Caritas Catholic Health System Will Refer for Abortions Not Do Them

[rpp]

As a native Bostonian whose family was involved with Mass. Citizens for Life from the very beginning, this is all so very disturbing. Given the way the Church in Boston has sold out over the last several decades, it is, unfortunately, not surprising.

I am currently reading The Faithful Departed by Philip Lawler. I can see that much has been lost in the archdiocese of Boston. I am very sorry for you pain and think I have a small inkling of your frustration.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Neil, I think you are missing the part where Caritas will PAY for the abortion. How this relates to involuntarily paying taxes I do not know.

It is not merely enough to say, “You don’t need to kill your baby.”

All I know about the situation is what I read in the article. The article says that a Cardinal has agreed to adopt a policy of referring patients who want an abortion to a hotline where they can get information from another organization. It didn’t say anything about paying for abortions. If you have more information please provide it.

I try to be understanding when a Cardinal or Bishop says or does something. In this case I think we need to ask the question "if we find outselves in a situation where we can help the poor who need medical care, but the government requires us to refer the poor who come to us to an organization who will perform abortions, when they could easily find that organization without our help, what should we do: stop providing medical care to the poor, or go along with the law? "

Perhaps the Cardinal threw in the towel too early. But eventually we’re all going to have to decide what compromises we will make. If I won’t even give up buying items with sales tax when I know the sales tax goes to provide abortions, what logic would allow me to stop curing the poor because it involves some very remote cooperation with abortion?

 

[catharina]

All I know about the situation is what I read in the article. The article says that a Cardinal has agreed to adopt a policy of referring patients who want an abortion to a hotline where they can get information from another organization. It didn’t say anything about paying for abortions. If you have more information please provide it.

I try to be understanding when a Cardinal or Bishop says or does something. In this case I think we need to ask the question "if we find outselves in a situation where we can help the poor who need medical care, but the government requires us to refer the poor who come to us to an organization who will perform abortions, when they could easily find that organization without our help, what should we do: stop providing medical care to the poor, or go along with the law? "

Perhaps the Cardinal threw in the towel too early. But eventually we’re all going to have to decide what compromises we will make. If I won’t even give up buying items with sales tax when I know the sales tax goes to provide abortions, what logic would allow me to stop curing the poor because it involves some very remote cooperation with abortion?

Remote cooperation? No.
Provision of contacts to secure abortions is not “remote.”

**“Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. There may be legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not… with regard to abortion and euthanasia.” - Pope Benedict XVI **

 

[o_mlly]

This is very dissapointing.

But I don’t think we should judge them. They faced a decision to get government money to provide medical care to the poor, but it came with the requirement that they refer for abortions. Anyone who wants an abortion can easily find a place that gives abortion - all they have to do is look in the phone book or on the internet. They decided to remotely co-operate with evil in order to do a greater good.

Almost everyone reading this does the same thing: we accept our paychecks even though a portion is taxed and given to agencies who perform abortions. We could choose to stop working, but we don’t, because we have to choose between two imperfect choices.

Also, this gives the agency or its employees a chance possibly to offer pro-life information to women seeking abortion.

Yes, we may not judge them but we must judge the act. Procured abortion is intrinsically evil and may never be justified as licit either in good intention nor in any circimstance.

Referral constitutes an immediate material cooperation in the evil of abortion; accepting a paychecks does not. Accepting a paycheck may be considered a remote material cooperation to abortion, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.

Peace,
O’Malley

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Remote cooperation? No.
Provision of contacts to secure abortions is not “remote.”

Well, I could get in a long internet debate with you, but I’ve read the theology on remote cooperation, and material vs. formal cooperation. Also it appears I’m agreeing with a Cardinal, so I don’t really need to justify myself. I’ll provide links for anyone who wants to get some real facts from a moral theologian:

ascensionhealth.org/ethics/public/key_principles/cooperation.asp

 

[Corki]

Thirteen of us stood in the cold, in front of Magee-Womans Hospital, today to pray that the hospital would not allow abortions to be done. This hospital was once internationally known for its women and preemie care. Life was its goal not death. Now in one room a woman can be having her baby, the room next to her might hold another woman trying to desperately keep from having a miscarriage and the third room could have a woman that just had an abortion.

And this was the surreal thought that kept me awake last night. Imagine the scene where parish based RL teams have to picket the “Catholic” hospitals against abortion.

I try to be understanding when a Cardinal or Bishop says or does something. In this case I think we need to ask the question "if we find outselves in a situation where we can help the poor who need medical care, but the government requires us to refer the poor who come to us to an organization who will perform abortions, when they could easily find that organization without our help, what should we do: stop providing medical care to the poor, or go along with the law? "

Key Catholic principal - you cannot do evil, even for a good intent. The ends do not justify the means. The Catholic Church and Catholic hospitals do not have to be involved in abortion to help the poor. Why would Caritas have to stop helping the poor in this case? They wouldn’t. They would just stop being a conduit for SOME of the government money for health care for the poor. Their own resources could still be directed the poor - all the poor, including the unborn.

Remote cooperation? No.
Provision of contacts to secure abortions is not “remote.”

**“Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. There may be legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not… with regard to abortion and euthanasia.” - Pope Benedict XVI **

This is formal proximate cooperation. If the Church says that driving someone for an abortion or paying for one is enough to trigger latae sententiae excommunication, how can referring be seen as any less?

Neil_Anthony:
Perhaps the Cardinal threw in the towel too early. But eventually we’re all going to have to decide what compromises we will make. If I won’t even give up buying items with sales tax when I know the sales tax goes to provide abortions, what logic would allow me to stop curing the poor because it involves some very remote cooperation with abortion?

Because your sales tax goes to a lot of other things besides abortion and because you can’t legally stop paying sales tax. This is a referral specifically for an abortion and the hospital could have and should have said ‘no.’ Not to mention the fact that refering for abortions has not effect, let alone ending, the Church’s committment to helping the poor.

 

[Corki]

Well, I could get in a long internet debate with you, but I’ve read the theology on remote cooperation, and material vs. formal cooperation. Also it appears I’m agreeing with a Cardinal, so I don’t really need to justify myself. I’ll provide links for anyone who wants to get some real facts from a moral theologian:

ascensionhealth.org/ethics/public/key_principles/cooperation.asp

That’s was very misleading. The article you linked did not even have an author listed, let alone a Cardinal. It was written for the web site of a health care organization (conflict of interest much?)

 

[Neil_Anthony]

That’s was very misleading. The article you linked did not even have an author listed, let alone a Cardinal. It was written for the web site of a health care organization (conflict of interest much?)

Is there something on the website that isn’t correct by Catholic moral theology?

The good Cardinal is the one who decided they could refer to an agency that provides abortions, not me. I suspect he followed Catholic moral theology and decided there were proportionate reasons (providing health care to the poor) to remotely cooperate with evil in this case.

 

[johnnykins]

This is very dissapointing.

But I don’t think we should judge them. They faced a decision to get government money to provide medical care to the poor, but it came with the requirement that they refer for abortions. Anyone who wants an abortion can easily find a place that gives abortion - all they have to do is look in the phone book or on the internet. They decided to remotely co-operate with evil in order to do a greater good.

Almost everyone reading this does the same thing: we accept our paychecks even though a portion is taxed and given to agencies who perform abortions. We could choose to stop working, but we don’t, because we have to choose between two imperfect choices.

Also, this gives the agency or its employees a chance possibly to offer pro-life information to women seeking abortion.

The alternative might be to NOT TAKE the government money? It’s not as if in Boston there are no other alternatives - for the poor or Caritas. The problem, IMHO is that the love of money is driving this - not the love of the poor. I can hear the “Daughters of Money” mantra being tuned up: “No Money No Mission” when the real translation is: “No Mission (since we’re no different from any other hospital) So Take the Money.”

Oh, the ethical arguments on mediate or remote cooperation or double effect will all be trotted out. The needed hypocrisy to get the moolah will sing forth again; and for 30 pieces of silver we will sell our souls.

It’s time to get the Church out of the Hospital and many other healthcare businesses. Hospitals are not only a business in the USA, but they are BIG business. As anyone who has been seriously involved in healthcare knows, the entire hospital industry is corrupting and scandalous on both a Catholic and civil level - and I’m afraid the orders who run them know it. (Even IF this arrangement at Caritas were ethical, you could NEVER adequately explain it to the general population for any number of reasons including, complexity, lack of interest, lack of willingness to understand, etc.)

Let’s face it, Caritas has had severe $ issues lately - how unsurprising they sought and got this contract!!

 

[rpp]

An important update.

As Massachusetts regulators approved a joint venture between the Archdiocese of Boston’s health-care agency and hospitals that provide abortion, Cardinal Sean O’Malley issued a statement saying that he has not issued his final approval: While I appreciate the opportunity given to Caritas Christi to serve the poor through this agreement, I wish to reaffirm that this agreement can only be realized if the moral obligations for Catholic hospitals as articulated in the Ethical and Religious Directives of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops are fulfilled at all times and in all cases. In order to assure me that this agreement will provide for the integrity of the Catholic identity and practices of Caritas Christi Health Care System, I have asked the National Catholic Bioethics Center to review the agreement and to assure me that it is faithful to Catholic principles.

Full story here.

 

[Corki]

Is there something on the website that isn’t correct by Catholic moral theology?

The good Cardinal is the one who decided they could refer to an agency that provides abortions, not me. I suspect he followed Catholic moral theology and decided there were proportionate reasons (providing health care to the poor) to remotely cooperate with evil in this case.

Which cardinal? Cardinal O’Malley has NOT given his approval. And the website you submitted as “proof” that you were just agreeing with a Cardinal had no mention of any Church authority.

 

[turtle18]

I am not exactly clear why the Cardinal is asking for “clarification” and “direction” from a bioethics committee run by the USCCB. If he needs to go to an ethics committee to determine if this is right or wrong, I question his qualification to be a cardinal, let alone a priest. It is pretty black and white, the Roman Catholic Church, the Church founded by Christ and built by Christ, should never advocate or refer anyone for an abortion.

Honeslty, I have to agree with another thread going on here. It is time we write to the Vatican and ask for these bishops/cardinals to be removed. It is just a total abomination that our Church would ever even consider referring abortions and it is time our leadership be held accountable. The bishops/cardinals are supposed to be helping the ethicallly/morally compromised–they are not supposed to be the ones leading the movement!

 

[catharina]

Below are listed the ethicists at the NCBC.
It seems only one is a priest.

STAFF ETHICISTS
MARIE T. HILLIARD, R.N., Ph.D., J.C.L.
Director of Bioethics and Public Policy
Click Here to Email
215-877-2660 x236

STEPHEN R. NAPIER, Ph.D.
Click Here to Email
215-877-2660, x238

REV. ALFRED CIOFFI, S.T.D., Ph.D.
Click Here to Email
215-877-2660, x235

So I wrote to him (email) as follows:

Dear Father, I’ve singled you out for my appeal based solely on the fact of your priesthood.

I beg you and your confreres to stand with the Church and disallow the venture that would partner Caritas Healthcare with an abortion-provider. Some years past, the late (and great) Cardinal Bernardin of Chicago established a stand-off with the Sisters of Mercy (RSMs), insisting that if they joined Mercy Hospital and Medical Center with a non-Catholic, abortion-providing, local hospital they would lose the ranking of Mercy Hospital etc., as CATHOLIC. Those Sisters, (who are/were) far more stubborn than most, at last threw in their cards and stopped the merger TWO DAYS before the union was to take effect.

Please. This situation is a no-brainer. I’m a 63 yr-old Roman Catholic who has ever supported pro-life work.

God bless you and guide you in this situation. signed, etc…

 

[turtle18]

Here is an e-mail for the Vatican:

benedictxvi@vatican.va

 

[meerkat]

Neal, Neal, Neal.

Who are you to say that it is totally unacceptable … you are not in their shoes. I’m sure they did the best they could and avoided having abortions in catholic hospitals, we should count our blessings and be thankful for them

 

[KathleenElsie]

Who are you to say that it is totally unacceptable … you are not in their shoes. I’m sure they did the best they could and avoided having abortions in catholic hospitals, we should count our blessings and be thankful for them

Sorry but the best they can do is to refuse to be involved in any way in the evil of abortions. I will never be grateful to those that have allowed themselves to participate in the evil of abortions.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Sorry but the best they can do is to refuse to be involved in any way in the evil of abortions. I will never be grateful to those that have allowed themselves to participate in the evil of abortions.

I can imagine a situation where a communist regime arrests someone and says “give this phone number for directory assistance to that pregnant woman who wants an abortion, so she can call and get the phone number of the abortion clinic, or i’ll kill 100 innocent children”. Then of course by your logic you would have to say “No, i will not give her the phone number for 4-1-1, go ahead and kill those 100 innocent children, the blood will be on your hands, I will keep my conscience clean! I will not give her the number for 4-1-1!”

I don’t think that’s the right thing to do. Refusing to cooperate with evil even when its very remote cooperation, when the alternative good is very great, can be wrong.

We could all reduce our cooperation with abortion by quitting our jobs, because our income tax funds abortions. But most of us don’t do that, because the good that comes from being able to provide for our needs and the needs of our families outweighs it.

The good Cardinal decided that the good of curing the poor outweighs remote cooperation with evil by giving out the number for a consumer hotline, where the person could ask for abortion information. It’s not even the number for an abortion clinic.

 

[KathleenElsie]

I can imagine a situation where a communist regime arrests someone and says “give this phone number for directory assistance to that pregnant woman who wants an abortion, so she can call and get the phone number of the abortion clinic, or i’ll kill 100 innocent children”. Then of course by your logic you would have to say “No, i will not give her the phone number for 4-1-1, go ahead and kill those 100 innocent children, the blood will be on your hands, I will keep my conscience clean! I will not give her the number for 4-1-1!”

I don’t think that’s the right thing to do. Refusing to cooperate with evil even when its very remote cooperation, when the alternative good is very great, can be wrong.

We could all reduce our cooperation with abortion by quitting our jobs, because our income tax funds abortions. But most of us don’t do that, because the good that comes from being able to provide for our needs and the needs of our families outweighs it.

The good Cardinal decided that the good of curing the poor outweighs remote cooperation with evil by giving out the number for a consumer hotline, where the person could ask for abortion information. It’s not even the number for an abortion clinic.

If I use your logic the martyrs that refused to deny Jesus to save their families did not do the right thing. They should have denied Jesus and Christianity to save others?

Also there is no way that someone that wants to abort a child can not find the information by just calling information. Why should the Church become the information service for the abortion industry?

 

[Corki]

We could all reduce our cooperation with abortion by quitting our jobs, because our income tax funds abortions. But most of us don’t do that, because the good that comes from being able to provide for our needs and the needs of our families outweighs it.

Most of us don’t do that because our jobs don’t directly involve helping women commit abortions. This is not part of our job description and we have no physical control over where our taxes are spent. We are talking about individuals who by their own acts, over which they have control, would be required as part of their job, to help a woman commit an abortion.

The good Cardinal decided that the good of curing the poor outweighs remote cooperation with evil by giving out the number for a consumer hotline, where the person could ask for abortion information. It’s not even the number for an abortion clinic

So, the Cardinal has heard back from the NCBC? And has given his approval? Please provide the source of this new information.

 

[rpp]

I can imagine a situation where a communist regime arrests someone and says “give this phone number for directory assistance to that pregnant woman who wants an abortion, so she can call and get the phone number of the abortion clinic, or i’ll kill 100 innocent children”. Then of course by your logic you would have to say “No, i will not give her the phone number for 4-1-1, go ahead and kill those 100 innocent children, the blood will be on your hands, I will keep my conscience clean! I will not give her the number for 4-1-1!”

I don’t think that’s the right thing to do. Refusing to cooperate with evil even when its very remote cooperation, when the alternative good is very great, can be wrong.

We could all reduce our cooperation with abortion by quitting our jobs, because our income tax funds abortions. But most of us don’t do that, because the good that comes from being able to provide for our needs and the needs of our families outweighs it.

The good Cardinal decided that the good of curing the poor outweighs remote cooperation with evil by giving out the number for a consumer hotline, where the person could ask for abortion information. It’s not even the number for an abortion clinic.

Your logic is faulty.

It is not cooperating in evil to pay taxes to the governemtn, even if there are unjust laws. Christ Himself made this clear when asked aboutpaying taxes to Rome, clearly a government which had many unjust laws. Have you never heard of sales tax? Property tax? Gas tax? Excise tax? Etc.? A person cannot live avoid taxes so please. So please stop this business about taxes and people quitting their jobs.

Paying taxes is clearly different than providing people with information on how to obtain an abortion. One major difference is that in the case of paying taxes, in the case of taxes, one is an unwilling and unwitting contributor, completely isolated from how the money is spent. The other is active and willing cooperation. One cannot sin by accident or in ignorance, however, one can be intentially ingonorant, which does not excuse them.

If the Cardinal permits this, he would not be first Cardinal who have made questinable moral decisions. Sadly, whatever his final decision, which has NOT yet been announced, it is likely that other priests and bishops, yes, even cardinals, in the future will make questionalble, perhaps even wrong, decisions.