Showing posts with label Sister Margaret Mary McBride. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sister Margaret Mary McBride. Show all posts
Saturday, January 22, 2011
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
Bishop Olmsted, Church Teaching and a Complicated Situation
Perhaps you remember last spring when there was controversy when Bishop Olmsted rebuked Sister Margaret McBride who served as the administrator of St. Joseph hospital, and on the hospital’s ethics committee, which authorized an abortion to save the mother’s life. It was an extremely complicated situation. The patient, a pregnant woman, had pulmonary hypertension which threatened her life. Unfortunately her pregnancy aggravated her illness and heightened her probability of dying from it. An abortion was procured at St. Joseph Hospital by the approval of Sister McBride. St. Joseph’s was (and as of today still is) a Catholic hospital, obliged to adhere to Catholic doctrine regarding abortion. Bishop Olmsted caught flack because people thought that he excommunicated Sr. McBride when that wasn’t the case at all. According to Canon Law Sr. McBride by her very actions excommunicated herself (latae sententia) from the Church by her action (Canons 1329 and 1398). She facilitated the direct killing of a human being. She may have saved the woman’s life, but that noble end does not justify the intrinsically evil means. Now Bishop Olmsted has said that he will strip St. Joseph’s hospital of its Catholic status if the hospital refuses to guarantee compliance with Church teachings. My praises go out to Bishop Olmsted for standing up for the Catholic faith and Church teaching and ensuring that a Catholic hospital abide by Church teaching.
From USA Today:
Two months of discussions followed but, according to Olmsted, did not resolve the question of whether the procedure was allowable. In the November letter, Olmsted said that he did not believe CHW intended to change its policies.
Olmsted's three demands were contained in a Nov. 22 letter sent to Lloyd Dean, president of Catholic Healthcare West. The bishop wants the hospital to give him more oversight of its practices to ensure it complies with Catholic health-care rules, provide education on those rules to medical staff and acknowledge that the bishop is correct in a dispute over a procedure the diocese says was an abortion.
"There cannot be a tie in this debate," Olmsted wrote. "Until this point in time, you have not acknowledged my authority to settle this question."
"Because of this, I must act now," he wrote, to ensure "no further such violations" take place at the hospital and to "repair the grave scandal to the Christian faithful that has resulted from the procedure."
The hospital personnel are using the principle of double effect to justify their actions but that does not apply in this case. In my next post I will cover the principle of double effect.
From USA Today:
Two months of discussions followed but, according to Olmsted, did not resolve the question of whether the procedure was allowable. In the November letter, Olmsted said that he did not believe CHW intended to change its policies.
Olmsted's three demands were contained in a Nov. 22 letter sent to Lloyd Dean, president of Catholic Healthcare West. The bishop wants the hospital to give him more oversight of its practices to ensure it complies with Catholic health-care rules, provide education on those rules to medical staff and acknowledge that the bishop is correct in a dispute over a procedure the diocese says was an abortion.
"There cannot be a tie in this debate," Olmsted wrote. "Until this point in time, you have not acknowledged my authority to settle this question."
"Because of this, I must act now," he wrote, to ensure "no further such violations" take place at the hospital and to "repair the grave scandal to the Christian faithful that has resulted from the procedure."
The hospital personnel are using the principle of double effect to justify their actions but that does not apply in this case. In my next post I will cover the principle of double effect.
Sunday, July 11, 2010
Bishops Clarify What Catholic Church Says on Abortion and Tough Cases
On June 23, 2003 the Bishops released this clarification on hard cases:
From LifeNews “On November 5, 2009, medical personnel at the St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center in Phoenix, Arizona, performed a procedure that caused the death of an unborn child. Most Reverend Thomas Olmsted, the Bishop of Phoenix, has judged that this procedure was in fact a direct abortion and so morally wrong….”
The Committee on Doctrine reminded us that “…. abortion (that is, the directly intended termination of pregnancy before viability or the directly intended destruction of a viable fetus) is never permitted… One may never directly kill an innocent human being, no matter what the reason… By contrast, in some situations, it may be permissible to perform a medical procedure on a pregnant woman that directly treats a serious health problem but that also has a secondary effect that leads to the death of the developing child… The difference can be seen in two different scenarios in which the unborn child is not yet old enough to survive outside the womb.”
“In the first scenario, a pregnant woman is experiencing problems with one or more of her organs, apparently as a result of the added burden of pregnancy. The doctor recommends an abortion to protect the health of the woman… The surgery directly targets the life of the unborn child. It is the surgical instrument in the hands of the doctor that causes the child's death. The surgery does not directly address the health problem of the woman, for example, by repairing the organ that is malfunctioning… The abortion is the means by which a reduced strain upon the organ or organs is achieved. As the Church has said many times, direct abortion is never permissible because a good end cannot justify an evil means....”
“In the second scenario, a pregnant woman develops cancer in her uterus. The doctor recommends surgery to remove the cancerous uterus as the only way to prevent the spread of the cancer… The woman's health benefits directly from the surgery, because of the removal of the cancerous organ. The surgery does not directly target the life of the unborn child. The child will not be able to live long after the uterus is removed from the woman's body, but the death of the child is an unintended and unavoidable side effect and not the aim of the surgery. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with surgery to remove a malfunctioning organ. It is morally justified when the continued presence of the organ causes problems for the rest of the body.”
“Surgery to terminate the life of an innocent person, however, is intrinsically wrong… Nothing, therefore, can justify a direct abortion. No circumstance, no purpose, no law whatsoever can ever make licit an act which is intrinsically illicit, since it is contrary to the Law of God which is written in every human heart, knowable by reason itself, and proclaimed by the Church.”
May the Law of God, proclaimed by our Church and through our bishops, inspire each of us to work for the protection of every human person, mother and child alike.
From LifeNews “On November 5, 2009, medical personnel at the St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center in Phoenix, Arizona, performed a procedure that caused the death of an unborn child. Most Reverend Thomas Olmsted, the Bishop of Phoenix, has judged that this procedure was in fact a direct abortion and so morally wrong….”
The Committee on Doctrine reminded us that “…. abortion (that is, the directly intended termination of pregnancy before viability or the directly intended destruction of a viable fetus) is never permitted… One may never directly kill an innocent human being, no matter what the reason… By contrast, in some situations, it may be permissible to perform a medical procedure on a pregnant woman that directly treats a serious health problem but that also has a secondary effect that leads to the death of the developing child… The difference can be seen in two different scenarios in which the unborn child is not yet old enough to survive outside the womb.”
“In the first scenario, a pregnant woman is experiencing problems with one or more of her organs, apparently as a result of the added burden of pregnancy. The doctor recommends an abortion to protect the health of the woman… The surgery directly targets the life of the unborn child. It is the surgical instrument in the hands of the doctor that causes the child's death. The surgery does not directly address the health problem of the woman, for example, by repairing the organ that is malfunctioning… The abortion is the means by which a reduced strain upon the organ or organs is achieved. As the Church has said many times, direct abortion is never permissible because a good end cannot justify an evil means....”
“In the second scenario, a pregnant woman develops cancer in her uterus. The doctor recommends surgery to remove the cancerous uterus as the only way to prevent the spread of the cancer… The woman's health benefits directly from the surgery, because of the removal of the cancerous organ. The surgery does not directly target the life of the unborn child. The child will not be able to live long after the uterus is removed from the woman's body, but the death of the child is an unintended and unavoidable side effect and not the aim of the surgery. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with surgery to remove a malfunctioning organ. It is morally justified when the continued presence of the organ causes problems for the rest of the body.”
“Surgery to terminate the life of an innocent person, however, is intrinsically wrong… Nothing, therefore, can justify a direct abortion. No circumstance, no purpose, no law whatsoever can ever make licit an act which is intrinsically illicit, since it is contrary to the Law of God which is written in every human heart, knowable by reason itself, and proclaimed by the Church.”
May the Law of God, proclaimed by our Church and through our bishops, inspire each of us to work for the protection of every human person, mother and child alike.
So, this clarification made by the USCCB makes clear that Bishop Olmstead was following Church teaching and Sister Margaret Mary McBride dissented from Church teaching.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)