The Independent News Source
NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
Printer-friendly version
PDF versionEthicists fault bishop’s action in Phoenix abortion case
Jun. 08, 2010
Mercy Sr. Margaret Mary McBride (CNS/Catholic Sun/J.D. Long-García)
When Bishop Thomas Olmsted of Phoenix declared that Mercy Sr. Margaret McBride had committed a violation of church law deserving of excommunication, he did so with a swiftness and certainty that left no possibility for doubt or nuance. Since that declaration was released in May, however, the bishop’s action has come in for criticism from a wide range of Catholic experts who question its proportionality and its precipitous nature. Some see it as disproportionally harsh; others as inconsistent within the framework of the application of wider Catholic law.
In the widely publicized case, the bishop announced that McBride had been excommunicated for assenting to the abortion of an 11-week-old fetus in order to save the life of a pregnant woman, a 27-year-old mother of four suffering from pulmonary hypertension. The woman was so gravely ill that doctors told her she would die if the pregnancy were not terminated.
McBride, vice president of mission integration at St. Joseph’s Hospital and Medical Center, where theprocedure occurred, was a member of the hospital ethics committee that approved termination of the pregnancy.
The surgery took place in late 2009, but Olmsted did not learn of it until recently. In a statement announcing his decision, Olmsted said McBride was excommunicated because of her position of authority at the hospital and because she “gave her consent that the abortion was morally good and allowable under church teaching.” Olmsted further declared as excommunicated anyone “who gave their consent, encouraged the abortion” or “who participated in the action; including doctors and nurses.”
While theologians and canonists dispute whether excommunications can be issued so broadly and unequivocally without a more detailed process, the primary objections deal with issues at the heart of the case.
Both the recent reactions, as well as writings, of a range of theologians and canonists whose work spans a good portion of the liberal-to-conservative spectrum, suggests that the approach of Olmsted and his chief ethicist, Fr. John Ehrich, while defensible under the most rigid reading of canon law, is outside of the mainstream of scholarship and thinking on the matter.
These experts faulted Olmsted’s action for several reasons:
- It does not, for instance, take into account such factors as the intent of those involved, a consideration regularly applied to other complex moral problems.
- It does not ask if the death of the fetus -- assured whether the decision was to do nothing to save the life of the mother or to remove the fetus from the mother’s womb -- should even enter into “the moral framework” in this instance.
- Its application in this case is inconsistent with the approach the church takes to other grave public sins, such as support of the death penalty, war, or clergy accused of sexual abuse, including rape, of children.
- In a pastoral sense, the sanction was unnecessarily heavy-handed, given the agonizing circumstances involved.
Olmsted and Ehrich refused to speak to NCR about the case. The diocesan spokesman would only refer to statements already available on the diocesan Web site. Neither McBride nor her order, the Sisters of Mercy, would speak to NCR. Attempts to reach hospital officials were unsuccessful. While it is known that McBride and the bishop met face-to-face at some point after the operation and before the bishop’s declaration, what was said, and who else may have attended the meeting, is unknown. It is not certain whether the bishop intends to pursue removal of McBride from the order, one of the consequences of excommunication.
Preview NCR's Family Life Issue
Watch this video from NCR Editor Dennis Coday for highlights from our annual Family Life special section.
You won't find these articles on our website. Subscribe now to receive all the content from each biweekly issue.
Did another path exist that would have conformed to Catholic teaching and avoided such an extreme confrontation?
The case is complicated from the start by two directives contained in the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services used as guidance by hospital officials. One directive states that abortion is the directly intended termination of pregnancy and is not permitted under any circumstances. Another, however, allows conditions other than pregnancy to be treated, even if they result in termination of the pregnancy. The question seems to be whether an abortion can be considered “treatment” of a condition not intrinsically linked to the pregnancy itself.
A long-accepted principle of classic Catholic ethics is that of the “double effect,” essentially a guideline for when it is permissible to pursue an act that has as a result a good end when one also knows that it will have bad results. One example taught in ethics classes to demonstrate the principle of “double effect” is that of a pregnant woman with a cancerous womb. In that case, treatment of the cancer would foreseeably cause the death of the fetus, but would be permitted because the intent is to cure the cancer, not kill the child.
Redemptorist Fr. Brian Johnstone (CNS/Catholic Press Photo/Alessia Giuliani)It is acceptable, said Redemptorist Fr. Brian Johnstone, because “saving the mother is not brought about by the death of the unborn child but by removal of the pathological organ.”
Standard moral theology would not agree with applying that reasoning to the Phoenix case, said Johnstone, a professor of moral theology at The Catholic University of America in Washington.
Without knowing all the details of the case -- and they may never be known because of privacy laws -- Johnstone said the difference in the Phoenix case is that it is not a diseased organ that is causing danger to the mother’s life, but the presence of the embryo in the mother’s womb.
“If you follow the standard theology, the only moral option you have is to not interfere. The woman would die and the fetus would die with her,” said Johnstone.
Not everyone would be willing to go along with the decision to do nothing and simply concede the death of mother and embryo as inevitable, said Johnstone. He finds (as do others in the current discussion) an alternative approach in the writing of noted theologian Germain Grisez, who teaches Christian ethics at Mount St. Mary College and Seminary in Emmetsburg, Md.
According to Johnstone, Grisez contends that in a case where the fetus is nonviable and there’s a real danger to the mother’s life if the fetus is not removed, “you could argue here that what is intended is the removal of the fetus from the womb, that the intention is not necessarily the death of the fetus.”
In that section of his work, detailed in the second volume, Living a Christian Life, of his three-volume The Way of the Lord Jesus, Grisez outlines four conditions essential in holding that “a baby’s death may be accepted to save the mother”:
- “Some pathology threatens the lives of both a pregnant woman and her child;
- “It is not safe to wait or waiting surely will result in the death of both;
- “There is no way to save the child;
- “And an operation that can save the mother’s life will result in the child’s death.”
“It would have to be a case -- to repeat -- where there is nothing you could do to save the life of the fetus,” said Johnstone. And while Grisez’s position would still represent a departure from what Johnstone considers a “standard theological view,” he notes that it is a view that has been published for a number of years and is widely known in theological circles; it has never been condemned; it “can’t just be dismissed as sophistry”; and it is a position that has reasonable arguments going for it.
As Cathy Kaveny, professor of law and theology at the University of Notre Dame in Indiana, writing on a Commonweal magazine blog, notes, the argument also has going for it Grisez’s reputation as a conservative voice among theologians. His thinking on this matter can’t be dismissed as that of a proportionalist or revisionist.
Johnstone said he would add one other consideration to the current case: “Is saving the life of the mother coherent with my basic intention to promote life? Yes. But am I doing something morally wrong to do that?”
He would answer “ ‘not necessarily’ because the death of the infant doesn’t enter into the moral framework because I can’t save it” even if it is not removed from the mother’s womb. Of course, as Johnstone also notes, no theologian’s opinion can nullify an episcopal decision.
Citing the church’s tolerance of killing in self defense, not because the attackers are villains but because there is no other way of avoiding attack, theologian Pat McCormick of Gonzaga University in Spokane, Wash., asks:
“What, then, are we to do in the case where the innocent life of a mother is gravely threatened by her own pregnancy, and where there is no way to save the life of the unborn child if the mother dies, and no way to save the life of the mother without terminating the pregnancy? The unborn child is clearly innocent of any moral wrongdoing, but so is the mother -- and her life is gravely threatened by an unprovoked attack. Does she have no duty or right to defend her life in this horribly tragic case? Do doctors have no obligation to save the one life they can save?
“There is no other case,” wrote McCormick in e-mail answers to questions, “in which official church teaching condemns killing in self-defense when the danger is life-threatening and unprovoked, and when there is no other way to address this danger.” In the case of ectopic pregnancy or uterine cancer, noted McCormick, an “indirect” abortion would have been permitted, “but the unborn child would have been just as assuredly killed in the process” as if it were a direct abortion.
“Can Sr. Margaret, the ethics committee and the unfortunate 27-year-old mother really be condemned in this tragic case simply because their action was ‘direct’?” asked McCormick.
He also wondered why the most severe penalty was employed, since the church “has not used this sanction to stem the scandal of priest pedophilia or oppose the use of torture or weapons of mass and indiscriminate destruction.” He described it as “troubling to many that this sanction seems to be reserved to offenses associated primarily with women and sexual ethics.”
“Catholic teaching has repeatedly recognized that when the universal principles of morality (and natural law) are applied to very concrete and difficult cases, things are not nearly as clear” as in the abstract. Catholic teaching, he said, instructs pastors to “enter into serious dialogue with those who dissent from official teachings. No one excommunicated Catholic politicians who dissent from Catholic teaching on capital punishment, nuclear weapons, torture, or the unjust invasion of Iraq. Why is dialogue appropriate in all these other cases, and excommunication the chosen path here?”
McCormick, who is teaching this summer in England, said Pope Paul VI “argued that Catholic moral teachings must be made clear and persuasive to intelligent persons and cannot be imposed by mere authority.” He sees Olmsted’s imposition of excommunication as no answer to a “serious pastoral problem” and “the troubling questions or genuine confusion raised by this case.”
[Tom Roberts is NCR editor at large. He can be reached at troberts@ncronline.org.]
NCR reporting on the Phoenix-excommunication case
|
The bishop did not
The bishop did not excommunicate ANYONE! He informed her of her automatic excommunication that she brought on by herself. Now, whether she is actually excommunicated or not can be debated, but the fact that the Bishop is the one who excommunicated her is a pure lie.
Furthermore, many people would find fault with a man if he left a burning house to save himself and didn't at least try to go back in and save his family. Yet we are so quick to say "oh, her life is in danger? Then I think she needs to murder her child".
Again we see extremists
Again we see extremists refuse to 'argue' via the irrefutable facts which have been released in this actual case. The burning house hypothetical is so n/a, Brett, that merits in anything else you mention will be disregarded by thinking faithful. Please, do your self and future innocents who actually may be murdered justice by sticking with the facts and defending the Bishop best you can.
LOL, pro-aborts like you sre
LOL, pro-aborts like you sre thinkers, and those that state the Catholic case are "extremist"...Get off of your high horse, and stop being so self-rightous.
One of the problems though is
One of the problems though is the facts as reported here are quite different to other reports on the matter. The facts as presented here certainly are not irrefutable.
Dear Mr. Adams: "The bishop
Dear Mr. Adams:
"The bishop did not excommunicate anyone" Your declaration is pure sophistry. If pastorally and theologically enlightened experts indicate there may have been no wrong doing here, then indeed he excommunicated her without due diligence.
No. It's there, black and
No. It's there, black and white, in Cannon Law. I would like to further point out that if anyone just looks at the timeline, the Bishop announced the automatic excommunication AFTER it had already become public knowledge.
Yes, Brent ... its loose
Yes, Brent ... its loose Cannon law all right! Bishop Olmsted's actions are a disgrace to the teachings of Jesus as taught in the Gospels. And by the way, Brent, its Canon Law.
I thank the Lord of the Heavens and the Earth for people like Sr. Margaret. Blessed are the merciful....
I fully support Margaret
I fully support Margaret McBride RSM and am ashamed of the stance the bishop is taking. From what I am reading here in Canada it sounds as if he (bishop) would rather let the mother die than have the abortion. In that case the fetus would have died and four children would be without a mother and a husband without his wife and on and on. If only the concentration would be on the teachings of Jesus and compassion for others rather than rules which are man made we would be in a much much better and healthier postion.
Hard to trust/believe anyone
Hard to trust/believe anyone who cites "cannon" (sic) law as if it were Divine Revelation." Your "black and white" ignorant understanding of CANON LAW illustrates the "Taliban Catholic" (pace John Allen) rigorism that is destroying our belief in faith AND reason, primacy of conscience and other sacred teachings. Canon Law is MAN-MADE law that is only as good as the ecclesiology which interprets it.
I didn't cite it as if were
I didn't cite it as if were Divine Revelation. I am stating that, in black and white, the person is indeed excommunicated. Forget whether it's right or wrong, the facts say that in Canon Law (sorry to those who apparently have something against people that have diagnosed spelling problems), which governs excommunication, the lady is indeed excommunicated.
I would like to address those that say that the child should have been aborted because of the loss to the husband and children... who are you to say and weigh one life against another? We have no right to take a life, no right to say "your life is more important than this persons". If I judged today that if, by killing you, more people would be better off than if you lived, am I allowed to kill you? NO! (by-the-way, that's consequentalism).
Brett Adams on Jun. 10,
Brett Adams on Jun. 10, 2010.
You stated:
"I didn't cite it as if were Divine Revelation. I am stating that, in black and white, the person is indeed excommunicated. Forget whether it's right or wrong, the facts say that in Canon Law (sorry to those who apparently have something against people that have diagnosed spelling problems), which governs excommunication, the lady is indeed excommunicated.
I would like to address those that say that the child should have been aborted because of the loss to the husband and children... who are you to say and weigh one life against another? We have no right to take a life, no right to say "your life is more important than this persons". If I judged today that if, by killing you, more people would be better off than if you lived, am I allowed to kill you? NO! (by-the-way, that's consequentalism)."
----------------------------------------------------------
What facts, pray tell? There are as many ways of looking at that particular canon as there are days of the week. And in the end---whether one is excommunicated or not comes down to one's personal intention.
Secondly, what does it take for you to understand that the fetus could NOT be saved. If the mother died----the fetus also died. The fetus could not be saved.
You stated that "we have no right to take a life." But both you and Bishop Olmstead didn't care if the Mother died---isn't that taking a life? Or doesn't she count---because she's a woman? And she would have died, if it hadn't been for the medical team and Sister Margaret. But of course, Sister Margaret doesn't count either---because she's a woman, too.
Both you and Bishop Olmstead have one-track minds. Let the woman die and pretend that you are pro-life---because you wanted to save a non-viable fetus.
With leadership like the kind Olmstead is showing---only people who would love living under the control of the Taliban---would approve of his actions.
One: allot of experts
One: allot of experts disagree that the mother and child both would have died without the abortion. These experts which include over a dozen of the best obgyn experts in the world have stated that hypertension alone is NOT a life-threatening condition to either mother or child until the 7th month at which time a baby CAN be viable outside of the womb. One of the experts that has loudly mouthed these facts was at THE SAME HOSPITAL as McBride and contradicted her accounts.
Secondly its written in the Canon Law that anyone that performs an abortion with the direct intent of abortion has excommunicated themselves REGARDLESS of the reason. Thus the bishop did not excommunicate her. She excommunicated herself.
Please learn facts so you don't sound so ignorant and are not such a disgrace to Catholics everywhere.
blacknwhite on Jun. 15,
blacknwhite on Jun. 15, 2010.
You stated:
"One: allot of experts disagree that the mother and child both would have died without the abortion. These experts which include over a dozen of the best obgyn experts in the world have stated that hypertension alone is NOT a life-threatening condition to either mother or child until the 7th month at which time a baby CAN be viable outside of the womb. One of the experts that has loudly mouthed these facts was at THE SAME HOSPITAL as McBride and contradicted her accounts.
Secondly its written in the Canon Law that anyone that performs an abortion with the direct intent of abortion has excommunicated themselves REGARDLESS of the reason. Thus the bishop did not excommunicate her. She excommunicated herself."
Please learn facts so you don't sound so ignorant and are not such a disgrace to Catholics everywhere.
--------------------------------------------
You need to learn some facts. None of the 'medical experts' that you cite were at St. Joseph's Hospital to see the woman and examine her. Do you think for even one moment that they would have come to the decision that they did IF there was another choice?
Secondly, it states in Canon Law that INTENTION is important. READ the entire section of this explanation.
Thirdly---Canon Law is not the Word of God---it is not Sacred Scripture. It is a man-made law (and I do mean MAN-made law) that cannot take into account all human situations such as this sad case in Phoenix.
Finally, I have several friends in Phoenix who know what was what. As far as you worrying about people sounding 'ignorant' and disgracing Catholics---maybe you should look into your mirror. You apparently love the law more than people whose lives are destroyed, indeed their lives could be ended by this man-made law. That's hardly how a follower of Christ reacts---more like a Pharasee would react.
Dear Black and White, I fear
Dear Black and White,
I fear you have introduced an element of grey. This was not a run of the mill case of hypertension, but this was a case of pulmonary artery hypertension Very different case. Pulmonary artery hypertension is extremely difficult to treat unless you can remove a cause or a factor that makes it worse. Both the mother and child in this case were slated to dies unless there was an abortion that would save this lady to live with her other four children and husband.
This lady was like a woman drowning with four healthy children in the boat. Unless she was thrown the life line that would cause her to use both hands both she and the baby die. This is a very difficult decision for this poor and innocent woman and baby, but this excommunicated nun helped make this difficult decision that I as a physician see as the better of the decisions that she could have made. There have been many people that were excommunicated and later found to be saints for the very reason they were excommunicated. Lets face it Bishop Olmstead is the goat in this matter. The nun was very thoughtful and made the better decision.
As for this bishop, he troubles me as a Catholic, but he outrageous me as a physician.
R. Dennis Porch, MD
You sir indeed represent the
You sir indeed represent the "Catholic Taliban" mentality. To you, women and their needs are secondary to Canon Law, written by (supposedly)celibate men centuries ago. You do not consider the circumstances of each individual case, because fanaticism does not allow common sense to interfere with your dogma. The loss of a mother to four children and a husband to you is collateral damage. I wouldn't be surprised if I find you support bombing abortion clinics and killing doctors. You sir represent a class of humanity I don not have respect for.
Thanks be to God, black and
Thanks be to God, black and white is Canon Law! Why such diabolical debate --a mother of four could've been dead for absolutely no good reason. Unviable fetus destined for heaven no matter what, savable mother. Clear as can be... auto exco for a confirmed faithful servant using her informed conscience.
Was the Bishop required to make public statements about this or according to Canon Law could he have used informed discretion for:
a) not adding extreme and public insult to injury of those involved suffering more emotionally and spiritually
b) not making pro-life extremists sound crazier than the average Catholic knew to be the case
Given the 'grave scandalous' outcome of saving a life, I suppose he was bound by Jesus' Canon Law.
And the Church holds up St.
And the Church holds up St. Gianna to us...for making the decision to deliberately die and leave 3 children without a mother & a husband without a wife...and this is virtuous how?
St. Gianna Beretta Molla did
St. Gianna Beretta Molla did not make: "a decision to deliberately die", she didn't ever dream of making a heroine of herself, and virtuousness comes from reading this:
In September 1961 towards the end of the second month of pregnancy, she was touched by suffering and the mystery of pain; she had developed a fibroma in her uterus. Before the required surgical operation, and conscious of the risk that her continued pregnancy brought, she pleaded with the surgeon to save the life of the child she was carrying, and entrusted herself to prayer and Providence. The life was saved, for which she thanked the Lord. She spent the seven months remaining until the birth of the child in incomparable strength of spirit and unrelenting dedication to her tasks as mother and doctor. She worried that the baby in her womb might be born in pain, and she asked God to prevent that.
A few days before the child was due, although trusting as always in Providence, she was ready to give her life in order to save that of her child: “If you must decided between me and the child, do not hesitate: choose the child - I insist on it. Save him”. On the morning of April 21, 1962, Gianna Emanuela was born. Despite all efforts and treatments to save both of them, on the morning of April 28, amid unspeakable pain and after repeated exclamations of “Jesus, I love you. Jesus, I love you».
Her agony ended on April 28 – at home. She was 39. The tiny infant, Gianna Emanuela, was exactly one week old.
The bereft Pietro was left to raise four very young children without their mother: Pierluigi, the eldest, was not yet six; Mariolina, four; Laura, nearly three; and of course the new baby. Pietro always spoke of how the example of his wife’s serene and joyous faith helped sustain him through his grief at Gianna’s death; and when their little daughter, Mariolina, died only two years later.
Pietro Molla, has just died on Saturday, 3rd April, 2010, 97 years of age. He never re-married and raised up the three remaining children... Pierluigi, who became an engineer, is married; Laura is a political scientist; Gianna Emanuela, who was in her mother's womb when all the above happened, is a physician who specializes in Alzheimer’s disease.
St. Gianna pray for us.
"I insist on it". Whatever
"I insist on it". Whatever happened to "thy will be done"?
It might be of interest to
It might be of interest to objectively study the socio-political motivations and historical context, "sitz im leben," in which "holy men" (wholly manipulative men?) approve sainthood for saints that will spiritually and psychologically influence women for decades if not centuries.
Are churchmen willing to act as dastardly as any other multinational corporation in their false advertizing and image production of what it is to be a Catholic woman?
No doubt St Gianna was a good woman however, to use her as a model of what all Catholic women should do needs to be questioned deeply.
The question must be asked: Is it right and just for an organization to attempt to maintain its patriarchal dominance by keeping women believing that their subserviance, devalued existence vis a vis their children and husbands, and 2nd class citizenship in church and world is a good and holy thing? If we determine that it is not, let the demythologizing begin!
St. Gianna made a choice to
St. Gianna made a choice to deliberately sacrifice her life so that her child would live. But her child had a good chance of living--in this case the most likely outcome was the death of both mother and child.
I don't think we need to minimize the sacrifice of St. Gianna in order to support the decision of the mother and hospital officials in this particular case.
Having said that, I've noticed a pattern among those critical of Sister McBride: They all seem to insist that a way could have been found to save the baby. Wishful thinking. I have to ask: Do you REALLY believe that a dead mother and a dead baby is a more moral and life-affirming outcome to this situation?
Um...St. Gianna Molla chose
Um...St. Gianna Molla chose not to kill her child, which was heroic, in that she sacrificed her own life so that her God-created baby could live. Her baby is now a 39 or 40-year old physician.
And if you don't see how that makes her a saint, you're hopeless.
The problem is the fact that
The problem is the fact that Canon Law exists. It is not related to the practice of Christianity in any manner. It simply represents another vehicle in the exercise of power and greed, nothing more. Of course that's true of many of the traditions of the Church, too many to enter into here. Good Catholics pay no attention to any of this nonsense beyond their own personal relationship with Christ. Excommunicated, from what??? .... and so what !!
"Cannon" Law? You're
"Cannon" Law? You're thinking weapons of war. It's actually "canon law." And you are an authority on "Cannon" Law?
Isn't it funny that the church is so obsessed with a crime that only women can commit? Of course they are. Men kill women and children, innocents around the globe, and the church hardly bats an eye. But abortion---it's all the woman's fault. Why is there no talk about the responsiblity of fathers in these cases? It is such a glaring inconsistency, it will never cease to amaze me.
Brett Adams on Jun. 08,
Brett Adams on Jun. 08, 2010.
You stated:
"No. It's there, black and white, in Cannon Law. I would like to further point out that if anyone just looks at the timeline, the Bishop announced the automatic excommunication AFTER it had already become public knowledge."
-------------------------------------------
First of all, Brett---it is Canon Law (although---an excommunication is a pretty heavy spiritual projectile---fit for a cannon).
Secondly, like so many 'cook-book' Catholics---you have a need to be sure---to run from consulting one book or another (either the CCC or Canon Law). Neither of these books are the Word of God. Sacred Scripture is----but very few 'cook-book' Catholics refer to it. Sad.
Thirdly, Everything in Canon Law is based on abstract theory, which is written in the calm, cool, rational style of Church legalities. Human life and human events don't always occur in a calm, cool manner. When people are ill or are suffering a condition which is life-threatening---the medical staff has to use the training that they have received to make decisions. Margaret McBride is a Sister, but she is also a trained nurse (with an advanced degree). And the situation facing her and the medical staff was multi-layered---not a simple---black and white solution that you seem to think is listed in Canon Law.
And that is where the Bishop went wrong. He failed to take into account the great human variables. If we were all programmed on an assembly line---it would be easy to predict how each of us would act. But we are not robots, puppets. We are HUMAN---and the HUMAN understanding, the HUMAN perception of the hectic situation right in front of one's eyes, and the HUMAN desire to do the BEST one can in a given situation----makes all the difference in the world. That and that alone determines innocence or guilt in the EYES OF GOD--
And Brett---that is all that matters. Not what some man-made Canon Law states. It is the understanding of a person's mind and heart---and their INTENT---that matter before God.
And if the Bishop were really a true man of God, a true pastor--he would know and understand that. He wouldn't be going about shocking the world with his half-cocked pronouncements. He can point to Canon Law all he wishes---it is Sister Margaret's intent, and understanding----which render null and void his
'knee-jerk' proclamation.
Bishop Olmstead, I don't believe, has ever in his life---been in the situation that Sr. Margaret was in. She had very little time to make a decision. He had the time to think over his pronouncement. He blew it! Sister Margaret isn't the one giving scandel----Olmstead is!
Where a wise pastoral bishop would have gathered all the staff members together, with Sr. Margaret, to discuss exactly what happened on that day---Olmstead did not.
He just announced this---as though Catholics would say, "Oh my! This Sister committed a terrible sin! A horrible scandal!" Instead, people in America and all over the world (who have read about this---and they have in Canada, England and Australia---probably in other places as well) are SHOCKED, not as Sr. Margaret's actions---but at Bishop Olmstead's words, and actions. He is acting like God called him to be a "Law and Order" Enforcer.
Both as a pastor and as a man who is called to model Jesus as a Servant-Leader (and that was one of the few things that Jesus insisted upon)---Olmstead has failed and failed miserably! He should resign---because he is only a hierling---with no true understanding or love for the flock he has been installed to lead.
The sad irony in all of this
The sad irony in all of this is that Sr. Margaret made an informed and merciful decision based on her conscience and that of the parents and she is excommunicated for it. She saved a life and protected the lives of a young family and for that she is excommunicated. She is a true servant of Jesus, making hard decisions in very real life-threatening situations. How dare Bishop Olmsted make such an arrogant and unmerciful decision?
Back years ago after having an abortion upon learning that a drug I had been given before I knew I was pregnant was a severe teratogen, I was never excommunicated. I still believe that Jesus grieved with me - it wasn't an easy decision then and it isn't easy having to live over 30 years now knowing I made that decision. But God is a forgiving parent who suffers with us and forgives us when we have to make hard decisions. (Say all you want - but I confessed the abortion and my sins are absolved - although in my own mind they were absolved long before I confessed it - the priest just substantiated what I already knew in my heart).
And until Bishop states that the priest that blessed the Enola Gray along with Fat Man and Little Boy should have been excommunicated - no one will ever convince me that Sr. Margaret should have been automatically or pronounced excommunicated. Sr. Margaret is and continues to be a real servant of Jesus. On the contrary, Bishop Olmsted is a servant of greed, intolerance, and self-serving drive to advance his own career.
Automatic excommunication can
Automatic excommunication can be resolved with one's confessor. If the confessor agrees that Canon 47 applies, rather than Canon 45, there is no automatic excommunication. The bishop can either give Sister Margaret due process, in which case his pronouncement is inappropriate, or he can assume excommunication is automatic, in which case it carries on canonical weight - meaning no results come from it as far as her position with the hospital and her order. You cannot have it both ways and His Excellency cannot govern his diocese (or shephard his flock) by press release.
True, according to Olmsted,
True, according to Olmsted, the sister excommunicated herself.
The good bishop made sure the public (as well as Sister McBride) knew about her "latae sensentiae" excommunication.
However, when a hierarch "announces" automatic excommunication rather than "pronounces" excommunication, would you not agree that canon law gives a bishop a rather wishy-washy way to excommunicate someone without, at the same time, doing the deed in his own right?
Furthermore (just as an added thought), excommunication in the primitive Christian churches was a community decision, not a personal one reserved to the liturgical/community leader. Communities were well aware of the transgressions of errant members possibly meriting excommunication.
Did the Catholics of the Phoenix diocese have any chance to offer their input on this matter based on primitive Christian practice? Even today, would they support the bishop's view that McBride automatically excommunicated herself?
This scandalous episcopal behavior ("scandalous" because it encourages other likeminded bishops to engage in the same egregious misuse of authority) is all the more reason for Rome to reconsider --- in light of primitive Christian practice --- the advisability of retaining in canon law the notion of so-called 'automatic excommunications'.
Shame on this bishop!
Bret is correct. What the
Bret is correct. What the sister did lead to automatic excommunication, with or without the Bishop's announcement. The Bishop was making sure that everyone knew that the good sister was excommunicated. This was not wishy washy but a formal and public declaration of Church policy. Nothing more, nothing less
Sparch, could you tell me of
Sparch, could you tell me of what relevance if any a faithful using his/her informed conscience is? Do you think this is what Sr. Margaret relied upon and if so is a public announcement of an auto-exco a proper punishment?
And anybody who knows please tell... is using one's IC always punishable? Does IC always always mean acting in absolute accordance with doctrine, dogma, encyclicals, catechism, compendium, Canon Law, National Directory of Catechesis... oh and the Bible too? If so why does the term exist?
By all accounts, Sr. Margaret made the decision to save the one life that actually could be saved. "Nothing more, nothing less" aptly fits the overwhelming number of outraged faithfuls' view too.
To answer your question about
To answer your question about informed conscience..."Does IC always always mean acting in absolute accordance with doctrine, dogma, encyclicals, catechism, compendium, Canon Law, National Directory of Catechesis... oh and the Bible too? If so why does the term exist?"
Of course that's what it means! At least according to the "new" church of today. I don't know how many times I've heard discussions and questions about informed conscience and it's decisions, and the answer, particularly on Catholic Radio is always, "If you have have made an informed, conscience decision that is NOT following in lines with Church teaching, THEN, you have formed your conscience poorly!
Come on! We are not uneducated children who have to "listen to everything Father says", look where that's gotten us so far!
No Sparch, this was a
No Sparch, this was a decision designed to use excommunication to bully Sr. McBride and the hospital. What the good bishop failed to do is publically pronounce the same excommunication on the mother and father who ultimately made this decision, as he should have done had he been really following Canon Law.
The question is why leave the parents out and focus on Sr. McBride? Is it because he really is wishy washy or because he wanted to make an unambiguous point to the hospital about who was really in charge.
To clarify, my introduction
To clarify, my introduction of the term 'wishy washy' was intended to show how a bishop can, in effect, excommunicate somebody without formally initiating such excommunication in his own right. In other words, a bishop can say (in this case, I think wrongly) that somebody has excommunicated herself rather than declaring on his own authority that he's kicking somebody out of the church. We might refer to such behavior as episcopal buckpassing: "Hey, the sister excommunicated herself; I didn't excommunicate anybody." The bishop doesn't have to prove his case. He just "announces" rather than do the heavy lifting required on his part to kick somebody out of the church. Or, to put it another way, why should the bishop do his homework when he doesn't have to? The "latae sententiae" route is so comparatively easy to use. The bishop didn't kick the sister out of the church, but he is nonetheless able to burden her with the fallout from excommunication. In this case, Olmsted was able to evade responsibility for the supposed excommunication (I say 'supposed' since I am not at all persuaded that the sister is excommunicated). He attaches all blame to the sister.
It is this kind of episcopal jujitsu that a bishop can use to go after a perceived opponent: "Sister did wrong; I didn't do anything." I regard such behavior in this instance as a clear abuse of authority on Olmsted's part.
If he ultimately fails to apologize to the sister and her fellow Catholics in the Phoenix diocese, I believe the people should effectively remove him from office. How? Stop tithing and all other aid to the institutional church.
Church policy? What about
Church policy? What about the policy of Jesus? God bless Sr. Margaret for a wise decision which I believe is based on the Gospel life of Jesus and not on some manmade construct such as Canon Law. How many lives were taken from the rape of children by priests and bishops? None of them were excommunicated. Where is Canon Law with regard to these cases?
You can't excommunicate
You can't excommunicate yourself. You can leave active Church practice, but you can't excommunicate yourself. That's not the meaning of the word. It has to be done to you.
Not according to canon
Not according to canon law.
Which is why Olmsted's behavior suggests it might be good for Rome to eliminate "latae sententiae" excommunication from the Code of Canon Law.
His behavior in this instance is an egregious misuse of episcopal authority. Automatic excommunication is too tempting an option for a bishop interested in going after somebody with whom he disagrees.
Excommunication means
Excommunication means banishment from the community. Not unlike the lepers of the time of Jesus. Now, the crazyness here would seem to be: if one is only banished by one's own doing and no one knows about it, (maybe not even the one self-banished) then nothing has really happened now, has it ? It takes the tacking up of a notice in the public square to bring about any outward effect. So as a practical matter there is no such thing as self banishment (automatic excommunication). Its a myth that those in authority wish to maintain in order to assure continued control by Fear.
Should any of the individuals identified by their position or action (doctors,nurses, etc.) in this case entertain any misgivings after the fact, let them discuss it with their confessor. Leave it at that instead of making a political statement with Jesus sitting on the sideline 'writing in the sand.'
Perhaps without realizing it,
Perhaps without realizing it, you have alluded to the primitive Christian understanding of banishment/excommunication from the religious gathering. If somebody was excommunicated in the primitive churches, it was only because their sin was already public knowledge and the person refused to repent. The earliest Christians were understandably concerned to maintain their collective good name. Excommunication was a community decision, not something reserved to the community's (religious) leader. It was a last resort in a series of steps to persuade the sinner to return to the good graces of his/her community. It was not the legalistic mumbo-jumbo that a few hierarchs today like to employ against their perceived enemies in the church.
Joe, I like your
Joe, I like your clarification of my comment. Thanks,RWD
Brett Adams equation of
Brett Adams equation of "excummunication" with "finding fault" is ridiculous. The public "excommunication" by the Bishop stands, whether, in her conscience Sister feels "dis-membered" from Christ and Sacrament or not. Personally, I suspect she is quite at peace in her relationship with Christ. As a direct consequence she was "forced" to leave her position and was publically humiliated by a hierarch based upon his interpretation of canon law. To repeat myself, as the law in its robotic application is oft condidered an "ass", let us remember that the law is not a living thing so where does the appelation fit in this case?
True and well said.
True and well said.
Mr Adams., did you actually
Mr Adams., did you actually read the article? It sounds like you reacted to the one statement. The bishop broadcast the fact to the world without taking time to ask the questions this article asks. The time is past when bishops could make such sweeping statements and the rest of the local church would say"Yes, of course!" Reread the article.
Brett, you are correct.
Brett, you are correct. Olmsted & his brother bishops have excommunicated themselves for their
complicity & neglect in the on-going, now global saga known as the clergy sex abuse scandal. Have any members of the clergy (ie Fr Maciel, founder of the Legion of Christ) or episcopate (ie Cardinal Groer, former archbishop of Vienna)
ever been excommunicated? I think not! May God Bless Sister Margaret McBride, RSM, RN & her vocation!
I will NEVER again put a cent in the collection plate at Church, in fact, my favorite new charity is the
Sisters of Mercy in Burlingame, CA, Sr Margaret's religious community.
That's a good idea! All
That's a good idea! All donations by those who disapprove in Olmstead's diocese and elsewhere should be sent to Sister's order.
Brett, you are correct.
Brett, you are correct. Olmsted & his brother bishops have excommunicated themselves for their
complicity & neglect in the on-going, now global saga known as the clergy sex abuse scandal. Have any members of the clergy (ie Fr Maciel, founder of the Legion of Christ) or episcopate (ie Cardinal Groer, former archbishop of Vienna)
ever been excommunicated? I think not! May God Bless Sister Margaret McBride, RSM, RN & her vocation!
I will NEVER again put a cent in the collection plate at Church, in fact, my favorite new charity is the
Sisters of Mercy in Burlingame, CA, Sr Margaret's religious community.
All this rhetoric but no
All this rhetoric but no mention of the basic concepts of patient confidentiality. How did the bishop find out? Who provided the information? Shall we next see the Operations Report? Discharge recommendation? St. Joe's needs to look into the violation of HIPPA. Brett - you are off base in defending of the indefensible.
k
Bret. I am certain if you
Bret. I am certain if you were told you were going to die along with the child you had conceived you would scrape out your own uterus with your bare hands if others refused to help you. You are a hypocrite and until you walk in those shoes, and you never will, just shut the hell up. People like you are what is wrong with religion. You think you have the right to choose for everyone. I would wager children tremble when you are near, for good reason.
Mr. Adams, She did not murder
Mr. Adams,
She did not murder her child. You have a very narrow and judgmental view.
Excommunication latiae
Excommunication latiae sententiae is an idea in Canon Law that allows bishops to still look good in the public relations game. If a bishop were to formally excommunicate a person or persons through the strictest form, it would look at lot like oppression and retribution. Latiae sententiae is a passive-aggressive form and supposedly leaves the bishop above the fray, although it's just a game anyway. Canon Law is quite a humorous list of "offenses". It shows how truly silly the catholic church and its laws are.
Well, it appears that Bishop
Well, it appears that Bishop Thomas has created a situation that underscores his own pastoral failure. Is that not in itself a scandal?
The Episcopal NUN-BASHING
The Episcopal NUN-BASHING continues....
If Bishop Olmsted does not
If Bishop Olmsted does not eventually apologize to Sister McBride and the local community, the good Catholics of Phoenix should effectively remove him from office. His behavior is, quite simply, reprehensible. He epitomizes the kind of religious law enforcement condemned by Jesus.
Sister McBride is the only
Sister McBride is the only one that ought to be apologizing for having permitted the killing of a human being and for having caused such a scandal.
Rubbish!
Rubbish!
I am sure that Sr McBride and
I am sure that Sr McBride and the mother are very sorry that such a decision in order to save the life of the mother of four other children had to be made in the first place. There really was no other choice. It seems you would have preferred if the mother died too!! That is scandalous!
The real scandal is your kind of immature attitude of ignorance and lack of empathy or sense of dignity for the life of the mother and her other family members. Your attitude of "Just let the mother die" is plain old ugly, ignorant, asinine selfishness, and by the way, it is not Pro-Life. You are really against life, and in this case against the life of the mother.
You are also against freedom of conscience. When people such as you decide to make decisions based on your own conscience it is called tyranny. Mind your own business and if you decide that you want to die along with your fetus, go right ahead.
Anonymous on Jun. 08,
Anonymous on Jun. 08, 2010.
You stated:
"Sister McBride is the only one that ought to be apologizing for having permitted the killing of a human being and for having caused such a scandal."
-----------------------------------------------
And should she apologize for saving the life of the mother? Apparently, you
think that it is NOTHING that she saved the life of the mother. But then, I guess, a woman's life means nothing to you, either.
If the Church were a
If the Church were a democratic institution rather than a hierarchical throwback to the dark ages, Phoenix Catholics would be able to remove Olmstead. It isn't up to the people, but to the pope, to oust a bishop. I honestly don't know what our current pope would do, because I think Olmstead is even further out in his practice than Ratzinger/Benedict XVI is.
What a kind and beautiful
What a kind and beautiful countenance Sister McBride presents in this photo.
My heart and the hearts of many break for her.
We know the very hard work, great sacrifice, and personal committment women-religious like Sister have given the Church they love.
Olmstead is a callous, ungrateful, creep who represents a very reptilian anti- woman patriarchy.
Perhaps Olmstead's punishment of Sister for her contribution to the ethics committee in the successful attempt to save the life of the mother should be construed as conspiritorial pressure, after the fact,on doctors and medical staff of the hospital to murder by ommission, future pregnant mothers in the similar conditions .
Olmstead's stance on prolife is a ruse.
I don't find the example of a
I don't find the example of a burning house fire helpful. I would prevent a friend from going back into a burning house where there was a raging inferno and little or no chance to save anyone. I might admire him for trying but it seems suicidal to me.
I also find pardon the pun, the use of the word murder inflammatory and inaccurate.
Please correct me if I am
Please correct me if I am wrong, but does not the participation on an abortion carry with it a penalty of automatic excommunication? That explains why Bishop Olmsted responded the way he did to this event, while the other isseus (such as support of death penalty, priest abuse, etc.) do not receive that punishment? So, it would seem that the theologians are not completely accurate in their assessments because they do not account for a hierchical difference between the wrong that is abortion and those "lesser" wrongs that are listed. It's not so much that excommunication was "used" as a tool, rather than it was a case that this self-inflicted penalty was announced publicly by the bishop. With that said, I'm in agreement with the article otherwise.
Yes, that seems to be the
Yes, that seems to be the case with the auto-exco. I was curious too about why/how it all came to be public, given hipaa. But maybe the 'grave scandal' Sr. Margaret's (heroic) actions caused needed to be exposed, in Bishop Olmsted's view. Well congrats, Bishop, you've done far more damage to the true good (non-extremist) pro-life movement. I for one learned that I am pro-choice as a result (choosing to save 1 life that actually can be saved). I was sure I was pro-life but now after learning of this horrorific insult to tragedy I realize why abortion must in some measure remain legal.
Automatic excommunication is
Automatic excommunication is supposed to be the result of sexual abuse while in the confessional. Certainly not all of the abuse cases accurred in the confessional but many did (read the Philadelphia grand jury repoort). I am waiting for the announcement of that excommunication and am turning very blue from holding mt breath.
Dave Lorenz
"Pharisee" is the word that
"Pharisee" is the word that comes to mind. Jesus preached against the rigid, unthinking application of law, not because the law is itself is invalid, but because blind adherence to the law can lead to absurd results. In Luke 14:5, Jesus asks the Pharsees, "Is it lawful to cure on the Sabbath or not?" He goes on to ask, "Who among you, if your son or ox falls into a cistern, would not immediately pull him out on the sabbath day?" Apparently, Bishop Olmsted would have let the son drown. Sadly, dogma has again trumped compassion.
Ditto to PRC! Our hierarchy
Ditto to PRC! Our hierarchy has drifted far from the spiritual teachings of Jesus. It saddens me.
Both the lives of the mother
Both the lives of the mother and the child are equal according to the medical ethics (Catholic) and moral theology(Catholic) that I learned. Thus one can save the life of one rather than lose the life of both and that is moral. How one saves one, rather than let both die is not the central ethical issue.
The discardable woman, the discrediting of women, the lack of regard present in so much of today's church is frightening.
Thanks you, Odysseus, you are
Thanks you, Odysseus, you are the first to make the point that women are 'discardable'. That has been the opinion of church leaders for centuries. Plenty more women out there, if this one dies, get another. The child is more important than a mere woman. (Although in this case, both would die)
The apportioning of blame
The apportioning of blame here is above my pay grade. What is very clear to me is that no pregnant woman, even a healthy one with no expectation of complications, should ever seek care in a Catholic hospital. Run for your lives, ladies. Run for your lives!
Are those alternatives the
Are those alternatives the only options? Frankly, I was stunned that, so far as I know, a third approach to the situation has not even been mentioned. This involves inducing labor to bring the fetus to birth or performing a C section. According to former Surgeon General Everet Koop:
“When a woman is pregnant, her obstetrician takes on the care of two patients-the mother to be and the unborn baby. If toward the end of the pregnancy, complications arise that threatens the mother’s health, he will take the child by inducing labor or performing a Caesarean section.
His intention is still to save the life of both the mother and the child. The baby will be premature and perhaps immature depending on the length of the gestation. Because it has been taken out of its protective womb, it may encounter threats to its survival. The baby is never willfully destroyed because the mother’s life is in danger.”
Medically, the new born would most likely not survive, but his/her death would not be intended. Imagine an earthquake that has put a hospital building in immanent danger of collapse. The patients must be removed, but such action will put those on life support machinery in serious danger, perhaps probable danger, of death. But if they stay in the unstable building they will die with its collapse. So, too, if the fetus in the above case stays in the mother’s womb the fetus will die when the mother dies. By removing the fetus from the mother’s womb the mother will have a greater chance of survivel; the unborn will not have less of a chance of survival.
Induced labor, according to
Induced labor, according to another article, was the solution Olmstead offered in his meeting with Sr. McBride and the head of the hospital. The fetus was 11 weeks and patently incapable of surviving outside the fetus. This also makes the assumption that a woman who was already in critical condition could sustain labor of any sort.
Your analogy is totally utilitarian, but then that's exactly how Bishops see women--houses of gestation and birth. Where is the respect and dignity in that?
Hi Odysseus, With respect,
Hi Odysseus,
With respect, your viewpoint on the morality of the actions here is not what the Catholic Church teaches.
We cannot under any circumstances directly take (kill) the life of an innocent person, regardless of the reasons or the justifications. It does not matter if by directly taking that innocent life we would save another, or a dozen other innocents. The ends do not and cannot justify the means.
The Church teaches that the double effect principle cannot be used when the action is an intrinsically evil action. There can be no justification for an intrinsically evil act. Such an act is always wrong and immoral, there are no exceptions and there can be no justifications for it.
It is an infallible teaching of the Catholic Church that an abortion, being the direct and intentional taking of an innocent life, is an intrinsically evil act.
We can't save the life of one innocent by killing another. Everyone dies, that doesn't give us the right to kill innocent people.
This is a hard teaching, no question about that. But Jesus has given us hard teachings, and it is up to us to either leave him as the crowds did, or stay with him as the apostles did.
Post new comment