Ariz. hospital loses Catholic status over surgery

[LittleSoldier]

-----continuation of last post-----

Natural Law is Divine Law is Universal Law is God’s Law. You don’t seem to accept Church teaching on the importance of Divine (Natural) Law.

And we are really discussing a supposedly Catholic hospital which should have been following Catholic Church teachings - not just a sectarian hospital but specifically a Catholic hospital. If the USCCB provides a clear protocol then problems like the problem in the Arizona hospital case will not occur.

You state that “Catholic” requires one set of rules; ‘hospital,’ in the modern world, requires another." That is not true. The Church teaches us how to apply Divine Law to every situation.

You’ve misunderstood. I don’t pretend to know what prayers are doing, nor what God is doing. I pray an awful lot about Life causes in this country. However, I am entitled to draw logical conclusions when explicit statements are made by pro-life people that “only” or “mostly” prayer in front of abortion clinics will convince pregnant women not to abort, and when they claim that that any approach except for that (in addition to that) is somehow “heretical” (their actual word), and a litmus test of loyalty to the Magisterium. Such a position is narrow-minded & ignorant. And yes, delusional.

“Delusional” is a psychiatric/psychological term which should not be used by armchair psychologists or by psychiatrists/psychologists who are not working with patients/clients in a clinical setting. Your use of the term “delusional” is insulting and condescending. Who are you to decide when a person is delusional? What are your qualifications for diagnosing people as delusional? You have NONE. Yet you call others’ views “narrow-minded and ignorant…and yes, delusional.” You have complained about others calling you and your poster friend pejorative terms but then you turn around and do the exact same thing to others. And you have NO idea of the strength of prayer. You refer to statements supposedly made by pro-life people, yet once again (why should I even be surprised) you don’t provide one shred of evidence to back up your claims. Are we just supposed to believe you? I don’t.

I never once said or implied that Mother Teresa is delusional for praying. Note, however, that most of her life was devoted to actual, practical involvement in (poor) people’s lives, as opposed to relying mainly on passive prayer. She prayed, talked, & worked all at the same time in many cases. Fr. Corapi has a number of colorful anecdotes about that.

Backup documentation, puhleeze!! You are implying here (please correct me if I am wrong) that Mother Teresa’s praying was not as important as the rest of her work. You don’t know that. You can’t know that. Working and talking often are part of praying. I don’t believe bookgirl referred to “passive praying” but “praying” in a general sense (again, please correct me if I am wrong).

You apparently missed the lively dialogue engaged by several of us on the “condom” issue on one of the threads about a month ago. Btw, I didn’t say that Catholic language is illogical. You seem to have trouble following sequence here. I said that Catholic “proprietary” language is often not understood by a wider audience. I made a separate point that strategies in Catholic moral activism (as in any activism, including civil) should logically align with goals. (Thus, when you want to communicate effectively with a non-Catholic audience, you speak to them in the context that has a good chance of resonating with them.) I’m sure Mother Teresa did this. The Pope, in the condom statement (including in the book, out of which it was lifted), did not sufficiently, in the opinion of many faithful, learned Catholics who were guests on EWTN, frame the condom remark so that non-Catholics – who dissect every word of his – would easily understand, since most of his global audience are not trained in Catholic philosophy which underpins Catholic moral theology. He needed a little bit of a preamble, and probably a better example, according to George Weigel and many others.

You know, you keep bringing up threads and names of people - kinda like name dropping. Yet you have never provided one link to any of these threads, nor have you provided the documentation that has been requested of you. That is rather disingenuous. Evidently we’re just supposed to take your word that such-and-such happened. I don’t believe you. Will you please provide the backup documentation or stop making baseless assertions?

It’s not that difficult to post a link to a thread or to articles found online. If you don’t know how to do it, please PM me and I will explain it to you.

 

[kimmielittle]

In listening to and reading Bishop Olmsted’s direct statements regarding the matter that led to St. Joseph losing its Catholic status, I do not second guess the decision he reached.

We know that the Catholic Health Association backs the hospital in its management of the treatment of this pregnant 27 y.o. mother of four woman who presented with PH at 11 weeks gestation in Nov 2009. In this NCR article, it reported the following:

On “the facts of the case,” the hospital said:“A woman in her 20s with a history of moderate but well-controlled pulmonary hypertension found out she was pregnant. There was concern for her health because pregnancy with pulmonary hypertension carries a serious risk of mortality. Because of the severity of her disease, the woman’s risk of mortality was close to 50 percent. In November 2009 the woman was admitted to St. Joseph’s Hospital and Medical Center with worsening symptoms. Tests revealed that she now had life-threatening pulmonary hypertension. The chart notes that she had been informed that her risk of mortality was close to 100 percent if she continued the pregnancy. The medical team contacted the Ethics Consult team for review. The consultation team talked to several physicians and nurses as well as reviewed the patient’s record. The patient and her family, her doctors and the Ethics Consult team agreed that the pregnancy could be terminated, and that it was appropriate since the goal was not to end the pregnancy but save the mother’s life.”My apologies if this has been raised already upthread. I bring it up because of the recent query on the involvement of the Ethics Committee in the case in question.

It would be interesting to have the commentary of the National Catholic Bioethics Center. The last time I checked the Diocese of Phoenix site, the NCBC has not (yet) released any comment.

.

Here ya go

ncbcenter.org/NetCommunity/Document.Doc?id=171

NOTE: The Hospital has changed it’s story on at least one occasion. Hmmm let’s just say it seems to be evolving.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Here ya go

ncbcenter.org/NetCommunity/Document.Doc?id=171

NOTE: The Hospital has changed it’s story on at least one occasion. Hmmm let’s just say it seems to be evolving.

Thank you, Kimmie!

 

[kimmielittle]

Thank you, Kimmie!

You are very welcome

 

[LittleSoldier]

I’m sorry that I give you that impression. That’s not my belief. My belief is that when dealing with a powerful, sophisticated set of modern secular institutions which many Catholics would like to monitor, influence, change, relying on a Catholic viewpoint alone is an insufficient way to communicate. And anyone who thinks that identifiably religious (let alone Catholic) language does not actually back-fire with regard to many hot-plate issues in modern morality (contraception, abortion, cohabitation, gay “marriage,” reproductive technologies, etc.) really does not get out enough. If you want to shut down dialogue, and ensure that tomorrow there will be another million dollars in so-and-so’s campaign chest or such-and-such legislative attempt, just tell your opponents that you’re speaking for the Catholic church, or that what they’re doing is “against God’s law.” I’m not saying, bookgirl, that you necessarily want to do this or have done this. (You’ve already addressed that fact.) I’m saying that many, many well-meaning Catholic activists operate this way. It is indeed naive, if not also delusional because it does not lead to effective change.

Again you use the word “delusional.” Condescending and not at all accurate.

I don’t put myself out there as “the only effective communicator.” I put other models out there. Twice now I’ve put Professor Robert George out there, as one fine example. He knows how to argue Catholic morality to a secular world, which is the majority population in the United States of America and which largely controls which laws are created, changed, enforced, disregarded, etc.

Your first and second sentences are ambiguous. Are you saying you are not an effective communicator or are you referring to yourself and others when you refer to effective communicators? If you believe you are an effective communicator I wonder why I have seen you use insulting, condescending language both in your last post and in this one.

People in the medical and legal worlds are obviously extremely educated, for the most part, and highly intelligent. Intellectual arguments which are secular in nature universally appeal to them. For those who may also be religious, religious arguments may additionally appeal, but it’s a poor strategy to rely on those when dealing with these civil decision-makers. (Just clarifying my position, not suggesting you don’t get this.)

Please don’t make me laugh. You are not the only person who knows people in the medical and legal worlds. My nephew is starting his residency soon, yet walks around saying “Me and my friends are going to the movies.” I was at a party once with a group of orthopaedic surgeons who spent an inordinate amount of time discussing the range of their pagers. Some people in the medical and legal worlds are extremely educated and highly intelligent. Some are poorly educated but managed to squeak through, perhaps because of someone they knew or just because of luck. I once gave advice to a deputy district attorney which she used and she won her case. And I’m nobody at all. It was simple common sense and she didn’t think of it.

And although it may surprise you, I was offered a place in medical school. Not because of my extremely high grades (they were high in general but I got a ‘C’ in Organic Chemistry) or my intelligence or my fantastic education (I didn’t attend Harvard or Stanford), but just because I happened to know someone on the admissions committee. He guaranteed me a space and all I had to do was say “yes.” Fortunately for any possible future patients I said “no” (although at times I regret that decision). It doesn’t take a great intelligence and great education to be a physician or an attorney. It takes a decent education and perhaps a higher than average intelligence, but certainly not great. And it takes money. Lots and lots of money.

The worst student who manages to graduate from medical school is called “Doctor,” just like the person who graduates with the highest grades. And the worst student who manages to graduate from law school and pass the bar has as much right to put “Esq.” after his/her name as the best student does.

Your implication that using religious arguments is a poor strategy is not backed up by any evidence you have provided. Again you are making unfounded assertions. It’s almost like you think you are omniscient.

It appears you are ignoring me, which is your right. However, I am still responding to your posts because you are not the only person who might be reading what I write. I am writing now for you (in case you are interested), the other posters in this thread, and the lurkers.

 

[LittleSoldier]

And a few “Sisters” Have a Priest complex

Does this Sister even have any theologian teaching - say moreso than the average 2nd year college student in theology?

"Sister Margaret Mary McBride, RSM, is a Sister of Mercy with thirty-six years of healthcare experience. She began her career at St. Joseph’s as a nurse. She became Vice President of Mission Integration in 2000 and is now the Vice President of Organizational Outreach and oversees Community Benefit, Volunteer Services, and Huger Mercy Living Center at St. Joseph’s Hospital and Medical Center.

"Prior to joining St. Joseph’s, she worked in healthcare facilities, a home care agency, and was an administrator for a retirement facility.

“Sr. Margaret graduated with a Bachelor of Science in Nursing from the University of San Francisco. She later completed a Master of Public Administration from the University of San Francisco. She is a board member of Mercy Hospital Bakersfield, Hospice of the Valley, and Southwest Catholic Health Network (Mercy Care Plan).”

stjosephs-phx.org/Who_We_Are/Press_Center/211990

[bolding added]

I guess that answers your question.

Here is the info on Bishop Holmsted:

For 16 years, Bishop Olmsted lived in Rome, Italy, where** he obtained a master’s dgree in theology, a doctorate in Canon Law, and worked more than nine years in the Secretariat of State of the Holy See.** During the nine years of serving in the Holy See, he resided at the Pontifical North American College and assisted seminarians with spiritual direction.

Having been reared on a family farm on the Kansas-Nebraska border, he attended a single-room grade school near Oketo, Kan., and a small rural high school in Summerfield, Kan. His first contact with Catholic schools came when he entered St. Thomas Seminary College in Denver, Colo., from which he graduated in 1969 with a bachelor’s degree in philosophy.

Born: January 21, 1947
Ordination to the priesthood: July 2, 1973
Ordained a bishop: April 20, 1999.
1973–1976: First assignment as a priest: associate pastor, Cathedral of the Risen Christ, Lincoln, Nebraska
1976–1979: Doctoral Studies at the Gregorian University, Rome
1979–1988: Assistant at the Secretariat of State of the Holy See, and assistant spiritual director at Pontifical North American College, Rome
1989–1993: Pastor, St. Vincent de Paul Parish, Seward, Nebraska
1993–1997: Dean of Personal Formation at the Pontifical College Josephinum, Columbus, Ohio
1997–1999: Rector/President of the Pontifical College Josephinum
1999–2001: Coadjutor Bishop of the Diocese of Wichita, Kansas
2001–2003: Bishop of the Diocese of Wichita, Kansas
U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ committees: Priestly Formation, 1999–2007; Consecrated Life, 2000–2003; Administrative Committee, 2002-2003
2000–2003: Board of Directors, Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc.
2003 - present: Bishop of the Diocese of Phoenix, AZ
2005-2007: Chair of USCCB Committee on Priestly Formation
2005-2008: Member, USCCB National Advisory Council
2008-2009: Apostolic Administrator of Diocese of Gallup
2008-2011: Member, USCCB Committee on Ecumenical and Inter-Religious Affairs
2009-Present: Member, Catholic Association of Latino Leaders
2010-Present: Member, USCCB Missions Committee

diocesephoenix.org/bishop/olmstedIndex.htm

[bolding added]

 

[kimmielittle]

Thank you, Kimmie!

Did you notice this part being mentioned?

The day the Bishop of Phoenix removed the Catholic status of the hospital, a hospital spokesman wanted to assure the public that pregnant women were safe in St. Joseph’s Hospital. But what of their unborn children?** And what of mothers who desperately want to be able to bring their children to term? Do they have the assurance that physicians will not encourage, urge, or even pressure them into aborting their children when a difficulty arises? **We are not suggesting that the physicians practicing at St. Joseph’s Hospital would do any such thing. But the value of solemn promises, such as the Hippocratic Oath or commitment to the Ethical and Religious Directives, is that the assurance that such pressures would never be brought to bear, even in difficult situations.

ncbcenter.org/NetCommunity/Document.Doc?id=171
Bolding mine

Although they don’t say that this happened - evidently they are just as concerned as I am -

 

[kimmielittle]

"Sister Margaret Mary McBride, RSM, is a Sister of Mercy with thirty-six years of healthcare experience. She began her career at St. Joseph’s as a nurse. She became Vice President of Mission Integration in 2000 and is now the Vice President of Organizational Outreach and oversees Community Benefit, Volunteer Services, and Huger Mercy Living Center at St. Joseph’s Hospital and Medical Center.

"Prior to joining St. Joseph’s, she worked in healthcare facilities, a home care agency, and was an administrator for a retirement facility.

“Sr. Margaret graduated with a Bachelor of Science in Nursing from the University of San Francisco. She later completed a Master of Public Administration from the University of San Francisco. She is a board member of Mercy Hospital Bakersfield, Hospice of the Valley, and Southwest Catholic Health Network (Mercy Care Plan).”

stjosephs-phx.org/Who_We_Are/Press_Center/211990

[bolding added]

I guess that answers your question.

Here is the info on Bishop Holmsted:

For 16 years, Bishop Olmsted lived in Rome, Italy, where** he obtained a master’s dgree in theology, a doctorate in Canon Law, and worked more than nine years in the Secretariat of State of the Holy See.** During the nine years of serving in the Holy See, he resided at the Pontifical North American College and assisted seminarians with spiritual direction.

Having been reared on a family farm on the Kansas-Nebraska border, he attended a single-room grade school near Oketo, Kan., and a small rural high school in Summerfield, Kan. His first contact with Catholic schools came when he entered St. Thomas Seminary College in Denver, Colo., from which he graduated in 1969 with a bachelor’s degree in philosophy.

Born: January 21, 1947
Ordination to the priesthood: July 2, 1973
Ordained a bishop: April 20, 1999.
1973–1976: First assignment as a priest: associate pastor, Cathedral of the Risen Christ, Lincoln, Nebraska
1976–1979: Doctoral Studies at the Gregorian University, Rome
1979–1988: Assistant at the Secretariat of State of the Holy See, and assistant spiritual director at Pontifical North American College, Rome
1989–1993: Pastor, St. Vincent de Paul Parish, Seward, Nebraska
1993–1997: Dean of Personal Formation at the Pontifical College Josephinum, Columbus, Ohio
1997–1999: Rector/President of the Pontifical College Josephinum
1999–2001: Coadjutor Bishop of the Diocese of Wichita, Kansas
2001–2003: Bishop of the Diocese of Wichita, Kansas
U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ committees: Priestly Formation, 1999–2007; Consecrated Life, 2000–2003; Administrative Committee, 2002-2003
2000–2003: Board of Directors, Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc.
2003 - present: Bishop of the Diocese of Phoenix, AZ
2005-2007: Chair of USCCB Committee on Priestly Formation
2005-2008: Member, USCCB National Advisory Council
2008-2009: Apostolic Administrator of Diocese of Gallup
2008-2011: Member, USCCB Committee on Ecumenical and Inter-Religious Affairs
2009-Present: Member, Catholic Association of Latino Leaders
2010-Present: Member, USCCB Missions Committee

diocesephoenix.org/bishop/olmstedIndex.htm

[bolding added]

Thank you!!

Yeppers!!!
I believe I’d listen to Bishop Olmsted on spiritual - moral - ethical issues. AND since I believe until my death…my spirit is part of my human body…no contest!

 

[kimmielittle]

So we have a Sister Not a Nun ] with no formal religious education - deciding Catholic Teaching and how they apply to Ethics???

AND trying to tell the Bishop - He has it wrong

 

[1holycatholic]

I have it and will try to find the link to the PDF for you - In short they stand firmly behind The Bishop.

ncbcenter.org/NetCommunity/Document.Doc?id=171

 

[1holycatholic]

So we have a Sister Not a Nun ] with no formal religious education - deciding Catholic Teaching and how they apply to Ethics???

AND trying to tell the Bishop - He has it wrong

It doesn’t matter if she holds a PhD in theology, the authority lies with the bishop. The National Catholic Bioethics Center notes that:
However, one factor which certainly appears to have contributed to the difficulties in Phoenix is that the hospital was not in consultation and communication with the bishop regarding the appropriate interpretation and application of the Ethical and Religious Directives.

 

[bookgirl32]

Again you use the word “delusional.” Condescending and not at all accurate.

Your first and second sentences are ambiguous. Are you saying you are not an effective communicator or are you referring to yourself and others when you refer to effective communicators? If you believe you are an effective communicator I wonder why I have seen you use insulting, condescending language both in your last post and in this one.

Please don’t make me laugh. You are not the only person who knows people in the medical and legal worlds. My nephew is starting his residency soon, yet walks around saying “Me and my friends are going to the movies.” I was at a party once with a group of orthopaedic surgeons who spent an inordinate amount of time discussing the range of their pagers. Some people in the medical and legal worlds are extremely educated and highly intelligent. Some are poorly educated but managed to squeak through, perhaps because of someone they knew or just because of luck. I once gave advice to a deputy district attorney which she used and she won her case. And I’m nobody at all. It was simple common sense and she didn’t think of it.

And although it may surprise you, I was offered a place in medical school. Not because of my extremely high grades (they were high in general but I got a ‘C’ in Organic Chemistry) or my intelligence or my fantastic education (I didn’t attend Harvard or Stanford), but just because I happened to know someone on the admissions committee. He guaranteed me a space and all I had to do was say “yes.” Fortunately for any possible future patients I said “no” (although at times I regret that decision). It doesn’t take a great intelligence and great education to be a physician or an attorney. It takes a decent education and perhaps a higher than average intelligence, but certainly not great. And it takes money. Lots and lots of money.

The worst student who manages to graduate from medical school is called “Doctor,” just like the person who graduates with the highest grades. And the worst student who manages to graduate from law school and pass the bar has as much right to put “Esq.” after his/her name as the best student does.

Your implication that using religious arguments is a poor strategy is not backed up by any evidence you have provided. Again you are making unfounded assertions. It’s almost like you think you are omniscient.

It appears you are ignoring me, which is your right. However, I am still responding to your posts because you are not the only person who might be reading what I write. I am writing now for you (in case you are interested), the other posters in this thread, and the lurkers.

 

[bookgirl32]

OK. Then I could also reverse that equation. (Catholic vs. secular) Beginning with, at the least, post 167 on this thread, the discussion has broadened to the requirements of medical institutions in general. Certainly the last 10 pages minimum have drifted in & out of that discussion, with you weighing in on how supposedly non-Catholics (working in, and patients in, hospitals) are also bound by divine law and objective truth, how Catholics discerning a medical vocation might have a constructive role in non-Catholic hospitals (I agree), and how divine laws are the final ‘decision-makers’ (Your post 279.) Of course you can limit your statements to those concerning Catholic hospitals, but even then (what several posters, not just I, have pointed out), one doesn’t stop being legally & practically bound by medical ethics because one is a Catholic medical worker. That’s the part that Rence, and separately I, have been trying to make clear.

Yes. They. Do. As I’ve been trying to make clear. If those particular medical ethics run contrary to Divine Law then yes, one is practically and legally and in all situations
set free from those immoral medical ethics. That we can’t get civil law to recognize this has absolutely no bearing on the fact that it’s true.

I tend to think of the situation as something of a Venn diagram; you may be familiar with that. There are overlapping moral/ethical codes in a sectarian hospital: those pertaining to the code of the sect, those pertaining to civil/professional code. The problem is when there’s a conflict (rules not shared by both institutions). These conflicts have been highlighted by some posters. We can’t just blow off these contradictions as 'tough: Divine law rules; it’s a Catholic hospital. End of story. ’

Yes, We can. And the Bishop did. Or did you not notice that? Or do you disagree with him? (And when he said that Catholic and medical ethics can be different in the modern world, he meant that the medical ethics were to be disregarded and the Catholic ones followed in such a situation).

“Catholic” requires one set of rules; ‘hospital,’ in the modern world, requires another. This contradiction (a contradiction which Bishop Olmstead himself acknowledged) is a problem for potentially all Catholic hospitals. That’s why talking about the non-Catholic view is important. It’s not going to go away.

I didn’t say it wasn’t important or that it was going to go away. But it does not relieve the Catholic hospital of following Catholic directives set by those who have the apostolic authority to interpet Divine (Universal) Law. Period. How many times do I have to say it? Find me documented proof from official Catholic sources that this isn’t true.

You’ve misunderstood. I don’t pretend to know what prayers are doing, nor what God is doing. I pray an awful lot about Life causes in this country. However, I am entitled to draw logical conclusions when explicit statements are made by pro-life people that “only” or “mostly” prayer in front of abortion clinics will convince pregnant women not to abort, and when they claim that that any approach except for that (in addition to that) is somehow “heretical” (their actual word), and a litmus test of loyalty to the Magisterium. Such a position is narrow-minded & ignorant. And yes, delusional.

Again, you’ve provided me no actual example of this. I don’t really care if the group you are referring to says one thing and you say another. It is what the Church says that matters.
Stop trying to derail the topic of the thread.

I never once said or implied that Mother Teresa is delusional for praying. Note, however, that most of her life was devoted to actual, practical involvement in (poor) people’s lives, as opposed to relying mainly on passive prayer. She prayed, talked, & worked all at the same time in many cases. Fr. Corapi has a number of colorful anecdotes about that.

Really? Really? “Passive prayer”? What is that?

You apparently missed the lively dialogue engaged by several of us on the “condom” issue on one of the threads about a month ago. Btw, I didn’t say that Catholic language is illogical. You seem to have trouble following sequence here. I said that Catholic “proprietary” language is often not understood by a wider audience. I made a separate point that strategies in Catholic moral activism (as in any activism, including civil) should logically align with goals. (Thus, when you want to communicate effectively with a non-Catholic audience, you speak to them in the context that has a good chance of resonating with them.) I’m sure Mother Teresa did this. The Pope, in the condom statement (including in the book, out of which it was lifted), did not sufficiently, in the opinion of many faithful, learned Catholics who were guests on EWTN, frame the condom remark so that non-Catholics – who dissect every word of his – would easily understand, since most of his global audience are not trained in Catholic philosophy which underpins Catholic moral theology. He needed a little bit of a preamble, and probably a better example, according to George Weigel and many others.

What does the above statement specifically have to do with Bishop Olmsted’s actions? How does the argument you’re making above about a statement the pope made impact the bishop and St. Joseph’s? Was the bishop wrong in using propietary “Catholic” language when speaking to the Catholic hospital? How does the above statement apply to the practical application of Divine Law for a bishop dealing with a disobedient hospital?

 

[bookgirl32]

I’m sorry that I give you that impression. That’s not my belief. My belief is that when dealing with a powerful, sophisticated set of modern secular institutions which many Catholics would like to monitor, influence, change, relying on a Catholic viewpoint alone is an insufficient way to communicate. And anyone who thinks that identifiably religious (let alone Catholic) language does not actually back-fire with regard to many hot-plate issues in modern morality (contraception, abortion, cohabitation, gay “marriage,” reproductive technologies, etc.) really does not get out enough.

So again, how does this apply to the situation with Bishop Olmsted? Did he use sufficiently non-Catholic language in speaking to the press? Because it would seem absolutely silly that he be required to use non-Catholic language in speaking to a Catholic hospital in regards to their actions’ implications under Catholic teaching. So is that what your problem is with this situation and why you keep bringing this up? Was his language choice insufficient for you? Or was his action insufficient for you?

If you want to shut down dialogue, and ensure that tomorrow there will be another million dollars in so-and-so’s campaign chest or such-and-such legislative attempt, just tell your opponents that you’re speaking for the Catholic church, or that what they’re doing is “against God’s law.” I’m not saying, bookgirl, that you necessarily want to do this or have done this. (You’ve already addressed that fact.) I’m saying that many, many well-meaning Catholic activists operate this way. It is indeed naive, if not also delusional because it does not lead to effective change.

Again, Elizabeth, your argument above obviously has it’s merits. I’m just trying to understand where it applies to the Bishop’s dialogue with the hospital?

I don’t put myself out there as “the only effective communicator.” I put other models out there.

Okay so you put yourself out there as authoritative above others as to what effective communication IS. How is that different?

Twice now I’ve put Professor Robert George out there, as one fine example. He knows how to argue Catholic morality to a secular world, which is the majority population in the United States of America and which largely controls which laws are created, changed, enforced, disregarded, etc.

You’ve said his name about a million times but not provided any quotes or links to anything from him. He very well could be what you say, I don’t know. How does that impact the dialogue between the bishop and the hospital?

People in the medical and legal worlds are obviously extremely educated, for the most part, and highly intelligent. Intellectual arguments which are secular in nature universally appeal to them. For those who may also be religious, religious arguments may additionally appeal, but it’s a poor strategy to rely on those when dealing with these civil decision-makers. (Just clarifying my position, not suggesting you don’t get this.)

Again, what does this have to do with Bishop Olmsted’s language? Or the decision he made?

 

[bookgirl32]

The citizen is obliged in conscience not to follow the directives of civil authorities when they are contrary to the demands of the moral order, to the fundamental rights of persons or the teachings of the Gospel. Refusing obedience to civil authorities, when their demands are contrary to those of an upright conscience, finds its justification in the distinction between serving God and serving the political community. “Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” “We must obey God rather than men”:

When citizens are under the oppression of a public authority which oversteps its competence, they should still not refuse to give or to do what is objectively demanded of them by the common good; but it is legitimate for them to defend their own rights and those of their fellow citizens against the abuse of this authority within the limits of the natural law and the Law of the Gospel.
[CCC 2242]

Thank you.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Here ya go

ncbcenter.org/NetCommunity/Document.Doc?id=171

NOTE: The Hospital has changed it’s story on at least one occasion. Hmmm let’s just say it seems to be evolving.

Thanks for the link. Cut/pasted is the part relevant to the case:

The Case at St. Joseph’s Hospital

*It must be said that The National Catholic Bioethics Center does not know the clinical facts of the case; rather it was asked to comment on the analysis initially submitted to the bishop by Catholic Healthcare West.The Center was not given access to the clinicians involved, and it can only be presumed that it was a very difficult situation in which the physicians had to act with dispatch and undoubtedly with regret.Consequently, without the clinical facts the Center can only articulate again the moral teachings of the Church and their proper application rather than speaking directly to the case.

*Portions of a moral analysis of the case have been circulated by CHW. However, they really have to do with debates over moral theory rather than the specifics of the St. Joseph’s case, the precise details of which remain unknown. However, one factor which certainly appears to have contributed to the difficulties in Phoenix is that the hospital was not in consultation and communication with the bishop regarding the appropriate interpretation and application of the Ethical and Religious Directives. One of the most dismaying facts to come to light as a result of the Bishop withdrawing the Catholic status of the hospital is the hospital’s involvement in and profit from the Mercy Health Plan which provides contraceptive drugs and devices (some of which have abortifacient properties) and also provides for abortion under certain circumstances. Also, by its own admission, the hospital has performed other abortions in the past and will not promise to refrain from performing abortions in the future. Who knows what the nature of those procedures were? Some might have conformed to the moral law as indirect abortions, others may not have. It is impossible to know without the facts. What is quite remarkable is that such procedures were apparently never subjected to ethical review by ecclesiastical authority. *

…

Without a complete record of the presenting signs and symptoms (usually in the history and physical examination in November 2009) and interview of the treating physicians, there is no way for an outside reviewing physician or bioethicist, much less a less trained / specialized person, to determine if the patient’s pulmonary hypertension did indeed necessitate the pregnancy termination.

The NCBC has explained its position well. Even before the case, St. Joseph had been operating outside the ERDs, basing on its own admission and continued non-compliance. So the bishop’s action was appropriate and above reproach.

…

Each bishop is called to supervised all Catholic schools and hospitals under the diocese. St. Joseph is not the first hospital stripped of its Catholic status.

St. Charles in Oregon lost Catholic status as well in 2007. From CNS:

The fault for this terrible loss in a state where the witness to the gospel is already tenuous and in plain decline lies squarely with the Sisters of St. Joseph of Tipton, Indiana who appear to have purposefully designed the transfer of this hospital to a lay board in order to eliminate the oversight which is the proper role of the local bishop. In effect, the hospital ceased to exist under Catholic auspices when the Sisters gave it to the lay board. This is simply the official recognition that this board has not carried forward the Catholic mission so unwisely entrusted to it by the Sisters.
.

 

[kimmielittle]

It doesn’t matter if she holds a PhD in theology, the authority lies with the bishop. The National Catholic Bioethics Center notes that:However, one factor which certainly appears to have contributed to the difficulties in Phoenix is that the hospital was not in consultation and communication with the bishop regarding the appropriate interpretation and application of the Ethical and Religious Directives.

Shhhhhh I know… .]

I was just putting it on the thread so people could see her base.

 

[kimmielittle]

Thanks for the link.

You are very welcome

Without a complete record of the presenting signs and symptoms (usually in the history and physical examination in November 2009) and interview of the treating physicians, there is no way for an outside reviewing physician or bioethicist, much less a less trained / specialized person, to determine if the patient’s pulmonary hypertension did indeed necessitate the pregnancy termination.

The NCBC has explained its position well. Even before the case, St. Joseph had been operating outside the ERDs, basing on its own admission and continued non-compliance. So the bishop’s action was appropriate and above reproach.

…

Each bishop is called to supervised all Catholic schools and hospitals under the diocese. St. Joseph is not the first hospital stripped of its Catholic status.

Absolutely!!!

St. Charles in Oregon lost Catholic status as well in 2007. From CNS:
The fault for this terrible loss in a state where the witness to the gospel is already tenuous and in plain decline lies squarely with the Sisters of St. Joseph of Tipton, Indiana who appear to have purposefully designed the transfer of this hospital to a lay board in order to eliminate the oversight which is the proper role of the local bishop. In effect, the hospital ceased to exist under Catholic auspices when the Sisters gave it to the lay board. This is simply the official recognition that this board has not carried forward the Catholic mission so unwisely entrusted to it by the Sisters…

Do you think these are some of the reasons for the Vatican Visits to some Orders of Sisters?

 

[Elizabeth502]

So again, how does this apply to the situation with Bishop Olmsted? Did he use sufficiently non-Catholic language in speaking to the press?

Absolutely. I’ve praised him for that. (An important fact which you continually skip over, preferring to ask me repeatedly whether I approve of him or not. ) As I believe the poster ByzCath said earlier, it’s irrelevant whether anyone here approves or disapproves; it’s meaningless, including whether you, frankly, approve or disapprove. He’s the bishop; he has jurisdiction over his diocese; his judgment is what’s important here, not the judgments of CAF posters; they’re not running the show.

Again, it’s important to follow sequence in a debate, including in the portion of a debate, or a tributary of it, in which you are engaged with a particular contributor, which in this case was myself. We had broadened the conversation to discuss Catholic activiism (in moral spheres) generally. Obviously that’s not interesting to you, and that’s fine. But that was my context. Bishop Olmstead addressed a secular audience and was clear about the distinctions between Catholic morality and medical ethics.

Okay so you put yourself out there as authoritative above others as to what effective communication IS.

Never once have I done this. Never once have I “put myself out there as authoritative above others.” You will not find that once on this or any other thread, and I deeply resent your misrepresenting this.

Nevertheless, lots of Catholic activists are at least as interested in various pro-life causes as are those who confine themselves to “Catholic” language. Taking myself out of the equation, they have much to offer. It would help if those Catholics with a siege consciousness about Catholics “versus” “the world,” would allow these other activists some credibility, without resorting to suspicion or hostility. (I’m speaking generally, naturally, not of you in particular – as again, the conversation had broadened.)

Repeating my agreement with your earlier comments about the power of prayer, there’s lots of room in the Big Tent, and no prayer - we are told in Catholic spirituality – goes unheeded, nor no attempt at causes in the name of Life, Justice, Charity. It’s a big world, including a big Catholic world, and cloistered monks/contemplatives contribute much (for example).

You’ve said his name about a million times but not provided any quotes or links to anything from him.

Hyperbole? I’ve said his name 2 or 3 times, I believe. His name has been repeated by others on CAF more than once. Links are abundant on this forum for you to view, on more than one thread. The search engine is your friend.

He very well could be what you say, I don’t know. How does that impact the dialogue between the bishop and the hospital?

It doesn’t. Again, the conversation had broadened. You obviously are not interested in discussing anything other than Bishop Olmstead; that’s fine; that’s the subject of this thread!

 

[InSearchofGrace]

So again, how does this apply to the situation with Bishop Olmsted? Did he use sufficiently non-Catholic language in speaking to the press? Because it would seem absolutely silly that he be required to use non-Catholic language in speaking to a Catholic hospital in regards to their actions’ implications under Catholic teaching. So is that what your problem is with this situation and why you keep bringing this up? Was his language choice insufficient for you? Or was his action insufficient for you?

…

Bookgirl,

Just a comment here which I hope comes across well and not taken except in the spirit of charity:

In following the discussion you are having with Elizabeth, you are to be commended for the clear passion you have in defense of the unborn and Catholic principles. I don’t claim to understand all the exchanges and dynamic, but it seems to me that there is no real division in arguments if the bishop has done the right thing or not in this case. The ongoing argument you are having appears to be more about style and manner in how a Catholic hospital can operate, serving its faithful and the secular world at large, with medical services in line with its moral teaching on abortion, among other things.

I do not read from Elizabeth’s posts discord or dissent with Catholic teaching or the bishop’s action in this case. It seems that much is extended from what she stated and interpreted from what she did not say.

As Catholics, we have a better chance of winning non-Catholics and nominal Catholics to our way of thinking by continuing to be the voice of reason without forsaking the non-negotiables of our faith. There does not seem to be a downside to what Elizabeth proposed, that Catholics in still a large non-Catholic environment will have to do better in communications, to successfully get our message across.

It is already a tremendous challenge to keep the faithful on the same page. We see how Catholic hospitals depart from Church teaching as St. Joseph had, bringing with them yet another dissenting segment of the Catholic population.
.