The Independent News Source
NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
PDF versionThomas J. Olmsted: Portrait of a 'policy-driven' bishop
'It helps to know that he grew up on a Kansas farm near the Nebraska border and attended a one-room rural school.'
Jun. 03, 2010
Bishop Thomas Olmsted (CNS photo)
When Wichita Bishop Eugene Gerber delivered his homily at the 1999 ordination of his new coadjutor bishop, Thomas J. Olmsted, he addressed prescient words directly to Olmsted.
The crucifixion-resurrection paradoxes of Christianity, he said, “will both raise you up and weigh you down in ways you have never experienced, I suspect. They will cause you both to rejoice and to weep with the deepest emotion, like Christ himself.”
Olmsted may have experienced some of that whiplash pressure in his four years in Wichita, where he eventually served as bishop, but nothing like what he’s going through now as bishop of Phoenix.
“I’m sure he’s lost some sleep over this,” says Msgr. Robert Hemberger, who served Olmsted in Wichita as chancellor and later as vicar general, his current position.
The “this” to which Hemberger refers is a national controversy over Olmsted’s role in a Phoenix nun’s excommunication for her part in approving an abortion at a Catholic hospital there.
And yet Hemberger was not surprised when he learned Olmsted had declared that Sister Margaret McBride had, by her actions, excommunicated herself.
“He’s very, very much on policy,” Hemberger said of Olmsted. “Whatever issue would come up he’d say, ‘What’s our policy on that?’ He’s a very policy-oriented kind of a person. His idea behind that is that he wanted to be consistent.”
Hemberger also knew that Olmsted is “firmly, absolutely, vigorously committed to pro-life issues and the unborn. So I wasn’t surprised (about the excommunication) in light of his convictions.”
Hemberger’s description of Olmsted’s approach to being a bishop squares with descriptions used not just byChris Carpenter, a former Catholic priest in Phoenix who incurred excommunication under Olmsted last year, but also by others who were unwilling to speak on the record because Olmsted still is in a position to affect their careers.
NCR: February 3-16, 2012
Subscribe to NCR to get all the news and special features that aren't always available online. In this issue:
- US News: Bishops Host Conference on Immigration
Conference fields advocates' questions on law, policy
- Special Section: Deacons. Serving as parish administrator; roles of wives; and more
- Study: Black Catholics are more engaged
New study by Notre Dame researcher about parish involvement in America
Here’s a description of Olmsted from Carpenter, who was excommunicated for joining a movement not in communion with the Catholic Church and who now works in California as a priest for that group, the Reformed Catholic Church: “He’s very much governed by canon law and obedience and fidelity to church teaching and the magisterium and the institution. There’s no compromise with him. There’s no real dialogue with him. Olmsted likes to present himself publicly as gentle and compassionate, but that is not my personal experience of him.”
And here are comments from others who declined to be named:
• “He is a man of the rules and very much a company man” who puts the institutional church ahead of people.
• He shares Pope Benedict XVI’s understanding of church and Vatican II in that Olmsted is in the “Vatican II revisionist school.”
• Soon after arriving in Phoenix in 2003 he began “hammering” home the importance of being against abortion, against gay marriage, against birth control and more. Indeed, he began requiring anyone wanting a wedding in the diocese to attend a full course on natural family planning. But he took this approach without spending much time with many of the 450,000 people in the diocese to understand their needs and hopes.
The only thing that took Hemberger back a bit was that the story of the nun’s excommunication went so public. But even that offers an insight into Olmsted’s approach.
Olmsted certainly would have preferred to keep the story quiet. But a reporter for the Arizona Republic ferreted out what had happened, causing Olmsted to issue a formal public statement.
Olmsted’s reluctance did not surprise the reporter, Mike Clancy, who said, “It confuses me when a man in his position is so media shy, which contrasts with his predecessor” (Bishop Thomas O’Brien, a much more public, gregarious man who resigned in June 2003 after being charged with leaving the scene of a fatal auto accident).
Clancy’s description of Olmsted as media shy was confirmed when, in response to a request for an interview for this story, Robert DeFrancesco, communications director for the Phoenix Diocese, checked with Olmsted and replied simply, “The bishop is unavailable for interviews at the present time.”
So who is this man whom Hemberger said “was policy-driven but yet very kind person to person?”
It helps to know that he grew up on a Kansas farm north of Marysville near the Nebraska border and attended a one-room rural school. That information, however, isn’t nearly as revealing as a comment Olmsted’s mother, Helen Olmsted, made to the Wichita Eagle at the time of his ordination as coadjutor bishop. In describing the farm of Olmsted’s youth, she said: “This farm hasn’t changed one iota since he left it, and we feel that’s good.”
Clearly, then, he grew up with the values of constancy and tradition and, perhaps, even with an aversion to change.
It also helps to know that he’s been tutored by and worked under some religious leaders who, with respect to canon law and the faith itself, are strict constructionists.
Students under such teachers generally do one of two things: Either they rebel and find a different path or they, too, become strict constructionists.
Tom Olmsted did not rebel. Among those whom Olmsted, as a Nebraska priest, watched as he learned what it took to be a bishop was Fabian W. Bruskewitz of Lincoln, Neb., one of the few bishops in the 2004 presidential election who declared he would refuse to serve Communion to Sen. John Kerry or to other “manifest, persistent, obstinate sinners, including politicians, regardless of which diocese they are from.” Between two assignments in Nebraska, Olmsted spent time in Rome, where, for more than a decade, he was an assistant at the Secretariat of State of the Holy See, not typically a boiling cauldron of innovation.
This does not mean Olmsted became simply a soulless church bureaucrat. Even most critics think that would be an unfair description. People who know him almost invariably describe him as warm, even humorous and charming, especially in more private settings. One put it this way: “He is an ascetical person, a bit shy and timid, yet personable and attentive in conversation. He is prayerful, but very introspective when presiding at liturgy.” Another called him “humble, prayerful.”
Yet someone who also has experienced Olmsted’s persona in more public settings said that at times he “seems to be a cold fish. He doesn’t really relate to people very well.”
Whether charming or stiff-necked, what Olmsted seems to rely on when push comes to shove are the rules, especially those of Holy Mother Church. But is it fair to say he’s more interested in the letter of law than its spirit? Hemberger’s answer:
“I don’t think that would be fair. He is a very personable person. And I’m sure he wrestled on this one, (the nun’s excommunication) as he does everything, over, ‘How do I balance the individual good and the common good?’ He wrestled with those questions regularly but generally it was for the sake of consistency. He’d say, ‘Well, the policy needs to work.’”
If Olmsted found policies he didn’t like would he be open to changing them? Again, Hemberger:
“He was very receptive to changing policy, although that would depend on which level it came from. If it was universal law, he’d say, ‘Well, that’s universal law of the church.’ If it was individual policy of the diocese, he’d say, ‘How did it get to be? And why is it? And does it still work?’ He’d readily question that.”
So when confronted with the case of a nun who was a member of a hospital ethics committee that approved an abortion to save a mother’s life, Olmsted went right to canon law. Clearly he saw no wiggle room.
In the public statement Olmsted released after the excommunication became known he said: “An unborn child is not a disease. While medical professionals should certainly try to save a pregnant mother’s life, the means by which they do it can never be by directly killing her unborn child. The end does not justify the means.”
Some reporting on this story has left the impression that Olmsted simply excommunicated Sister Margaret. Technically that’s not correct.
Canon law sets up provisions for a “latae sententiae” (or automatic) excommunication. Olmsted, thus, reviewed the facts of the case — perhaps speaking to Sister Margaret herself, though no one personally involved in what happened has confirmed that — and then simply informed her that she had excommunicated herself because she participated in the decision to terminate an 11-week pregnancy. (Carpenter says Olmsted never spoke with him before sending him a lengthy letter — Carpenter called it a “diatribe” — telling him he had initiated a canonical investigation of the priest. In the end there was no Olmsted-Carpenter conversation at all, just an exchange of letters.)
There has been much debate in the church and the media about whether Olmsted did all he could to achieve a different outcome, given that the purpose of excommunication is to reconcile the offender with the church.
And no doubt that debate will continue, even among people inside and outside the church who know little or nothing about canon law.
But what seems clear — even without the opportunity to hear Olmsted explain his action in response to media questions — is that in this case he acted in complete harmony with his career’s strict-constructionist, rule-based approach to ministry.
Bill Tammeus, a Presbyterian elder and former award-winning Faith columnist for The Kansas City Star, writes the daily “Faith Matters” blog for The Star’s Web site and a monthly column for The Presbyterian Outlook. His latest book, co-authored with Rabbi Jacques Cukierkorn, is They Were Just People: Stories of Rescue in Poland During the Holocaust. E-mail him at wtammeus@kc.rr.com.
NCR reporting on the Phoenix-excommunication case
|
Wow, this article is simply
Wow, this article is simply full of slander and attacks.
Slander? I don't see how this
Slander? I don't see how this article defames the bishop at all.
Nor do I. Fear not sister,
Nor do I.
Fear not sister, excommunication has deteriorated into little more than a political tool wielded by reactionaries in purple with a Vatican or Opus Dei-based agenda. It is about as effective in forcing the faithful to repent of their sins as being thrown out of "The Book-of-the-Month Club".
With respect to the quote, "there’s no real dialogue with him." So, what else is new?
This could be said of most bishops and their chancery lackies. The entire episcopate needs to be abolished and rebuilt into what the scriptures and the ante-Nicene fathers envisoned. Today the imperial papacy and the universal hierarchical and autocratic model of Church government is a travesty of justice and is increasingly viewed as an antedeluvian institution wedded to control. Totally out of touch with the concerns and the moral crises average Catholics must face.
They have become crypto fascist instruments for social agenda setting designed to appeal to evangelicals and entrenched European right-wing elites trying to roll back any form of progress. The objective being to re-shape the Church as the phalanx for defending the past and molding the world to return to the glory days of Franco, Mussolini, and Hitler. I would never, ever want the preservation and expansion of my civil liberties placed in the hands of these clowns.
More and more pope and bishops are being seen as part of a criminaly motivated cover-up for malfeasance, bribery, and obstruction of justice. Power for power sake.
Nothing in this article rises
Nothing in this article rises to the level of slander. The reporter interviews people who both like and dislike the bishop; if anything, comments supporting the bishop as a prayerful and good man far outnumber two comments (one from an unnamed source) who say they did not find him particularly warm and pastoral in his approach.
The reporter also corrects the mistaken impression readers may have gotten from his first piece that the bishop directly excommunicated the nun.
My overall impression from this article is that bishop 1) felt his hands were tied by the rules he personally had no authority to change, and 2) he would rather this have remained a private matter between him and the nun.
However, SOMEONE leaked the story--either with or without the bishop's consent. And since the cat is out of the bag, so to speak, I am puzzled as to why the bishop will not speak publicly on this issue. Unless he just thinks there isn't anything more to say....
where, Brett? SEems like
where, Brett?
SEems like pretty much a straight bio piece . . .
Thanks for your mindless
Thanks for your mindless emotional response.
Thanks for misunderstanding
Thanks for misunderstanding sarcasim.
"Wow, this article is simply
"Wow, this article is simply full of slander and attacks."
Wow, and the slander and attacks come from Bishop Olmsted.
The church does not need a battalion of robots in charge of dioceses.
The church DOES need compassionate, kind, competent persons in love with God and the people they serve.
This man, Olmsted, is an abomination and should be dismissed.
Amen! Olmsted & his brother
Amen! Olmsted & his brother bishops excommunicated themselves for their thorough neglect
in the ongoing clergy sex-abuse scandal; as far as I know, no member of the clergy was
ever excommunicated for perpetrating abuse upon children. I've sent a contribution
to the Sisters of Mercy in Burlingame, CA in Sister Margaret's name. NEVER again will I
put a cent in church collection basket until men like Olmsted are gone & women rule!
In other words, Phoenix needs
In other words, Phoenix needs a pastor, not a prosecutor.
Will the good bishop apologize to the sister?
She certainly merits an apology from him.
I couldn't agree more.
I couldn't agree more. Anonymous sources? Please, that is just poor journalism. Rather than dealing with the issues surrounding the excommunication the article lobs ad hominem attacks at the Bishop. Look into the movement that Carpenter joined. It is a heretical group that broke off the Catholic Church yet still calls themselves Catholic, how could any responsible Bishop not excommunicate a priest that does that?
I've learned that the
I've learned that the Catholic Church is much bigger than just the ROMAN Catholic Church. I technically--and thankfully--excommunicated myself.
Same here 3-1/2 years ago
Same here 3-1/2 years ago (and I'm 62, served the Tridentine mass in my youth).
If/when we get a future pope and bishops getting Rome back on track and trajectory with Vatican II, I'll reconsider my decision.
Until then, waiting but not holding my breath.
Joseph--before you talk about
Joseph--before you talk about the supposed "trajectory of vatican II" perhaps you could pick up some of the documents and actually read them. Then, when finished, kindly report back to us anything that "Rome" is doing that goes against any of the documents. You will be looking for a long time to try to find a single instance.
Dear "Anonymous", I've had
Dear "Anonymous",
I've had ever since the beginning of JPII's pontificate to see how he and now his successor have backtracked and frustrated the renewal called for by the world's bishops at Vatican II.
Get hold of Ratzinger's 1966 THEOLOGICAL HIGHLIGHTS OF VATICAN II, recently (thank God) republished by Paulist Press, to discern how this fear-filled man has "done a 180" since his days as a peritus at Vatican II. If you have access, read John Wilkins' article on this subject in current issue of COMMONWEAL.
You needed to follow your
You needed to follow your conscience with always trumps the rules of the Roman Catholic church or any human ruled church. Good for you and our prayers are with you in your journey with God.
Our group would love to learn more of this Reformed Catholic Church that you belong to. We are hanging on by our fingernails in the archdiocese we are currently a part of. Life long Catholics most of us are. And this heirarchy should be ashamed of themselves. But as our less than Christian cardinal says to us, "go ahead and leave and we will then have a purer more obedient church!" Sounds just like how Jesus would have responded to so many hurt and discouraged people in His time on earth, Doesn't it? (Sarcasm)
Thank you, Joanne Marie & Co.
Thank you, Joanne Marie & Co. You can learn more about our communion by visiting www.reformedcatholicchurch.com. We are a branch of the Old Catholic Church established in the wake of the papal declaration of infallibility during the first Vatican Council.
Jeff, There are many people
Jeff, There are many people who are afraid to speak up and share their true thoughts and feelings as they will be punished, fired, whatever these arrogant "bishops" can think of to humiliate and deprive the person of a livelihood.
Where did they ever get ex-communication? Jesus never taught excommunication. Why do we have it? A fetus that is 11 weeks old is not viable. A committee of doctors, medical professionals and religious along with the parents came to this decision. I am sure it as an extremely sad situations for all of them. and it was not an easy decision for any of them. There is no way the mother would have lived, let alone the baby. I am sure if there were they may have all made a different decision.
Personally, if I was this sister I would excommunicate him and get a T-Shirt saying I was excommunicated by a man who belongs to the good ol' boys club! The club I refer to is the one that protect criminals so they can continue their crime spree but then they turn around and have the audacity to set up these situations that are untenable for anyone. These heirarchs all need to step down but then they wouldn't have the power to tell people if they are saved or not. A poorer reflection of Jesus other than these officious heirachs I have never run across. Every time they open their mouths they just show how out of touch they are with the Gospel of Jesus Christ. We all need to pray for them. That their eyes may be opened.
So, what makes them
So, what makes them heretical? Did they want to live out the promise and hope of Vatican 2 initiatives? They really must be bad(sarcasm)...so excommunicate them? Once again, why are we excommunicating anyone? Why don't we let God judge people's status. I am sure he'd be much more loving than you, Jeff.
NCR's bias just spills over
NCR's bias just spills over in this one--"Policy?" "Policy-DRIVEN"???
The Catholic Church doesn't teach "policy"--it teaches TRUTH. Sheesh. And bishops are supposed to actually *embrace* and live that truth.
So, yeah, wow--imagine that--a bishop who actually believes and lives the truth (not "policy") of the Church. Even adherence to canon law is not following "policy", but rather being obedient to the consequences of truth.
The biased attempt to relativize the truth by labelling it "policy" fails.
Jesus Christ who was the
Jesus Christ who was the TRUTH Incarnate never excommunicated anyone. So what makes these heirarchs who shield men(criminals) who raped our children so in touch with the TRUTH? I have read the documents of Vatican 2 and where in those documents do you see what is happening in the heirarchy with their rush back to the good old days of the Medieval church like the documents that came out of Vatican 2? Just wondering... Oh and by the way they have totally lost their credibility about anything they say morally. The Archbishop of Canterbury was right when he said just that...they are no longer the leaders of the Catholic church in so many peoples hearts and minds. And we lay people shouldn't leave but we are not going to accept them as our leaders.We need to stand up together an demand that they step down and get real day jobs. So I guess we face living in the land of Egypt till Herod dies. The Holy Spirit is at work and S/he seems pretty angry at the state of this "Roman" Catholic church.
Has anyone talked about the
Has anyone talked about the nuances of Catholic moral theology on this case? There would seem to be the basis that the 'abortion' was not the intention of the procedure but rather the health of the mother. What about the moral position of unintended consequences? All that is quoted in this case is Canon Law. The Church has a far richer tradition that is being overlooked.
The point remains is that
The point remains is that this nun believes what she did was right and there is nothing that the church could have done to change her mind. Thus excommunication was the only route to go since she feels that she has done no wrong in her conscience.
The bishop really wasn't given any wiggle room because this sister will never admit that she made a bad decision. More so, given this outcry for dialogue, why didn't this sister call the diocese and get some canonical/episcopal advise instead going at it alone. Liberals speaks out of two sides of their mouths. They only want dialgoue when it benefits them. Obviously this sister knew that she was enterring into difficult situation which required outside expertise espeically in matters of faith and morals and instead of looking to her bishop for counsel, she felt that she was compentent to make that decision alone with her three panel ethics committee. This is where she went wrong and now in order for her to be reconciled with the church she has to admit that she committed a serious offense against God and against humanity, which this sister will never do.
And you know this how?
And you know this how? Because you've talked with her? You know because she TOLD you that "she knew that she was entering into a difficult situation which required outside expertise especially in matters of faith and morals and instead of looking to her bishop for counsel, she felt that she was competent to make that decision alone with her three panel ethics committee." Your assumptions are slanderous and "a serious offense against God and against humanity."
There was no good choice here
There was no good choice here only bad choices for the sister. The mother was a mother of 4 other children and had the mother died, the unborn baby would also go with her and four other children would be without their remaining parent.
Even though a strict rules interpretation reads it is automatic and clear cut in actually it was anything but. The sister made what she thought was the least worst of two bad choices, there was no way out of this unless you take a compassionate view of Catholic Theology and not a rote reading of Canon Law as this Bishop did.
The nun, it seems to me, gave
The nun, it seems to me, gave her life so that another woman might live. That is a lot more saintly than the bishop's action.
The nun, it seems to me, gave
The nun, it seems to me, gave her life so that another woman might live. That is a lot more saintly than the bishop's action
________________________________________________________
Interesting comment.
Some Catholics dehumanize women reducing them to little more than fetal containers. Those Catholics who do are a blight and a danger to the well-being of all women. Luckily, Sister had the moral fortitude and integrity to contribute to an ethical decision in dire circumstances to save the life of the mother. This Sister has been singled out and unjustly slandered for her compassion and good will.
As such, many would not blame her if she were to research cause to seek legal remedy for the damage done to her good name.
In many peoples hearts this Sister is a stellar example of an alter- Christus who put her religious life on the line in order to save the life of a woman that too many here are too willing to forfeit.
Praise God they had no power and praise God the Sister acted with honor and compassion. Blessed is she who comes in the name of the Lord! This Sister is indeed a woman-Christ!
Do we know whether the
Do we know whether the murdered unborn baby was female? Although it does not matter whether the baby is male or female, the point is that womanhood is also murdered by abortion. In other words, she was killed with the advice of the "good" Sister. Neither she nor you nor anyone else has the right to take a human life. What part of that basic principle do you not understand? I'll explain it to you. If any reason pops into your mind that you think may justify the direct killing of any human life, just go ahead and say to yourself, "OK, it may sound alright, but I'm going to return the first presupposition: Do not take any life." Its really that simple.
Your post is just another example of the moral rot that has infected the Church and society. The gloves need to come off of every bishop's hand. Like Jesus in the Temple, the Church needs to be cleared. If I become bishop one day, I will excommunicate every last so-called "Catholic" who does not publicly defend the sanctity of human life and marriage. They can post all day long on the NCR, but they will not be receiving Holy Communion in my Churches.
Do we know whether the
Do we know whether the murdered unborn baby was female? Although it does not matter whether the baby is male or female, the point is that womanhood is also murdered by abortion. In other words, she was killed with the advice of the "good" Sister. Neither she nor you nor anyone else has the right to take a human life. What part of that basic principle do you not understand? I'll explain it to you. If any reason pops into your mind that you think may justify the direct killing of any human life, just go ahead and say to yourself, "OK, it may sound alright, but I'm going to return the first presupposition: Do not take any life." Its really that simple.
Your post is just another example of the moral rot that has infected the Church and society. The gloves need to come off of every bishop's hand. Like Jesus in the Temple, the Church needs to be cleared. If I become bishop one day, I will excommunicate every last so-called "Catholic" who does not publicly defend the sanctity of human life and marriage. They can post all day long on the NCR, but they will not be receiving Holy Communion in my Churches
_____________________________________________________
Your comment illustrates how far you are willing to stretch a lie. Here's hoping you calm down before you turn blue with your righteous spew so that you can one day give birth to a viable position.
Instead, we see that your undeveloped thought "en embryo" is threatening your religious life and the life of your metaphorical pregnancy. If this poison inside you continues on and threatens your existence we will let you die and your non-viable immature thought with it.
And the lie is what, exactly?
And the lie is what, exactly? Is the lie you allude to the idea that human life has absolute worth from the moment of conception?
As far as calming down, I am extremely calm when writing. Calm or "peace" comes from conforming oneself to the Truth that God reveals in Jesus Christ and His Church. This is holy calm. You will never know such calm and peace until you submit completely to this Truth.
There is a "calm", however, that we should never have at all: the calm of complacency in the face of evil, the calm that refuses to passionately call for justice for those who you have deemed unviable. Just as so many bishops calmly turned their backs on the cries of defenseless children who were abused by the hands of evil priests, so you are asking everyone to turn their backs on helpless children murdered in the womb. How sick and perverted can you get. Thank God for Bishop Olmsted and all those courageous defenders of life and family!
The lie is, your concern for
The lie is, your concern for life and the mannner in which it would be applied, in this case, is destructive of life. Mindlessly following Olmstead is quite wrong-headed and wrong-hearted. No one here wants the death of any babies at all.
In this case, your theoretical position to save the life of the baby would have lead to delay of certain treatment to save the life of the mother, resulting in the destruction of all and the saving of none. Both would have died.
Quoting law from the vantage of blanket theoretical ideals and absolutes that do not deal with suprise and unique intervening variables present in each emergency is irresponsible and facile. It often does much more harm than good. Thus, we can see the good intentions of some pro-lifers here are turned on their heads.
If intervention, as many pro-lifers suggest should not have been as morally swift, ethically compassionate, and medically decisive, mother and fetus would have not survived.
To suggest anything different is to carelessly play righteous roulette with people lives in the comfort of one's ivory tower, while the impending death struggle of real, not theoretical, human persons is painfully at hand.
Your post is just another
Your post is just another example of the moral rot that has infected the Church and society. The gloves need to come off of every bishop's hand. Like Jesus in the Temple, the Church needs to be cleared. If I become bishop one day, I will excommunicate every last so-called "Catholic" who does not publicly defend the sanctity of human life and marriage. They can post all day long on the NCR, but they will not be receiving Holy Communion in my Churches
_____________________________________
If you haven't noticed rev. bubba Jesus has been cleaning out your temple for a while now. So sad, too bad, your Dad has to let you and your confreres learn the hard way.
He's looking to remind you that that little white tongue-depressor around your neck is to remind you to speak no evil and align yourself with no evil inside or outside the church.
Jesus is also here to remind you that you don't own Him. He eint your alter/altar ego. You don't control Him. He is not your good-ole-boy dog-on-a-leash.
Your little threat to get the Bishops to take their gloves off will boomerang on them. The People of God are tired of church Bullies.
As far as withholding comunion goes "The Priest We Seek Are Already Among Us" and they are much more than petty-tyrant wafer-dispensers.
And I guess your policy would
And I guess your policy would apply as well to all the bishops and priests and Catholics who have supported our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan with their compliance, taxes, and support of our military. And to all who support capital punishment as well:
"Neither she nor you nor anyone else has the right to take a human life. What part of that basic principle do you not understand? I'll explain it to you. If any reason pops into your mind that you think may justify the direct killing of any human life, just go ahead and say to yourself, "OK, it may sound alright, but I'm going to return the first presupposition: Do not take any life." Its really that simple.
"...The gloves need to come off of every bishop's hand. Like Jesus in the Temple, the Church needs to be cleared. If I become bishop one day, I will excommunicate every last so-called "Catholic" who does not publicly defend the sanctity of human life and marriage...."
Maybe a policy such as you advocate would actually make (what's left of)the Catholic Church a force for peace and non-violence. Maybe you would also even go farther and actually advocate "love" for others? Wow! Wouldn't that be awesome?
Why did it get all the way
Why did it get all the way down to you before compassion and holy justice appeared?
Mara, you've touched the
Mara, you've touched the heart of the matter and I couldn't disagree with you more. Sister Margaret and her panel were indeed empowered to make that decision. They had made difficult decisions many times before, and with great faith and compassion according to many around her. This was quite a terrible case to decide, with death being almost certain in some way or another. I can only guess that many tears fell before, during, and after the decision to abort. Yes, abortion of the doomed 11 week old was the final call, and I won't sanitize it for you.
Sister's bishop, her pastor, her shepherd, did not ask her why the decision was made. Would our Lord have asked? The gospels are full of dialogues with apostles, women (scandalous at the time), prostitutes, collaborators with the unfaithful Romans, and angry Jewish religious and political leaders. No, sister made the "wrong call", and in your eyes she's automatically cut off from her church she's pledged her life to as well as her Lord. Was our own Father that merciless with us, or did He send His Son to help us try to love again? This bishop, like many of our other bishops, does not emulate our own Lord. By their fruits you shall know them, and this bitter taste comes from the overseer who wasn't there, not the administrator who made a difficult call.
You say "they only want dialogue when it benefits them." Dialogue implies a give and take, and that's not possible from an underling. What liberals want is adherence to the sensus fidelii, the Spirit leading all of us rather than a select few who continually do not do as Jesus did. Personally, I'm glad you are part of that faithful family which the Spirit guides. I'd like you to welcome the rest of us in, too.
Jesus said, "Judge not lest
Jesus said, "Judge not lest you be judged." I guess you think Jesus was wrong, maybe even a "liberal who only wants dialogue when it benefits them." You sound like a brain-washed devotee of Fox Cable "News."
John Dioro on Jun. 03,
John Dioro on Jun. 03, 2010.
You stated:
"Jesus said, "Judge not lest you be judged." I guess you think Jesus was wrong, maybe even a "liberal who only wants dialogue when it benefits them." You sound like a brain-washed devotee of Fox Cable "News.""
-----------------------------------------------------
Judge not lest you be judged---is advice that Bishop Olmstead should have followed before he issued his public statement about Sr. Margaret.
All his mindless pronouncement has done is aggravate the moral divide in the Diocese of Phoenix. For many of the people---a human life saved is worth more than a book of laws (Canon Law)---divised by men, for men, diminishing the worth and value of women.
There's a little mentioned
There's a little mentioned "secret" of an informed conscience. It's what a prayerful servant such as Sr. McBride relies upon when faced immediately with a life/death decision. Perhaps the good doctrine, Canon Law, dogma, encyclicals, dogma, catechism, compendium, national directory of catechesis were not within her physical reach and maybe Bishop Olmsted was not reachable at that precise moment (pure speculation of course) but maybe you can fathom some of the practical difficulties the average person imagines existed.
Faithful steeped in hands-on ministry have a much differently formed paradigm than what you and your ilk appear to have. In addition to faith-filled, they are merciful, knowledgeable, practical, reasoning, logical, and common sense prone. The Gifts of the Holy Spirit are infused within them since they are actively serving God's people.
One of our greatest objections is that Sr. McBride was publicly punished for using her informed conscience which is highlighted in the catechism. If 'IC' is only completely absolutely synonymous with doing exactly what (all the too many documents) says and imitates perfectly what the local Bishop says, why does it exist as a separate term?
Why would wiggle room for the Bishop even enter a faithful's mind? Those focused upon mercy, compassion and serving others wouldn't dare imagine such a fruitless thought. Is it about saving face or ministering to those in need and not harming the pro-life movement by such outrageous illogical, dangerous, incomprehensible theology of death? This isn't some textbook hypothetical, real humans suffered this tragedy and Bishop Olmsted's despicable discretion added insult to injury in the highest degree. He's the perpetrator, not the victim.
It's a case of a half-empty/half-full glass. Those who somehow actually view this as murder cling to fear. Those who praise Sr. Margaret live in hope and honor God that a mother of four is alive, for her living children and spouse.
"The point remains is that
"The point remains is that this nun believes what she did was right and there is nothing that the church could have done to change her mind."
Mara, Sr. Margaret McBride did do the right thing for the 27 year old mother of four. Mother and baby would have both died. She didn't need the Church to help her make up her mind.
"The bishop really wasn't given any wiggle room because this sister will never admit that she made a bad decision."
It wasn't a bad decision. It was the only compassionate course of action to take.
"Obviously this sister knew that she was entering into difficult situation which required outside expertise especially in matters of faith and morals and instead of looking to her bishop for counsel, she felt that she was competent to make that decision alone with her three panel ethics committee."
Sr. Margaret was completely competent and authorized to make the decision. She didn't need to look to her bishop for counsel. She's an adult woman in a position of authority. This decision was made after consultation with the patient, her family, her physicians, and in consultation with the Ethics Committee. In the end, the decision is between the Sr. Margaret and God, not Sr. Margaret and the Church.
I'd much rather have Sr. Margaret at my hospital bedside than Bishop Olmsted.
"I'd much rather have Sr.
"I'd much rather have Sr. Margaret at my hospital bedside than Bishop Olmsted."
What???
And not have the good bishop at your bedside telling you that he's praying for your eternal soul while waiting for you to die??? While he keeps competent, lifesaving medical help at bay??? While he holds your hand and promises to help your other kids financially and emotionally for the rest of their childhood and adolescence??? While he calmly tells you that you are doing the right thing (by dying)??? While he tells you, "Do not be afraid"???
Oh, the good bishop will not be there to attend to your death??? To reassure you??? To let you know that he'll take care of your kids, that they'll eventually be OK without you???
Bishop Olmsted won't be at your bedside???
Figures.
Mara: just what "serious
Mara: just what "serious offense" did she commit?? She made a careful, thoughtful decision, in collaboration with other experts at the hospital, on how to save a woman's life. When making the decision, she knew facts: 1) the embryo would not survive no matter what decision was made, 2) an woman would die if a pregnancy termination did not occur. Her decision was to save one life instead of allowing the death of two lives. No serious offense there.
blessings
Like does anyone really think
Like does anyone really think excommunication means anything to most Catholics? My question remains, priest who rape children, are they excommunicated? They say sexual abuse of children is the death of a soul. Well.
You bet they are
You bet they are excommunicated. Latae sententiae applies to them as it does to any lay person; and more, "they know it".
Fr. Joseph, Amen, and well
Fr. Joseph,
Amen, and well said. Thanks for your voice of clarity and forthrightness.
Maybe I'm wrong, but the last luminaries in the Church are the good/great nuns. As a result of the last many years since Ronald Reagan, Pope JPII and Rev. Jerry Falwell I have lost all faith in the Church hierarchs and likely will die(terminal illness) that way. When I come to this site and read peoples such as yourself, Fr. Dear and so many laity posters who write about the love of God and the resultant death of Jesus I am edified; lifted up. Not made whole again but at least reminded that some of us hated liberals still see the essential message of Jesus, the ultimate and overriding message of Jesus, as one of peace, love, tolerance, and "Do unto others... aka the golden commandment.
When I see the hiearchs failing I always go back to the essences of Christianity, namely, the Laws of God(Ten Commandments) and the teachings of Jesus. These should be the essences of our Catholic Faith as well, but seemingly the essences are GOP politics and it's consumerist and secularist economic hypotheses. That which Mary Ann Glendon (Evangelicals and Catholics Together) and the Vatican has 'hitched it's wagon" to. Could the end result of that wagon hitching be: that as the Republican party goes, so goes the Catholic Church! Therein lies a most grievous danger, possibly THE ultimate grievous danger!
Other than the nuns I have had no one to look to for any guidance/leadership in whatever is left of the Church, which seemed to go away when it aligned with the Republican party and put the totally scurrilous St. Reagan into the WH, thus beginning the degradation of the fabric of our society, the fabric of our democracy and the fabric of the Vaticancy, the Vatican hierarchy. After coming recently to this site just a year ago, I have found a few priests such as Fr. Dear who bespoke of what I can only think to call Liberation Theology and to which I totally adhere. I know the Vatican is not in favor of Liberation Theology but I no longer listen to what the Vatican says. That is because all I can see is that it is always in contradiction to the Laws of God and the teachings of Jesus Christ.
Over the last many years I have found other sources of guidance to look toward including: Jimmy Carter, our most moral pres ever and an evangelical but NOT an evangelical fundie, Rev. Jim Wallis an evangelical but NOT a evangelical fundamentalist, the truly blessed Archbishop Desmond Tutu, the Dalai Lhama and my friend, Rev. Monte Canfield (montecanfield.blogspot.com). Were it not for the aforementioned, I would have long ago given up on religion, NOT God ,just religion, man-made religion including ours.
That's my long way of saying: keep posting. We need your voice of clarity. You see, I could not understand how the Vatican could condemn homosexuality(30-70% in the priesthood) and abortion and not condemn pedophilia in a real and functional way, one that leads to cessation, reparation and reconciliation!!!
I would like someone to please post or better yet, write and article as to exactly why abortion is so soundly condemned that the Pope(s) have put our society and the entire world into the very destructive hands and deadly hands of the GOP. And please don't say that it's canon law because that tells me nothing. Most laws come about for a reason, Canon law about abortion must be the same or no? Exactly why does the pope think it is so important that he would risk the USA and even the entire world over this issue. For an example of that risk, just look at the ME and all of the dead(6200 American troops, 1.33million dead Iraqis and their families). Where is the Pro-life and Family Values in all of that death and family destruction. That family destruction takes three generations(60yrs) to heal, if ever. I have never heard even one good explanation for this condemnation of abortion other than those who say things like: Oh the poor fetus it can't protect itself, it's helpless. People like Patricia Heaton and Russert said those kinds of things but never said a thing when GWB and Cheney killed Iraqi citizens for oil and oil company profits. Under the rule of the GOP, we are all helpless!!! And will continue to be when the next GOP pres(Palin, Jeb Bush, Newt Gingrich) comes to office, likely in 2012.
You priests and all clergy have a very tough job. My friend, the Rev. Dr. Monte Canfield helped me understand that. He is one of the best. He never terrorizes with threats of eternal hell. Nor does he tell me what I MUST believe. He only tells me/us what he believes and then he leaves it up to us to decided. His respect for our God-given soul and our God-given Free Will is unparalleled in my experience. He is a blessing. He is like Archbishop Tutu in that his preaching is simple, straightforward has great clarity and draws one in by never attacking anyone. As a Psychologist, that is the way to "win friends and influence people" and win souls for Christ. Who is not drawn to true Christian love and tolerance???
Blessings and all the best--keep up the good work.
Sorry to all, for the lack of tight editing but I have another doctor appt.
Great comment! Thank you for
Great comment! Thank you for your insight and foresight.
Know that you have ---- a lot----- of support out here.
YES, 'they know it" all the
YES, 'they know it" all the way to their NEW parish.....where they'll NEVER do it again, right Fr. Joseph?
"You bet they are
"You bet they are excommunicated."
If my reading of the entry for "latae sententiae" in Wikipedia is correct, such presbyters are not automatically excommunicated.
If Father Joseph, SJ can cite information to the contrary, it would be most helpful. To date, it does not seem that such men have incurred automatic excommunication because they sexually abused children.
Which, if true, would be a travesty.
To clarify my earlier
To clarify my earlier remark:
I think such guys should be excommunicated in a church court.
I'm opposed to "automatic" excommunications since this "latae" route is ripe for episcopal abuse, as amply demonstrated by Olmsted in his attack on McBride.
I can't help but think that
I can't help but think that excommunication is a temporal issue (and often, political) rather than one of having consequences concerning the eternal life of our soul.
Let's be real, there was no
Let's be real, there was no Canon Law when Jesus walked the earth. He came to tell us about love, he would have reached out to all those involved, especially the mother and also sister. Where is our compassion?
"especially the mother and
"especially the mother and also sister"
So you think Jesus would not have reached out to the baby? You believe he would have valued the mother and Sister over the baby. Why?
Re-read your comment
Re-read your comment carefully here, kscrawler.
kscrawler on Jun. 03,
kscrawler on Jun. 03, 2010.
You stated:
""especially the mother and also sister"
So you think Jesus would not have reached out to the baby? You believe he would have valued the mother and Sister over the baby. Why?"
----------------------------------------
Jesus valued ALL life---If Jesus had been physically present---he would have CURED the woman's condition---and NEITHER mother nor fetus would have died.
But Jesus wasn't physically present. Why do you think that he would have disregarded the mother and the Sister? Jesus did not hesistate to cure a woman who had been humped over for 18 years---when she came to him on the sabbath. He honored her by calling her a "daughter of Abraham." Jesus never disregarded the women who came into his presence. Why do you believe that Jesus would have acted any differently in this situation.
Your words questioning that Jesus might value the life of the mother, and the decision of the Sister over the fetus----leads me to think that you despise women.
I agree. When Jesus gave us
I agree. When Jesus gave us the sermon on the mount, or said I have come to fulfill the law and the prophets, and called for us to repent and to follow Him, I don't recall any provision for obeying canon law.
Church paper pushers prattling away on the rights and duties of their priestcraft will bend over backwards to justify their existence. Almost almost always spouting quotes from canon law to keep the sheep in line.
"Where is our
"Where is our compassion?"
Where is our compassion for the Sister, for the Mother? I see it in most of the comments being made here. It is there.
But I ask: Where is our compassion for Thomas Olmsted? After all, he is also a victim of the system that formed who and what he has become. And we have allowed it.
You know what? That's a
You know what? That's a fascinating point. Olmsted's hemmed in by his own limitations, just like any of us is. That's why it's so unfortunate that his discretionary powers are almost limitless.
Having met him a couple of times, I think I can reconcile the conflicting impressions recorded here. You can tell he's naturally reserved; when working a room, he looks stiff. When he does try to liven things up with a joke, the effect is awkward. But in that awkwardness there's something oddly endearing. You know he's pushing outside his comfort zone, you know he's doing it for your sake, and you can't help but appreciate the effort.
Once I heard him say, apparently hoping to shake his reputation for inacessibility, that his boyhood dream was to be a cowboy. I tried to imagine the Prelate with No Name squinting into the sun as he pulls a cigarillo from a dead man's lips. It didn't click.
Here's the bottom line for me: As long as Olmsted takes such a hard line, I'd just as soon he play the quiet eminence grise. That's easier to live with than a fire-breathing culture warrior like Martino, Scranton's bishop emeritus, or a media-friendly glad-hander, who will bubble over with warmth and good spirits on camera and excommunicate you as soon as he gets back to the chancery.
So the NCR has come to taking
So the NCR has come to taking articles from a Presbyterian elder. 1. The Bishop did not excommunicate this woman. She did herself! 2. "“He’s very much governed by canon law and obedience and fidelity to church teaching and the magisterium and the institution. There’s no compromise with him. There’s no real dialogue with him." So he stands for Christ and His Church and does not compromise on the truth? Sounds like a true Christian! And a martyr against the persecution of the liberals.
You know, Jesus was about
You know, Jesus was about LOVE, he was not about RULES. What an absolutely horrific decision this nun had to make. I think Jesus would have looked with love upon her for this soul-wrenching decision. Unfortunately, our church has become top-heavy with the "pharisees" who only believe in "policy" and "law". We seem to lose the LOVE of Jesus when we only look at the rules.
"You know, Jesus was about
"You know, Jesus was about LOVE, he was not about RULES. What an absolutely horrific decision this nun had to make. I think Jesus would have looked with love upon her for this soul-wrenching decision. Unfortunately, our church has become top-heavy with the "pharisees" who only believe in "policy" and "law". We seem to lose the LOVE of Jesus when we only look at the rules."
Marilyn,
Your comment reveals what I see as the flaw in most of the comments posted here; that acting with love - or acting pastorally - means ignoring the rules.
Quick theology lesson: 1. When Adam and Eve brought sin into the world, there were consequences - not so much punishment, but consequences - that led naturally from their actions. ie: they were separated from God by theiir actions. 2. God IS about rules - he established over 600 commandments in the OT, which can be summed up in the 10 commandments and Jesus' 2 commandments. Even Jesus indicated that he did not do away with the Law, and that there were actions (or the lack thereof) that could lead to a negative judgement. 3. One's compassion could lead one to weap over the poor moral choices of others - knwing that they made a poor choice. Jesus Himself is described as weaping with such grief.
In terms of this situation, it is easy to loose sight of our need to show compassion for EVERYONE involved.
1. Let us grieve for the poor child who died, for this is what in fact occured.
2. Let us grieve for the mother who has lost her child.
3. Let us grieve for all of the members of this hospital ethics panel, who were faced with a horrendous decision, who - I am sure - thought that they were making the best decision under the circumstances, but whose decision placed them outside of orthodox Catholic moral teaching.
4. Let us grieve for this bishop, who is pastoring his flock as best he can, and who must face the reality faced by so many in authority - that loving those in your charge frequently includes holding them accountable for their actions.
As pointed out in the article, Bishop Olmstead clearly tried to handle this situation in a way that was protective of privacy of the good sister involved - clearly a pastoral choice. However, as he himself has pointed out, it was not Bishop Olmstead who excommunicated this woman, she did so herself by her actions. He was merely informing her of this fact - not imposing sentence. Attacking the bishop is merely shooting the messenger.
To vilify Bishop Olmstead for doing his job as the pastor with primary responsibility for the teaching of faith and morals in his diocese is simply unfair. To assume that he is cold and uncaring merely beacuse he is consistent in his holding the Church in Phoenix accountable to the teachings of the Church is as unjust. He is called to parent his Church, and doing so well includes both nurturing us AND discipline. And I have seen both as a member of this diocese.
Finally, for those who have repeatedly gone directly for the ad hominem attack on the clergy and the magisterium in this forum - especially in regards to the sex abuse scandal in the Church - SHAME ON YOU!! You cheapen the discussion, and you do not know Bishop Olmstead, who has worked tirelessly to address the abuses that have occurred in our Diocese's past, and who continues to work to make sure that such abuses are not repeated.
Thank you. You should post
Thank you. You should post here more often.
If Jesus was about rules, he
If Jesus was about rules, he would not have worked on the sabbath, which he did by healing the sick and even having his disciples gather food. Jesus was CHALLENGED on not sticking by the rules.
Secondly, it is NOT an ad hominem attack to bring up the sex scandals by the clergy. It is very important and indicative of the constant double standard and misogyny that MANY church "leaders" (all of whom happen to be male) have against women.
SHAME ON YOU for not recognizing that there is still male chauvinism in the church.
Perhaps this Presbyterian
Perhaps this Presbyterian elder can deal with the issues in a far more unbiased and levelheaded way than can any of us Roman Christians. Listen to what he has to say.
DO YOU KNOW who in Jesus'
DO YOU KNOW who in Jesus' time stood only for the law, the institution and the magisterium of the Jewish people? And what did Jesus say about them constantly in the Gospels? And what did he do when the law prescribed that the adulterous woman be stoned to death?
Olmsted is the martyr? What
Olmsted is the martyr? What page of unreality do you live on?
The baby who was
The baby who was murdered/aborted by her mother with the help of the Sister is the true martyr.
The unborn child was not a
The unborn child was not a "martyr".
Let's not allow one's emotions to cloud fact.
Then it was a victim.
Then it was a victim. Purposely targetted for elimination. An undesirable, deemed unfit for life by the good sister, the doctors, and mother. How sad.
The mother was also a
The mother was also a victim.
Sometimes, life offers us no good choice, only the need to select one of two equally bad outcomes. In this case, the two bad outcomes were (a) death of mother and child and (b) death of child. Complicating this situation from a practical standpoint was the fact that mother had/has several other dependent children.
Yes, the unborn child was purposely targeted for elimination from its mother's body. Competent medical staff determined that continuation of the pregnancy posed a very real threat of death to the mother.
At no time did the hospital staff (in your words) "deem" the unborn child "unfit for life".
Law is black and white, but life is often anything but. As a trainer once told us, his kids would sometimes tell him, "Daddy, that's not fair!" and he would reply, "Of course, life is not fair, kiddo. A fair is a fancy country picnic!"
We human beings are attuned not just to the law but also to feelings and emotions. We are imperfect. We try. We can and do fail.
Jesus excommunicated no one, but he chastized the teachers/enforcers of the law for putting undue burdens on the people. While he told us to sin no more, he also told us to forgive indefinitely. He gave us the parable of the prodigal son who returned to his Father because the wayward lad had no place else to go. The son did not come home to repent. He didn't even have time to open his mouth and complete a sentence. Instead, the Father took the initiative to be on the lookout for his stupid son and to rush out to greet him. The Father told his servants to prepare a feast for this wonderful event.
The hospital staff were not at all "wayward" in this tragic situation. They did the best they could to address a horrific case, and they believed their actions were morally appropriate under the U.S. bishops' ethical and religious directives for healthcare services. Even today the behavior of the Phoenix bishop has been challenged by Catholic ethicists and others.
In spite of the complexity of this case, Bishop Olmsted rendered a black-and-white judgment but --- in an example of episcopal jujitsu --- announced that McBride had effectively excommunicated herself from the church. If we're to take his word, she did the deed, not him. Olmsted thus does not have to defend his decision, but the sister must struggle with the fallout from his "indirect" (pun intended) excommunication. The bishop made a canonically secure judgment without, at the same time, having to take responsibility for it under canon law. Talk about shrewdness on his part! Compared to the "ferendae excommunication", the "latae sententiae excommunication" required no heavy lifting by Olmsted. This is a wonderful way to go after a perceived enemy without, at the same time, having to assume responsibility/culpability for doing so!!!
When I reflect on the parable of the prodigal son, I see scandal in two ways in Olmsted's behavior: (a) It is the polar opposite of Jesus' behavior, and (b) it will only encourage other orthotoxic hierarchs to engage in the same wishy-washy behavior toward their perceived enemies.
Tom A., I have yet to see a fully satisfactory explanation/justification of evil from theodicy, but the outrage from the Catholic community tells me that we (and the hosptial) got it right and Olmsted 'effed up big time.
His behavior is just one more nail in the coffin of credibility barely enjoyed by the pope and his lackey bishops.
How sad.
Yet another anonymous
Yet another anonymous diatribe. Methinks the Bishop stands more for 'The Church' than for 'Christ'. Truth... bah.
If you believe that this
If you believe that this bishop stands for Christ, you have no understanding of Christ and His gospel message.
Post new comment