Ariz. hospital loses Catholic status over surgery

[bookgirl32]

Perhaps you didn’t read the entire article, because my take is that Prof. Hendershott is applauding a Bishop for finally taking a definite stand. The USCCB and many bishops out there have been very reluctant to take a positive and firm stand on many theological issues. They prefer to couch their language in generalities and other levels of vagueness, in order to be “all inclusive” and not offend anyone.

I for one applaud any bishop who is willing to take a stand, although in this particular case, the bishop actually took a very long to get to that point.

I didn’t!! I read your quotes and misjudged the whole thing. I tried to change my post in time but obviously didn’t, sorry!!

 

[bookgirl32]

It seems that a lot of people on this thread have been spending a lot of time reading articles from Commonweal and the National Catholic Reporter, here’s one from EWTN news. Notice it quotes, gasp, doctors who sit on the diocesan medical board.

Catholic Health Association defies Phoenix bishop over abortion case

Here’s some of the quotes:

Dr. Chavira, is a practicing obstetrician and gynecologist who also serves on the Phoenix Diocese’s medical ethics committee.

Although the hospital maintains that the abortion occurred as part of a “placentectomy” –the removal of the placenta that connects a developing fetus to the mother’s uterus– Dr. Chavira explained that the placenta of the woman in the St. Joseph’s case “was not diseased,” though it may have been producing hormones that aggravated the woman’s heart and lung condition.

“If something’s not diseased,” he explained, “then we can’t act on it– as opposed to a cancerous uterus, or an infected placenta.”

Nevertheless, Dr. Chavira stated, the “placentectomy” –which killed the woman’s child– could not be regarded as a necessary medical treatment. The medical condition threatening her life was not the pregnancy, but the preexisting heart and lung condition.

The removal of the placenta, he explained, could not have been intended to treat that condition. Rather, it was intended to mitigate the effects of the woman’s heart and lung disease– by ending her pregnancy through an abortion.

As such, he said, the abortion was direct and intentional, and could not be compared to other necessary medical procedures that might cause the death of an unborn child.

and here:

Dr. Clinton Leonard, another OB-GYN who belongs to the medical ethics board in Bishop Olmsted’s diocese, stated to EWTN News on Dec. 22 that Sr. Keehan and other defenders of St. Joseph’s were attempting to distract the public from a fundamental moral principle.

“They’re making it too complex,” he said. “It’s really a simple issue: the ends never justify the means. And the means that they used was a direct abortion,” Dr. Leonard stated. “That’s not a treatment for pulmonary hypertension.”

“I would do everything possible to offer her cardiac support,” Dr. Leonard said, when asked what he would regard as an appropriate treatment under the circumstances. “If it’s pulmonary hypertension, generally you use medications that are going to reduce the work that the heart has to do.”

In response to the assertion of Sr. Keehan and others, who regard the woman as having been on the brink of death, Dr. Leonard said it was “in debate, whether or not her life was at that point.”

But, he clarified, even under those circumstances, authoritative Catholic teaching would not have permitted the hospital to consider abortion as a form of necessary medical treatment. Pope John Paul II’s encyclical “Evangelium Vitae” stated that “the deliberate decision to deprive an innocent human being of his life is always morally evil and can never be licit … (even) as a means to a good end.”

I think these statements should at the very least get the same attention as that of Commonweal’s resident theologian.

 

[Elizabeth502]

You seem to be of the opinion that the medical world operates in one sphere and the theological world in the other, and they need to leave eachother to their own “expertise”.

(You addressed a different poster, but I’m responding nevertheless, including with my bolding.)

It is Bishop Olmstead that is of that opinion, in his words, in his press conference. He was clear that the two spheres (although he didn’t use the word “spheres,” that was the context) operate on different premises, with different assumptions.

Every academic discipline in the world, including all of the sciences, fall under the constraints of natural and divine law.

Philosophically, but not in practice or by civil law in the United States of America in the 21st century. Medical personnel are required by the boundaries and definitions of their own profession to proceed from their maximum rescue and healing orientation – to save all lives and every life possible, without hierarchies of “innocent” and “non-innocent.” Natural law and divine law per se are not enforceable. They may occasionally form the backdrop for Supreme Court opinions (such as references a few jurists have made in the past to natural law), but I guarantee you that any non-Catholic pregnant woman whose relatives discover that their loved one could have been saved but was not, “because of divine law,” will seek the maximum penalties under civil law in a Wrongful Death suit against the hospital and all contributing personnel – unless (as I said earlier), that non-Catholic patient has agreed to that scenario in Informed Consent upon admission, with her signature.

These laws are the final “decision makers”.

You’re referring to invisible decision makers, and hospitals serving non-Catholics cannot operate according to personal beliefs not shared by non-Catholics.

I know non-Catholic patients “don’t care”. This doesn’t relieve the Church of performing it’s true roll as defined by God and infallibly revealed through the magisterium.

Which is why there needs to be a separate process and full disclosure for those being served by any hospital, or section of a hospital, which considers itself oriented to divine law instead of civil law and medical practice.

 

[bookgirl32]

And this article, from the National Catholic Register:
Hospital Stripped of ‘Catholic’ Seal

This quote is interesting (Fr. Ehrich is the Medical Ethics director for the Diocese):

Father Ehrich said that canon lawyers and moral theologians solicited by the secular media defended the controversial abortion with the Catholic doctrine of double effect. The Church teaches that there is a morally acceptable “double effect” when a treatment of a condition endangering the mother has the “foreseen but unintended” effect of killing the unborn baby.

“But this was not what St. Joseph’s said at the time. “They freely acknowledged that they terminated a pregnancy. They would say, ‘We had to terminate the pregnancy to save the life of the mother.’”

It’s interesting to see that, according to the diocese (and one would hope a priest, who is an ethics director, would not out and out lie), the attempts to make it fit under “double effect” did not come around until the canon lawyers and theologians obtained by the hospital tried to do so. You’d think that there would be some record of this being the claim from the ethics committee at the hospital from the get go.

But, considering all the previous inconsistencies from CHW, I guess I’m not surprised.

 

[bookgirl32]

(You addressed a different poster, but I’m responding nevertheless, including with my bolding.)

It is Bishop Olmstead that is of that opinion, in his words, in his press conference. He was clear that the two spheres (although he didn’t use the word “spheres,” that was the context) operate on different premises, with different assumptions.

But he didn’t insinuate that they have nothing to do with eachother and that medical ethics are outside of jurisdiction by Catholic ethics.

Philosophically, but not in practice or by civil law in the United States of America in the 21st century.

Of course it should, in practice, according to God. That we live in a fallen world and cultures exist that deny this doesn’t mean that it should not, in practice.

Medical personnel are required by the boundaries and definitions of their own profession to proceed from their maximum rescue and healing orientation – to save all lives and every life possible, without hierarchies of “innocent” and “non-innocent.” Natural law and divine law per se are not enforceable.

They’re not enforcable by US law. They’re very much enforcable by God. The Bishop is looking to his flocks eternal status, as which is all that matters in the end. The Catholic Church isn’t “American” and is not subject to any law but God’s. This isn’t just “in theory”. It may be extremely difficult to do. It may even require you to break “civil law”. But if the “civil law” does not adhere to divine law, we are not required to follow it. There are plenty of times many people in history adhered to the Catholic Church at the expense of their own well-being, they’re called martyrs.

They may occasionally form the backdrop for Supreme Court opinions (such as references a few jurists have made in the past to natural law), but I guarantee you that any non-Catholic pregnant woman whose relatives discover that their loved one could have been saved but was not, “because of divine law,” will seek the maximum penalties under civil law in a Wrongful Death suit against the hospital and all contributing personnel – unless (as I said earlier), that non-Catholic patient has agreed to that scenario in Informed Consent upon admission, with her signature.

The emotions or opinions of that person’s family do not relieve the Bishop of his duties. Period. No matter what is going to happen to the hospital under civil law. Fr. Ehric and the Bishop himself are clear that they believe that part (if not most) of the hospital’s actions in this case were driving by the threat of legal action. They are in full knowledge of this, and are asking the hospital to decide. Which they did.

You’re referring to invisible decision makers, and hospitals serving non-Catholics cannot operate according to personal beliefs not shared by non-Catholics. Which is why there needs to be a separate process and full disclosure for those being served by any hospital, or section of a hospital, which considers itself oriented to divine law instead of civil law and medical practice.

Are you insinuating that no Catholic hospital, anywhere, can do this? Mine did. I was informed of their practices beforehand at the live birth of my son. I was informed that, since I was having a c-section, a tubal ligation was not an option in their hospital and that they do not, under any circumstances, perform abortions. And I was even informed that, since I was having a D&C done there on my miscarried baby, that if the baby (fetal tissue) were left with the hospital that it would be treated respectfully and buried. If I wanted something different or I didn’t wish for it to be treated as a baby with the dignity of full human rights, I was informed, on paper work that I had to sign, that I had to request the tissue be given to me when pathology was done with it.

You know, wouldn’t you think, that if CHW were really committed to being Catholic, and had every intention of following the directives, that they would take responsibility for this? That they would do their best to set themselves up legally so that they could follow what they claimed to believe in? Several reports state that the woman and her family were never informed that the hospital had every intention of complying with the directives and that abortion would not be an option in any circumstance. And she had been to the hospital multiple times.

 

[bookgirl32]

You’re referring to invisible decision makers

The bishops are invisible? They have the authoritatve, apostolic right to interpret and apply these laws.

 

[Elizabeth502]

But he didn’t insinuate that they have nothing to do with eachother

Not what he said; not what I said.

…and that medical ethics are outside of jurisdiction by Catholic ethics.

Not outside of Catholic jurisdiction, and certainly not outside of the right to proceed medically within Catholic-only assumptions for those who agree ahead of time to other-than-standard-medical practice.

Of course it should, in practice, according to God. That we live in a fallen world and cultures exist that deny this doesn’t mean that it should not, in practice.

But we don’t limit our laws and rights in the civil sphere (including the medical sphere) based on concepts like “a fallen world” and how people “should” believe and behave.

They’re [natural law, divine law are] not enforcable by US law. They’re very much enforcable by God.

That’s fine, but we don’t live in a theocracy, despite the philosophical understanding we Catholics have that God is indeed the center of the universe, its creator, ruler, redeemer, author of laws, etc. Those are still all matters of faith and not of American civil society.

The Bishop is looking to his flocks eternal status, as which is all that matters in the end.

But we don’t enact legislation and decide civil and criminal caes based on “what matters in the end.” These are all theological assumptions that do not figure into civil jurisdiction.

The Catholic Church isn’t “American” and is not subject to any law but God’s.

It’s operating in the United States of America and thus subject to its jurisdiction whenever its practices (not its beliefs) conflict with U.S. law (including local laws). This is why, for example, protesters in front of abortion clinics are afforded the same protections all protesters for any cause are provided, and why they must also abide by the same limits of protest (such as refraining from harrassment, threats, or physical violence, etc.) But they don’t get to pre-empt these civil laws with “divine law.”

This isn’t just “in theory”. It may be extremely difficult to do. It may even require you to break “civil law”. But if the “civil law” does not adhere to divine law, we are not required to follow it.

We may not be “divinely” required, but we sure as heck are civilly required.

There are plenty of times many people in history adhered to the Catholic Church at the expense of their own well-being, they’re called martyrs.

Others are called criminals and prisoners: hence, Scott Roeder.

Are you insinuating that no Catholic hospital, anywhere, can do this? Mine did. I was informed of their practices beforehand at the live birth of my son. I was informed that, since I was having a c-section, a tubal ligation was not an option in their hospital and that they do not, under any circumstances, perform abortions. And I was even informed that, since I was having a D&C done there on my miscarried baby, that if the baby (fetal tissue) were left with the hospital that it would be treated respectfully and buried. If I wanted something different or I didn’t wish for it to be treated as a baby with the dignity of full human rights, I was informed, on paper work that I had to sign, that I had to request the tissue be given to me when pathology was done with it.

No, I’m stating (not “insinuating” ) that the procedures (disclosures) followed by your Catholic hospital were the correct ones (for example, no option for tubal ligation, etc.)

By the way, I think you mean “implying” when you say “insinuating.” (the latter being a term in a negative context)

 

[Elizabeth502]

The bishops are invisible? They have the authoritatve, apostolic right to interpret and apply these laws.

It was you, not I, who put “decision-makers” in quotation marks. Thus, I thought you were referring to divine decision-makers, in the post in which you inserted this, not human decision-makers such as bishops.

They have the authoritative, apostolic right to interpret behavior in the context of Catholic moral theology, and the moral right to violate civil law (just as atheists also do) based on principles. But any violation of those laws are subject to civil prosecution.

 

[LittleSoldier]

I have heard the opposite, methotrexate may not be used as the result is a direct abortion.

Here is one source supporting this. I have seen other sites on which the same morality is upheld.

catholiceducation.org/articles/medical_ethics/me0140.htm

"Of the three commonly performed procedures for addressing ectopic pregnancies, two raise significant moral concerns while the third is morally acceptable.

The first procedure involves a drug called methotrexate, which targets the most rapidly growing cells of the embryo, especially the placenta-like cells which attach the early embryo to the wall of the tube. Some have suggested that methotrexate might preferentially target these placenta-like cells, distinct from the rest of the embryo, so that it could be seen as “indirectly” ending the life of the embryo. Others, however, have noted that these placenta-like cells are in fact a part of the embryo itself (being produced by the embryo, not by the mother), so that the use of methotrexate actually targets a vital organ of the embryo, resulting in his or her death. A significant number of Catholic moralists hold that the use of methotrexate is not morally permissible, because it constitutes a direct attack on the growing child in the tube, and involves a form of direct abortion."

In other words, choose your moralist wisely.

Thank you. And this is why I stated earlier that the USCCB needs to have firm guidelines in place so that everyone involved knows and understands Church teaching. It’s the bishop’s call in the Arizona hospital case; other cases in the U.S. are decided by other bishops, but the USCCB is probably the one who should be developing a protocol to follow.

This is so that if, for example, methotrexate is used, it is clear from the beginning that this is illicit or licit, whatever the USCCB decides or has decided.

The Church teaching that no child should have her life ended by a direct abortion (“killing” the child as a means to an ends) is Truth and is an application of the Universal Law (also called God’s Law) that all human life is sacred. But this doesn’t seem to be enough as it is open to discussion and disagreement when it comes down to exactly what constitutes a direct abortion.

A well-written, comprehensive protocol would provide the information needed to determine if the use of methotrexate or other methods is acceptable to the Church. If the use of methotrexate is illicit, the protocol would state that. It can’t be used. Ever.

The first (and last) time I called the USCCB was to ask how they received their authority to determine Church teaching. I talked to two people, one who transferred me, and a second who had never heard of CAF and blew me off by telling me to go to the website which was right in front of me at the time and was where I found the phone number (I couldn’t find an email addy). I realize that I’m not a Sister, I’m not a deacon, I’m not a priest, I’m not a bishop, and I’m certainly not the Vicar of Christ. But I am Catholic and I think it’s our right to know what the USCCB does, where they get their authority, and how they determine Church teaching.

To be fair, I did ask an apologist on CAF and was blown off again. I never even received a reply. This was one of the apologists who responds to the “Question to an Apologist.” I didn’t ask my question as a question to an apologist but through a PM. The only question I have ever had answered using the method of “asking an apologist” was one I presented that was so easy that any Catholic would know the answer. I actually presented that question as a test, just to see if only the easy questions that were being answered. It’s very frustrating to be forced to rely only on websites and the CCC in order to determine Church teaching and to read answers to questions like “When do Catholics take down their Christmas decorations?” while a question about the proper disposal of an irreparably broken rosary and scapular are ignored.

I just thought of something and I am happy to say there is one apologist on CAF who did not blow me off when I asked a question of him. In fact, he wrote an article on it and put it on his blog. Thank you, Jimmy Akin!! Also, there is an apologist on CAF who answers many of the “Questions to an Apologist” who has helped me several times in the past. I suppose I should have asked her but I felt that I was asking too many questions of her and to be honest, I didn’t want to be a pest.

I always have questions to ask. I’m new at Catholicism.

Ooops, sorry - I went a bit off-topic there.

Earlier in this thread I posted a link to Jimmy Akin’s articles regarding this case on his blog. At that time he had written six articles. There are probably more know. Jimmy seems to know what he’s talking about. I’m going to read all of his articles and I think it would be a good idea for all of us who are interested and/or confused to read them. Of course he has a comments section where one can ask for clarification of points he has made. I believe he also answers questions during a radio program but I don’t have any info on how to access it.

I know we all want to know if the procedures followed in the case were morally licit. Wanting to know that is good. It’s good to discuss and I apologize for my uncharitable responses. I have a a problem with that and I’m praying for strength and wisdom to help me.

 

[LittleSoldier]

There’s an interesting perspective provided by Anne Hendershott in the “Wall Street Journal” that should be read by all:
online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203731004576046443911321586.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEFTTopOpinion

Some interesting quotes from Professor Hendershott’s editorial:

"But the Phoenix case breaks new ground. In explaining his decision, Rev. Thomas Olmsted, bishop of the Phoenix Diocese, was the first to explicitly point to the role played by Catholic theologians in providing theological cover for “a litany of practices in direct conflict with Catholic teachings.” "

“This case points to the real problem in the church. For too long, the authority of bishops has been limited to issuing mere opinions. This is especially true at Catholic colleges and universities, where bishops have little affect on the culture and curriculum.”

“For faithful Catholics, there is relief that the tie between the theologians, the administrators and the bishops seems finally to have been broken. But there remains a sadness that yet another Catholic institution has been lost.”

I’m just writing off the top of my head here as I haven’t read the article yet, but although I agree with the gist of the parts you have quoted, I disagree that the bishops’ authority has been limited to issuing mere opinions. It’s my understanding that bishops are actively involved in excommunications (although in the Arizona case the Sister was automatically excommunicated by her actions and the bishop merely informed her of this.

I also believe that bishops are responsible for being in charge of their dioceses. This must involve more than issuing “mere decisions.”

But I do agree with the problems at “Catholic” colleges and universities, although my agreement is based only on what another poster has stated.

I don’t understand what “the tie between the theologians, the administrators and the bishops seems finally to have been broken” means. Shouldn’t there be a tie as they are all involved in moral decisions? Hopefully the article will answer that question.

And yes, I am saddened that a Catholic institution has been lost, though in all honesty I don’t think that institution has been “Catholic” for a very long time.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Perhaps you didn’t read the entire article, because my take is that Prof. Hendershott is applauding a Bishop for finally taking a definite stand. The USCCB and many bishops out there have been very reluctant to take a positive and firm stand on many theological issues. They prefer to couch their language in generalities and other levels of vagueness, in order to be “all inclusive” and not offend anyone.

I for one applaud any bishop who is willing to take a stand, although in this particular case, the bishop actually took a very long to get to that point.

I also applaud the bishop. He took what many seem to see as an incorrect and negative position and he was correct. But then he is really an Apostle, isn’t he? And I don’t think we know how much work he had put into trying to help this institution remain a Catholic institution (personally I don’t think it had a chance).

So this is for the bishop, with great thanks and admiration: :clapping:

 

[kimmielittle]

and this article, from the national catholic register:
hospital stripped of ‘catholic’ seal

this quote is interesting (fr. Ehrich is the medical ethics director for the diocese):

It’s interesting to see that, according to the diocese (and one would hope a priest, who is an ethics director, would not out and out lie), the attempts to make it fit under “double effect” did not come around until the canon lawyers and theologians obtained by the hospital tried to do so. You’d think that there would be some record of this being the claim from the ethics committee at the hospital from the get go.

But, considering all the previous inconsistencies from chw, i guess i’m not surprised.

exactly!!!

 

[LittleSoldier]

I would feel very uncomfortable if my apostolic leaders had spent all their time in med school and not seminary.

That’s what the so-called “ethics committee” is supposed to have been for. You seem to be of the opinion that the medical world operates in one sphere and the theological world in the other, and they need to leave eachother to their own “expertise”. Every academic discipline in the world, including all of the sciences, fall under the constraints of natural and divine law. These laws are the final “decision makers”.

I know non-Catholic patients “don’t care”. This doesn’t relieve the Church of performing it’s true roll as defined by God and infallibly revealed through the magisterium.

Do you realize your whole argument, if applied to the United States government, would require all judges to be medical professionals? Tell that to the justices of the supreme court and see what they say.

Medical knowledge falls under the rules of Natural and Divine Law. Not the other way around. Again, if what you’re stating were true all judges in medically associated legal cases would have to, at the rate you’re going, be doctors.

The Bishop has an entire diocesan medical board. Or did you miss that when you were listening to his statements or reading the articles quoting these doctors?

I agree with you.

It would be ideal, of course, if all bishops had medical degrees and understood all medical specialities, especially OB. So I suppose bishops should spend several years in college as pre-med students, then in medical school, and then complete the residency requirements for all medical specialties. And during this time they should also actively be pursuing their doctorates in canon law and Catholic theology, while at the same time fulfilling their duties as priests. They would also have to keep up-to-date on all advances in all the medical specialties they have studied and at the same time be aware of changes in Catholic discipline and read and fully understand all the directives from the Vatican.

I don’t think it can be done. And if a bishop accomplished all this, by the time he completed his initial studies he would be an old man, exhausted and probably considering himself of little use to the Church (although he would be remarkably educated).

And I don’t care if non-Catholic patients “don’t care.” I know the Church teaches Truth. Truth applies to everyone, not just Catholics. Catholics don’t suddenly become non-Catholics when they are in an emergency room being treated, and Catholic doctors don’t discard their Catholicism when it comes to treating patients. No hospital should provide direct abortions, contraception, sterilizations, and other procedures which go against Catholic teaching (which is Truth). And no clinic, including Planned Parenthood (which is really kind of a “pseudo-clinic”) which provides abortion for convenience should even exist.

 

[LittleSoldier]

exactly!!!

Exactly!!

 

[bookgirl32]

It was you, not I, who put “decision-makers” in quotation marks. Thus, I thought you were referring to divine decision-makers, in the post in which you inserted this, not human decision-makers such as bishops.

They have the authoritative, apostolic right to interpret behavior in the context of Catholic moral theology, and the moral right to violate civil law (just as atheists also do) based on principles. But any violation of those laws are subject to civil prosecution.

I understand all of your points Elizabeth and agree with you (and thank you for the civics lesson in the process). What I can’t figure out is if you think that, in the case that they are morally called to violate civil law, if you acknowledge that it is objectively the right thing to do. Or maybe you are simply trying to make point that every Catholic hospital that intends to follow the directives needs to act as my hospital did. Which is great. I don’t really get what you’re arguing about then . . .

 

[kimmielittle]

Exactly!!

It’s amazing to me, how people are trying to defend this Hospital / Ethics Committee. When CHW / St Josephs / etc have shown such little amount of integrity - throughout this issue and the last 7 years of issues.

 

[kimmielittle]

This post goes unaddressed on another thread:

My understanding was this Mother and Family had resisted abortion suggestions given previously

Question: Was this Ethics Committee used to sway this Mother and Family into accepting abortion?

If a Catholic family - how much would a “Sister” on “The Ethics Committee” influence?

Is it “Ethical” to use such a position in such a way?

I don’t imagine the Hospital waved this case in front of the Bishop - Maybe, the family did?

 

[bookgirl32]

I’m just writing off the top of my head here as I haven’t read the article yet, but although I agree with the gist of the parts you have quoted, I disagree that the bishops’ authority has been limited to issuing mere opinions. It’s my understanding that bishops are actively involved in excommunications (although in the Arizona case the Sister was automatically excommunicated by her actions and the bishop merely informed her of this.

I read the article LS and it seems that the author was implying that bowing to social pressure is what is doing this and that isn’t the actual situation. Although she may also be speaking of situations like the one at Notre Dame when the bishop was basically powerless to do anything but comment. But in that case it’s not that he’s limited, it’s that the priest at Notre Dame’s order was not a diocesan order, so the bishop was not in direct control of what disciplinary action could or should have been taken. He could have, however, stripped the right from Notre Dame to call itself Catholic, just as Bishop Olmsted did with the hospital. But I’m assuming that the actual performance of an abortion was considered worse than the public supporting of a staunch abortion rights politician. Could be wrong here.

Everyone always excommunicates themselves. Since it is a sin that triggers the excommunication. The bishop has some rights (I’m not sure how much) to designate what is an exommunicable offense, as in what Bishop Bruskewitz did in Lincoln, NE with Call to Action and several other groups. The bishop can also confirm that an excommunicable offense has occured and is in effect.

 

[jimmy]

Ariz. hospital loses Catholic status over surgery
PHOENIX – The Roman Catholic Diocese of Phoenix stripped a major hospital of its affiliation with the church Tuesday because of a surgery that ended a woman’s pregnancy to save her life.

Bishop Thomas Olmsted called the 2009 procedure an abortion and said St. Joseph’s Hospital and Medical Center - recognized internationally for its neurology and neurosurgery practices - violated ethical and religious directives of the national Conference of Catholic Bishops.
…

I am prolife and have never supported abortion in any situation, but I agree with the hospital. If death is certain, then you do what is necessary to save atleast one of the lives. It is better that one person lived than both being dead. If both would have died it wouldn’t have preserved the dignity of either of them.

 

[seekerz]

So you’re insinuating what by this? That he is purposefully misleading people? Or not “looking into the facts” enough? Or not willing to understand what they did it? It seems after listening to all his comments that he wuold have been overjoyed had the hospital complied in the first place and given him no reason for any of this. And he gave them many, many chances. The canonical reason that he could do what he did was based on grounds of their refusal to acknowledge his authority, and refused to commit to do so in the future.

The fact is that you know nothing about the case. You know what you’ve read in the news. You know what you’ve read as officially stated by the bishop and you know what you’ve read from a theologian hired by CHW to review their case, who reported on this in an extremely unorthodox “Catholic” publication. So you’ve got media reports, hospital statements, and two theologians, one who happens to hold far more weight than the other and also has apostolic authority given by the Church.

You seem to be coming from a place of “the bishop’s got something to prove” and “the hospital is correct until proven wrong”. Do you see what I mean? Considering St. Joseph’s track record alone, it seems it should be the other way around.

I’m saying that such a statement (i.e. there was nothing wrong with the pregnancy) represents a direct mismatch between medical circumstances as presented by different people involved in analyzing this case. Who can solve a disagreement over medical facts?