termination of an 11 week human life.
But...Is it really as "simple as that"? Or if the 11 week old fetus she was carrying was dying and would die upon her death, does it make sense to save the Mom's life?
CWG, would you have her die, even if she could be saved?
If you hate women so much that you want them to die along with their unborn children, can you at least have mercy upon the four born children at home who need her? And upon her husband?
Why should the fetus and mother die together if one could be saved?
Well said, Pro Life Working
Well said, Pro Life Working Mom. It seems to me that if every one of these issues really were that simple, there'd be little or no need in the first place for ethics panels.
CWG on Feb. 02, 2011. You
CWG on Feb. 02, 2011.
You stated:
"I simply cannot conceive how anyone who claims to be Catholic can try to find nuance in the issue of abortion. Simply put, abortion is the termination of human life, innocent human life. It is a mother choosing to end the life of her unborn child. How can anyone defend that? How can a supposed religious woman say that the poor have an equal right to abortion - how can she say that anyone has a right to abortion?
There is never a justifiable reason for a mother to end the life of her unborn child. It is as simple as that.
And it is nice to know that Miss Mansour had enough integrity to leave her order rather than violate Church teaching. It is profoundly sad, though, to see how little her vows to Christ and to His Church meant when it came to the so-called "Sacrament of the Left", abortion. It is profoundly sad that she chose the murder of innocent human life over the Church and her Lord."
---------------------------------------------------------
"There is never a justifiable reason for a mother to end the life of her unborn child. It is as simple as that." If the mother is in danger of dying herself---she has the right to protect her own life. And if she is the mother of other children---and young ones at that---whose care is also in her hands----she has the right and duty of self-defense.
Your statements are the typical "pontification" that comes from someone who has never been pregnant, has never talked to anyone facing a dangerous preganancy--- whose pregnancy will result in the mother's death if she continues with it, with a girl/woman who has been violently raped and beaten, with a girl/woman who was threatened with death (by the man who impregnated her) if she continued with the pregnancy---all real issues that poor women around the world face every day. Yes, CWG---your comments are easy for YOU to say.
And as for Sister Agnes Mary Mansour---she lived and died as a Sister of Mercy---and she was buried from the Sisters' Chapel in the Mercy Center. The Sisters of Mercy appealed the decision of the bishop to the highest court of the Catholic Church---the Apostolic Signatura----and they did this three times----even writing to the Pope himself. No real decision was ever reached.
Sister Agnes Mary Mansour continued on living as a Sister of Mercy and died as one. She never set aside her vows. The vows of a religious woman and men are made directly to God, and received by their highest elected official---they don't kneel before a bishop (like diocesan priests) when they make them.
Little Bear, CWG is only
Little Bear, CWG is only responding to Phyllis Zagano's statement that Sister Agnes Mansour left her religious community. There is no need to be impolite to him or her. Mansour's statement that the poor have an equal right to abortion is horrifying. It is even more horrifying that you, Phyllis Zagano and others defend her statement. Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood saw abortion and birth control as means to rid our society of what she considered the "less desirables." We know that Jesus loved children and the poor. One would hope that Sister Mansour would have followed the example of Jesus and not that of Planned Parenthood. If Sister Mansour was buried as a religious sister as you state, one can only hope that she repented and renounced her support of the killing of babies. If not, shame on the Sisters of Mercy for honoring her with a Christian burial. While we can never judge anyone--only God can do that we can state whether someone did wrongful deeds--that is a statement of fact rather than a matter of judging one's soul. Sister Agnes certainly did do wrongful things, but God can change even the most hardened hearts. Please, dear God, have mercy on her and let her rest in peace. And yes, Little Bear, I have never been pregnant but I am a father of children. Both you and Sister Mansour never had children. Perhaps if you did, you would see them as a gift of God to be loved and cherished.
archangel Dear Milbro: You
archangel
Dear Milbro: You wrote "Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood saw abortion and birth control as means to rid our society of what she considered the "less desirables.""
While I dont have a dog in this fight... and dont know much about Sanger, I'd like to ask you for a direct quote regarding her presumptively seeing 'abortion and birth control' as means to rid society of 'less desireables.'
I may be wrong, but Sanger did not support abortion, quite strongly not. It is stated in her writings pretty clearly. She also helped many of the poor and minority groups with the idea that poverty and ignorance beget one another - she wanted to help women have babies when they wanted to, and in the numbers they wanted to, instead of not knowing exactly what brought babies.
She disagreed strongly with many prominent Americans of her time that people who were hurt mentally or physically should never be euthanized. There was a wide swath across Eu and America, the perhaps was culminated in those who financed, sold to, and supported Hitler who felt many in his own home country, who were not Jews, but rather Germans "were life that was not worthy of life." The first holocaust was not the one most read about now, but the tens of thousands of German children literally euthanized at Hitler's orders before he ever invaded Poland.
Sanger in no way, endorsed this desire by some powerful Americans and Europeans to snuff out life, the living in utero or the living walking about. She specifically stated she wanted birth control, not abortion, to be the standard way women dealt with fertility.
Thanks.
Dr. Clarissa Pinkola Estés
Columns of El Rio Debajo del Rio, The River Beneath the River, archived at National Catholic Reporter online
So good to hear from you
So good to hear from you again.
Dear Dr. Clarissa Pinkola
Dear Dr. Clarissa Pinkola Estés, Thank you for the opportunity of shedding some light on Margaret Sanger and Planned Parenthood. The view you have of Margaret Sanger is one that the public relations people of Planned Parenthood (formerly called the American Birth Control League) would like to portray of Sanger. I will quote you some quotes by Sanger. As an academic, you know that the best thing to do when we are researching is to go to the original sources and documents. I hope you are affiliated with a university or research institute and that you have a research assistant who can gather the original sources for you; otherwise you will have to do this yourself. As you and I both know there are extremists on the left and on the right so we must really look at Sanger’s own words and actions.
On the 100th anniversary of Sanger’s birth, Faye Wattleton, the then African-American head of Planned Parenthood stated: “As we celebrate the 100th birthday of Margaret Sanger, our outrageous and our courageous leader, we will probably find a number of areas in which we may find more about Margaret Sanger than we thought we wanted to know…” Ms. Wattleton, like so many other African-Americans, quickly dismissed what they did not want to know.
Once source you may start with is Sanger’s own autobiography. You will also have to check “The Woman Rebel” and “The Birth Control Review.” An interesting website you should check and then verify is that by an African-American pastor, Pastor Clenard Childress of www.BlackGenocide.org. Pastor Childress contends that Sanger deliberately set out to limit the births of black children and he contends that she is a racist. (See: http://www.prisonplanet.com/pastor-exposes-how-abortion-industry-was-fou...)
One of Sanger’s closest friends was the white supremacist Lothrop Stoddard, author of The Rising Tide of Color Against White World-Supremacy. In the book he offered his solution for the threat posed by the darker races: “Just as we isolate bacterial invasions, and starve out the bacteria, by limiting the area and amount of their food supply, so we can compel an inferior race to remain in its native habitat.” Sanger invited Sanger to join the board of her organization after his book was published.
Some of Sanger’s quotes:
“The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.” Margaret Sanger, Women and the New Race (Eugenics Publ. Co., 1920, 1923)
The purpose in promoting birth control was “to create a race of thoroughbreds,” she wrote in the Birth Control Review, Nov. 1921 (p. 2)
“More children from the fit, less from the unfit — that is the chief aim of birth control.” Birth Control Review, May 1919, p. 12
Happy research, Dr. Pinkola Estés. I would love for you to write an article in NCR of what you find after reading the original sources.
archangel Milbo, re you as a
archangel
Milbo, re you as a researcher: Just my .02 worth, the single liner quotes you place at the end of your comment have to be weighed in context. They arent in context in your comment. These you noted are fragmentary. Each belongs to other sentences that preceded and postceded the one liner. In a biographical research, one would have to know the definitions, the surrounding material, the cultural contexts, as well as how the one liners relate to same and similar topics throughout the works... and inter alia, far far more that that, in order to assess the veracity or lack of veracity of your points.
But, I do register your stance, regardless.
kind regards,
dr.e
Milbo 1 on Feb. 09,
Milbo 1 on Feb. 09, 2011.
You stated:
"Little Bear, CWG is only responding to Phyllis Zagano's statement that Sister Agnes Mansour left her religious community. There is no need to be impolite to him or her. Mansour's statement that the poor have an equal right to abortion is horrifying. It is even more horrifying that you, Phyllis Zagano and others defend her statement. Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood saw abortion and birth control as means to rid our society of what she considered the "less desirables." We know that Jesus loved children and the poor. One would hope that Sister Mansour would have followed the example of Jesus and not that of Planned Parenthood. If Sister Mansour was buried as a religious sister as you state, one can only hope that she repented and renounced her support of the killing of babies. If not, shame on the Sisters of Mercy for honoring her with a Christian burial. While we can never judge anyone--only God can do that we can state whether someone did wrongful deeds--that is a statement of fact rather than a matter of judging one's soul. Sister Agnes certainly did do wrongful things, but God can change even the most hardened hearts. Please, dear God, have mercy on her and let her rest in peace. And yes, Little Bear, I have never been pregnant but I am a father of children. Both you and Sister Mansour never had children. Perhaps if you did, you would see them as a gift of God to be loved and cherished."
----------------------------------------------------------------
You did not know either Sister Mary Agnes' nor do you know her intentions. And you are not God to judge her deeds. If you want to be a judge (instead of a lawyer) than apply for it. But don't be going around judging Sister Mary Agnes' (who is no longer here to defend herself to you) and don't be judging the Sisters Of Mercy---who consided Sister Mary Agnes---to be their Sister during her life and after her death.
And how many women in troubled pregnancies have you counseled? Of course, children are a gift from God. But God never forced gifts on anyone. A woman, whose life is in danger from her pregnancy----does not have to die to accept the gift.
Little Bear writes: “You did
Little Bear writes: “You did not know either Sister Mary Agnes' nor do you know her intentions. And you are not God to judge her deeds….don't be going around judging Sister Mary Agnes' (who is no longer here to defend herself to you) …But God never forced gifts on anyone….”
Little Bear, once again I am going to ask you to more civil in your postings. There is no need for your constant lack of civility. I find your lack or rationality, consistency and logic amusing until I think of the fact that you are a high school teacher. I hope you don’t teach with the same distorted logic with which write. I have selected some of the points you make in an effort to help you think more rationally. First, I ask you a question. At what age and stage does someone decide they don’t want to accept God’s gift of life? Can I parent say when the child is age two that I no longer want God’s gift of life? Also you are confusing issues here. Agnes Mansour was not the sister in Phoenix and there is no evidence that she was ever confronted with making decisions concerning the mother’s life and the baby’s life. Agnes Mansour was advancing abortions for any reason. Please get your facts straight. Finally, you say I can’t make a decision about Agnes Mansour’s deeds because I did not know her and she is not here to defend herself. I hope you remember this the next time you make unfounded comments about the Servant of God and soon to be Blessed Pope John Paul II. Be assured that I will remind you that you did not know him and that he is not here to defend himself. Do you understand the foolishness of your statements? Little Bear, I keep you and your students in my prayers. I hope that when they go on to college they are prepared to partake in rational, logical and civil discourse. They don’t appear to be learning these things by the nature of your writings.
Milbo 1 on Feb. 14,
Milbo 1 on Feb. 14, 2011.
You stated:
"Little Bear writes: “You did not know either Sister Mary Agnes' nor do you know her intentions. And you are not God to judge her deeds….don't be going around judging Sister Mary Agnes' (who is no longer here to defend herself to you) …But God never forced gifts on anyone….”
Little Bear, once again I am going to ask you to more civil in your postings. There is no need for your constant lack of civility. I find your lack or rationality, consistency and logic amusing until I think of the fact that you are a high school teacher. I hope you don’t teach with the same distorted logic with which write. I have selected some of the points you make in an effort to help you think more rationally. First, I ask you a question. At what age and stage does someone decide they don’t want to accept God’s gift of life? Can I parent say when the child is age two that I no longer want God’s gift of life? Also you are confusing issues here. Agnes Mansour was not the sister in Phoenix and there is no evidence that she was ever confronted with making decisions concerning the mother’s life and the baby’s life. Agnes Mansour was advancing abortions for any reason. Please get your facts straight. Finally, you say I can’t make a decision about Agnes Mansour’s deeds because I did not know her and she is not here to defend herself. I hope you remember this the next time you make unfounded comments about the Servant of God and soon to be Blessed Pope John Paul II. Be assured that I will remind you that you did not know him and that he is not here to defend himself. Do you understand the foolishness of your statements? Little Bear, I keep you and your students in my prayers. I hope that when they go on to college they are prepared to partake in rational, logical and civil discourse. They don’t appear to be learning these things by the nature of your writings."
_____________________________________________________
1) I am not a high school teacher. My students are adults.
2) I have associates who worked in the Vatican during JP II's Pontificate. and they experienced him and his attitudes personally. They
also witnessed him in his dealings with Oscar Romero. JP II was hardly Christ-like or saintly.
3) One of the areas that I teach is Church History, and the Church Councils.
4) I find your demeaning attitude toward women and religious women in particular to be highly offensive. And I don't need you to help me "think rationally." You make your comments from your point of view and from your experience. And I make mine from my point of view and my experiences. Our experiences are NOT the same. That does not invalidate what you say---and it certainly does not invalidate my comments, either
4) I am not confusing Sr. Agnes with Sr. Margaret Mary McBride---both Sisters of Mercy.
5) Again, if a mother's life is in peril from her pregnancy---the right to self-defense (preservation of one's OWN life)is supported by both civil and church law. The issue in Phoenix is multi-demensional and will be debated for many years to come.
"Little Bear, CWG is only
"Little Bear, CWG is only responding to Phyllis Zagano's statement that Sister Agnes Mansour left her religious community. There is no need to be impolite to him or her. Mansour's statement that the poor have an equal right to abortion is horrifying. It is even more horrifying that you, Phyllis Zagano and others defend her statement."
Zagano does not defend Mansour's statement, she only repeats it.
The issue is not about
The issue is not about whether the abortion is "justified." Indeed, no death can be justified because only God can judge. In both capital punishment and medically necessary abortion, the question is whether one person poses a danger to another. Prisoners who are not dangerous should never be executed - while those that are dangerous are either executed by lethal injection or the slow torture of life without parole (often in solitary confinement). In the same way, a child who is a danger to its mother - either because of a pathological pregnancy or because it cannot survive and waiting for the inevitable miscarriage increases the risk to the mother - forfeits its right to life.
We do not play God in making these decisions, since we offer no opinion as to guilt or innocense. The purpose is to protect lives at risk. A pregnancy that entails no additional risk cannnot be terminated.
One question - do you think
One question - do you think it would have been better for the mother of 4 other living children to die with her 11 month old fetus than for her to live?
I am always amazed that a
I am always amazed that a zygote, embryo, or fetus is always the innocent party. What is the pregnant woman? Seems she is NEVER innocent. And by the way in the discussion of abortion, why is the father of the potential child NEVER mentioned. HE started that process called pregnancy. Hard for a woman to do it on her own. Just heard in the news the protectors of life, you know the Republicans in the House, want to cut the aid to women and children. SOUNDS LIKE A GREAT PRO LIFE POSITION, YOU THINK?
Because there are no
Because there are no guarantees with conception,pregnancy,birth that everything will go according to script? That a woman will sail right through it w/ a perfect baby? What happens when a woman aborts spontaneously in, say.the 4th mo? What happens than?
No, there is a lot of imperfect science involved. So the trick is to make abortions rare and legal.
I can understand your
I can understand your position. However, Thomas Aquinas's teaching on Just Cause states it is permissible to end a life to save a life or save more lives when no other option is available. The woman, knowing this, could have bet the odds and hoped for a miracle but that is all. In this case, I would have adopted Aquinas. This is not the case of the career abortionist who fornicates with many men and gets abortions when her mistakes catch up with her. This I do not condone, but rather condemn. Additionally, I am a strong supporter of separation of Church and state. We vote by ourselves here, and abortion can be very disputed with philosophical means. I am pro-life, after all. I believe in separation of Church and state because of the fallacies that happen. My experience in the Philippines has lead me to this because of very corrupt practices that are plainly based on Catholic doctrines. These became unfair to human freedom and free will. You are best served to lead by example over laws - it is the hard way, but the best way. However, pro-life can receive legislative support when people understand there is a difference between a fertilized egg that continues its growth as a human versus an unfertilized egg that does not. Essentially abortionists want to claim no difference... ask them the next time. Think on this, you will figure it out. But ask them if there is a difference first. if they say yes - then you can continue to explain sanctioned killing = abortion. See how easy that was? No magisterium necessary to set our public laws. :D
In more ways than
In more ways than one.
They've lost control of themselves. They're more concerned with "Keeping Up Appearances" than Hyacinth Bucket of the famous Brit-com.
As they were when they gave away their moral authority by transferring abusive priests and shielding them from prosecution and thus themselves from public embarrassment.
As they are when they continue to talk about doing right by abuse survivors, then let their lawyers play legal hardball.
As they do when they pander to Republican donors while selling out on social justice issues.
As they do when they push their brain-dead agenda to overturn Roe v. Wade to the exclusion of any other solution to the abortion issue.
As they do when they talk about "fraternal correction" but steadfastly refuse to be critical of any "brother bishop."
As they do when they trade their old, clericalist way of doing things for closed parishes, shrinking congregations, shuttered Catholic schools or rising tuition in the survivors.
I've had three children, each
I've had three children, each of them a problem pregnancy. Each time I was advised to have an abortion. I had three healthy children, for whom I would gladly have given my own life many times over. It strikes me that a lot of women who support abortion don't understand what it means to be a mother. If Ms. Mansour believed that abortion is a right to be protected, she needed to leave her community, and I'm glad the Church gave her the choice. I pray she has been able to live in peace, that Sr. Carol finds a way to walk the tightrope between faith and science, and that you are delivered from your hatred and bitterness.
Some HERstorical
Some HERstorical background-
"...Mercy Sr. Agnes Mary Mansour. In 1983, with her bishop’s permission, she became director of the Michigan Department of Social Services."
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,923370,00.html
http://hall.michiganwomen.org/honoree.php?C=149&A=20~114~96~172~79~2~62~...
I love this:
"At the height of the headlines and protests, Mansour received offers for movie rights to her life. She was agreeable, she quipped, provided the fee equaled Michigan’s then-current budget deficit: $900 million. The movie did not materialize."
http://natcath.org/NCR_Online/archives2/2005a/010705/010705j.php
I believe automatic
I believe automatic excommunications are based on the commission of the act itself, since the law cannot determine the inner state of the conscience. Note well, while all automatic excommunications involve a mortally sinful act, one need not incur the guilt of the sin to incur the legal penalty. IE you can incur excommunication without actually having sinned mortally.
Also, it is useful remember that conscience does NOT determine the objective moral status of an act, but YOUR subjective status as the one who commits the act. Conscience can never make Abortion not evil, it can make you less or not guilty of the sin if you really are acting in accord with your conscience (but it boggles the mind to think of how a conscience could be so malformed that it would have no qualms about abortion).
Excommunication for most
Excommunication for most Catholics today possesses all the gravity of having your subscription to "TV Guide" canceled. The Church's officially stated concerns, with few exceptions today, are being dismissed, removed from the concerns of a growing number of average Catholics because it fails to uphold the elements of what is perceived as our Civic Religion. It is viewed as antithetical to progress, happiness, the plight of the poor and minorities.
Until there is a complete reversal in addressing these concerns and objectives of modern Catholic society, Catholic Church Inc., as represented by popes and bishops, continues the inevitable decline into irrelevancy. The Pope might as well as be in charge of Rosicrucianism, the Shakers, or some practically extinct sect.
I don't know if it's that
I don't know if it's that simple. Can a person who is truly in the state of grace actually be cut off from the sacramental life of the Church? And I'm not talking about people who do things which the Church defines objectively as mortal sin. I doubt such people can be in the state of grace, like a woman who has an abortion.
However, there was that nun in Australia who is being considered for canonization now who was excommunicated by her bishop. It was a political kind of thing. Did it actually take?
On the other side of the coin is the reality that there are people completely outside the Church who are in the state of grace. So perhaps a Catholic in the state of grace could effectively be excommunicated. I must admit that I don't have the answer to this one. A rare admission for me to make!
ON TRIAL IN CATHOLIC PUBLIC
ON TRIAL IN CATHOLIC PUBLIC opinion, Bishop Olmsted is found to have erred grieviously. His supporters will say that it does not matter because he is the bishop with authority. However, we all know that in the end it does matter as more Catholic thumb their noses at the bishops.
It should come as no surprise
It should come as no surprise to anyone that the bishops are increasingly ignored on matters of Faith and Morals. Why? For decades they directly lied to us about the sex scandal and to date have not made amends. Their lack of integrity, aka Catholic Identity, is appalling. They are a parade of one and it will be decades, if not centuries, before they can reclaim credibility.
By the way, isn't directly lying as 'intrinsically evil' as abortion? Perhaps more so since it aims directly at the spirit instead of the body? If the pot is calling the kettle black here, I'll side with the woman who has the abortion everyday since she is best represented by the woman caught in adultery, about to be stoned, whom Jesus immediately forgave. The hypocritical bishops are too caught up in condemnation and excommunication; today's stones.
The bishops don't care if
The bishops don't care if they're irrelevant or not. They'll collect their salary, continue to have their names (or coats-of-arms) emblazoned on their thrones, strut about in their violet finery, and just ossify. With their shrinking band of unquestioning and unthinking followers trailing after them.
So, the beat goes on! While the last surviving relic of ancient Rome just sheds members heading inexorably toward cultic status.
Ehticists who support Bp.
Ehticists who support Bp. Olmstead??? Any names of reputable ethicists, recognized in the guild? Olmstead got the mother's disease wrong, got the procedure wrong, refused to countenance analogous procedures (excision of an ectopic pregnancy, removal of an [occupied] cancerous uterous) that are clearly legitimate, etc. This is not "disagremment" amont ethicists. It is incompetence in the field.
The earlier agreement to take Medicaid money is not unique to St. Joseph's. The alternative is to get out of the business of giving health care to the poor. And since it is a business, is it time for religous to decide whether health care can any longer be an apostolate -- or to find some apostolate in the interstices of the business of the medical care industry?
Yes, the bishops have lost
Yes, the bishops have lost their credibility through their obsession with abortion over all other issues and beliefs, their failure to deal with priestly pedophiles, and by their lavish lifestyles.
Also, they have lost credibility once we heard that the German bishops defended their people against the onslaught of the new translations while our bishops totally acquiesced to Roman bureaucrats.
What you're really saying is
What you're really saying is that the large majority of Catholic "faithful" have no sense of moral decency at all. This is the real issue & it is not unique to Catholicism. It is the tendency in the modern world for people to have no real connection to the Deity.
paulte on Feb. 03, 2011. You
paulte on Feb. 03, 2011.
You stated:
"What you're really saying is that the large majority of Catholic "faithful" have no sense of moral decency at all. This is the real issue & it is not unique to Catholicism. It is the tendency in the modern world for people to have no real connection to the Deity."
----------------------------------------------
What people are saying is that they no longer believe in a "Santa Claus Catholicism." They are ADULT and are capable of understanding issues, often have a better education and background then a number of priests and bishops (who in America come with Canon Law Certificates---couldn't pass an advanced Theology course---and cannot give real spiritual guidance).
And only a few people, like yourself Paulte, believe that the Pope, and Magisterium have a direct telephone line to God. Considering that the Popes and Magisterium over the centuries have turned their backs upon Christ's mandates as to how they were to exercise their authority----many of them have NO real connection to the Diety.
Many of the hierarchy only in the business of 'selling religion'. They don't 'buy' any of it themselves.
I'm not saying that at all.
I'm not saying that at all. What I'm saying is that the large majority of the laity in the Catholic Church has no moral decency. As an example Chile is a country where the majority is Catholic & the illegitimacy rate is 60%. In America Catholic women have abortions at roughly the same rate as everyone else.
Even in Communist days Catholic Poland had one of the highest abortion rates in eastern Europe. Granted Communism lead to deprivation & people couldn't afford children. It was an economic issue as well as a moral one but one would think that the most Catholic country in the eastern bloc would have had one of the lowest abortion rates, but no, it did not.
So don't be touting the laity over the hierarchy. Granted there are some lemons in the hierarchy & the priestly class (not a few) but the laity is much worse!
This seems like a red herring
This seems like a red herring argument to me - entered into to change the conversation. Best to ignore it.
You are so right!!!
You are so right!!!
Agreed, 70ish and OHthor. I
Agreed, 70ish and OHthor. I think some folks post here just to be bullies. Best to just ignore then and try to stay on topic respecfully.
Paulte, Little Bear always
Paulte, Little Bear always twists what someone is saying because she cannot grasp the logic of an argument. She is a reactionary. That is why it is important for all of us to think before we write.
@Little Bear With people like
@Little Bear
With people like paulte and milbo 1 making snide ad hominum attacks on you - take comfort in realizing that you are moved by the Spirit and not legalism. Try to not descend to their level.
Milbo 1 on Feb. 11, 2011.
Milbo 1 on Feb. 11, 2011.
You stated:
"Paulte, Little Bear always twists what someone is saying because she cannot grasp the logic of an argument. She is a reactionary. That is why it is important for all of us to think before we write."
-----------------------------
Reactionaries are ultraconservatives. I would think that you would think before you write, as well. As far as missing the logic of an argument----both you and Paulte---are A+ students in that regard. Your attitudes belong in the dust-bins of the past.
The vast majority of Catholic
The vast majority of Catholic faithful, if they're smart, will simply stay home and tend to their own devotions,or just convert to the Eastern Orthodox Church. Rome has lost the moral authority and the credibility to lead Christendom.
That's basically what the 143 German, Austrian, and Swiss theologians were saying in their petition last week. They speak in solidarity with countless millions of faceless and nameless Catholic laity and other Catholic theologians, who think as they do. The Church has become the new Evil Empire and ,in the hands of these clerical malefactors is being used by kooks and loonies associated with extreme right-wing causes all over the world.
The Church has become the single greatest threat in the political sphere to the civil liberties and the constitutional rights of their followers since the rise of Hitler and Mussolini.
You are correct the Orthodox
You are correct the Orthodox churches like the Orthodox Church in America bishops trace their roots directly back to the apostles just as the Catholic bishops do. Orthodox teaching on abortion and other issues are very similar to Catholic teaching. One difference and one of reasons they are a separate church is they believe all bishops are equal so the bishops acting together can remove a patriarch when they have cause. Since these Orthodox churches have married priests they have not had the child abuse problem either. When you allow married men to apply the pool of men who can become a priest is over 4 times greater, reducing the chance a predator can become a priest.
Oh people have connection to
Oh people have connection to the Deity alright Paulte, it is the fraudsters who claim to speak in His name and falsely contend that they are one with Him. They are who a growing multitude of Catholic faithful are coming to reject.
Perhaps I don't know enough
Perhaps I don't know enough about the case, but did Bishop Olmstead say the termination of the pregnancy was an *unnecessary* medical procedure as your column suggests? Does anyone really think that mother and baby would be alive apart from the termination of the pregnancy (in which case at least both are not dead)? Perhaps it is not the ethics team that is guilty of invincible ignorance? After all, they took into consideration the Catholic teaching on indirect abortion as well as the reality of the medical situation at hand. If anyone is guilty of invicible ignorance, isn't it the bishop for his inability to grasp the objective reality of the medical situation. Does anyone really believe that the morally good thing to do was to let mother and fetus die. Reasonable people and reasonable Catholics know better. I know virtually nothing from a medical perspective, but I know enough to know that an 11 week old fetus will not survive the death of the mother. All opinions are not equally valid here. People don't care what the bishop thinks because his position is insane and not rooted in reality. God help the Catholic Church.
That was not a direct
That was not a direct abortion. The child was not surviving, would not survive at the death of the mother. 11 weeks old, it would not survive. We must not condemn both mother and child to death. To not help them is to be negligent, is to cause death not life, to not provide medical help is to force the death of the mother because the child is all ready in immenant death. Miscarriages occur, do we call God then an "abortionist" because acts of God cause death of infants in utero and in fallopian tubes, ectoptic pregancies, in miscarrriages, in stillbirths..
Does Bishop Olmstead consider God an abortionist because the placental difficulties and the miscarriages, the ectoptic pregnancies, the stillbirths are all emanating from God.
Can that bishop Olmstead not use intelligence, common sense and discernment? Can he not dispell his ignorance, arrogance and vanity, and learn science and medical science? He must not meddle in the allocation of medical affairs. He lacks accurate knowledge and discernment.
Gordon, What an excellent
Gordon,
What an excellent comment/perspective!
"Miscarriages occur, do we call God then an "abortionist" because acts of God cause death of infants in utero and in fallopian tubes, ectoptic pregancies, in miscarrriages, in stillbirths.."
Cheers,
The bishops have "lost
The bishops have "lost control" of medical ethics because (a) they lost control of moral theology when the majority of them--with the acquiescence of the Hamlet leadership of Paul VI--failed to lance the Curran boil in 1968, subsequently allowing Catholic moral theology in the United States to come increasingly under the domination of revisionism and proportionalism, systems that in the end are not Catholic; and (b) they lost control of religious life in the late 1960s/1970s, resulting in "religious" leading political protests and other agitprop while abandoning the teaching of the young and the catechesis of children. Happily, today's bishops are increasingly intent on reaffirming the Church's authority over entities that call themselves "Catholic" or "Church" institutions. Putting the spilled milk back in the bottle will take time but happily, time is on the side of those intent on repairing the damage wrought by rebels with the wrong causes.
No, you've got it backwards.
No, you've got it backwards. The bishops got it wrong when they accepted Humanae Vitae, despite Paul VI ignoring the overwhelming vote of his advisory committee of bishops and theologians to allow artificial birth control. Once Paul VI was allowed to spin birth control as contrary to "Natural Law", it was all down hill from there. BTW, how come synthetic drugs for antibiotics, blood pressure control, pain relief, etc are not contrary to "Natural Law"? None of them are found in nature. If it is a sin to lust in my heart without acting upon the impulse, how then is it not a sin to intend not to conceive and use NFP as my form of birth control as opposed to a pill? The intent is absolutely the same.
Post new comment