Reaffirming Catholic Identity
Jan 5, 2011
George Weigel
Throughout his recently completed three-year term as president of United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Cardinal Francis George, OMI, gently but firmly led his brother bishops through a reflection on their duties as defenders of the integrity of the Catholic “brand.” A deeper commitment on the bishops’ part to being the stewards of Catholic identity in their dioceses was, one may speculate, one factor in the election of Archbishop Timothy Dolan of New York—a robust defender of Catholic truth—as Cardinal George’s successor in the president’s chair at the USCCB. Not everything that is labeled “Catholic” warrants that label, the bishops have come to understand; and if anyone is to do something about that, the bishops are going to have to be the principal agents of change.
The debate about the Catholic identity of Catholic institutions of higher education has been underway for decades, and may well take some interesting turns in the years ahead. At the moment, however, the hottest of hot buttons on this front involve health-care institutions that call themselves “Catholic” but which have acquiesced to practices approved by an increasingly aggressive secular culture—and to the lure of government dollars. On that new front in the campaign to reaffirm Catholic identity, Bishop Thomas Olmsted of Phoenix has become an important leader.
Bishop Olmsted inherited a terrible situation in Phoenix: The previous bishop had been disgraced; the local legal authorities had stated publicly that they could not trust the Church to police its own house in matters of sexual abuse, and proposed to take over that function themselves. Bishop Olmsted didn’t squawk, nor did he deny that serious problems existed. Rather, he quietly and decisively set about fixing what needed fixing, so that the public authorities were soon content to revert to a more normal Church/state relationship.
Then, in 2009, a “therapeutic” abortion was performed at Phoenix’s St. Joseph’s Hospital, a part of the Catholic Healthcare West system. When Bishop Olmsted wrote the president of CHW, asking what on earth was going on, CHW attempted to justify what had happened through arguments advanced by M. Therese Lysaught, who teaches theology at Marquette University. Bishop Olmsted was not impressed, and informed CHW that it was his duty, as the local bishop, to be the authoritative interpreter of the moral law in his diocese and the authoritative interpreter of the hospital guidelines adopted by the USCCB. And the bishop went on to state that, on Dec. 17, 2010 (the day after this is being written), he would declare that St. Joseph’s Hospital is no longer to be considered a Catholic institution—unless CHW admits that the 2009 abortion that happened there violated the U.S. bishops’ norms and unless CHW pledges that such an abomination will not happen again.
However the Phoenix/CHW situation eventually sorts out, an important marker has been laid down by a bishop known for both his integrity and his personal sanctity. Bishop Olmsted will undoubtedly be criticized by those for whom “dialogue” is the holy grail of Catholic life. But in our current cultural situation (and given the pressures that the Obama administration and unsympathetic state governments are likely to increase on Catholic health-care facilities), the call for “dialogue” too often amounts to a prescription for slow-motion surrender, with the Catholic identity of Catholic institutions being slowly whittled away while the “dialogue” partners carry on.
The Catholic integrity of Catholic educational and health-care institutions was at stake when those institutions were segregated in the 1950s and early 1960s; brave bishops like Joseph Ritter in St. Louis, Joseph Rummel in New Orleans, and Lawrence Shehan in Baltimore took a lot of heat, but did what they had to do to bring the conduct of Catholic institutions into sync with the Church’s teaching on human dignity. No less ought to be expected of the Church’s ordained leaders today, when the stakes are just as high, although the issues have changed. So full marks to Cardinal George for putting the issue of Catholic identity on the bishops’ plates, and full marks to Bishop Olmsted for giving that new commitment real teeth.
George Weigel is Distinguished Senior Fellow of the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, D.C.
Comments:
1.5.2011 | 11:54am
Joe the Human says:
Catholicism now commits a strange and fearful and ominous error: Catholicism now stakes its entire reputation on, and defines itself by, an issue that was never explicitly mentioned in the Bible; not even once.
1.5.2011 | 12:34pm
Max says:
Joe, you may not be aware but Catholicism (and the Orthodox) have always recognized both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition as authority (incidientally, recognition of non-written tradition is also expressly recognized in Paul's epistles, se 2 Thess 2:15). Abortion has clearly been condemned since the earliest Christian history. The Didache, which probably dates from around 50 A.D., expressly condemns it, and condemenation of it and infancticide are abundant in early Christian texts. Besides, what is today considered the Bible (including the Deutero-Canonical books, later excised by Protestants in the 1500s), wasn't declared the "canon" until the late 4th century A.D. By the Catholic/Orthodox Church I might add.
1.5.2011 | 12:47pm
Richard says:
One cannot have a discussion with someone who chimes in with the killing canard. Here is a description of the medical situation:
The case centers around a woman in her 20s who was 11 weeks pregnant in November 2009 when she developed severe pulmonary hypertension, a life-threatening condition. Doctors concluded that they had not choice but to abort the pregnancy to save her life.
In addition to this case there is also the outrageous excommunications in Brazil and I have a friend who personally experienced the wrenching medical necessity of this medical procedure. This kind of thing is so outrageous and not supported even by Catholic theology as I understand it from an opinion from a theologian. It is a blatant exercise in power without the slightest tinge of Christian charity or understanding.
The case centers around a woman in her 20s who was 11 weeks pregnant in November 2009 when she developed severe pulmonary hypertension, a life-threatening condition. Doctors concluded that they had not choice but to abort the pregnancy to save her life.
In addition to this case there is also the outrageous excommunications in Brazil and I have a friend who personally experienced the wrenching medical necessity of this medical procedure. This kind of thing is so outrageous and not supported even by Catholic theology as I understand it from an opinion from a theologian. It is a blatant exercise in power without the slightest tinge of Christian charity or understanding.
1.5.2011 | 12:50pm
Lewis says:
Read "George Weigel: Whitewashing history" in the National Catholic Reporter.
1.5.2011 | 12:54pm
Matt says:
Archbishop Timothy Dolan is a "robust defender of Catholic truth?" I don't think so. He's more like a rotund version of Chaucer's Pardoner. A man who smiles and waves at openly gay Catholics at St. Francis Xavier parish is not "robust" in his defense of the faith, nor is a man who shakes hands with a boy possessed by Satan, as Dolan admitted to doing on an episode of Sunday Night Live with Fr. Benedict Groeschel. And how can we take seriously a man who begins his presidency at the USCCB (that den of vipers) by saying "It's not like, God forbid, we're in a crisis," when everybody and their uncle knows that Catholic identity IS in a crisis (and which is the ostensible point of this article, for crying out loud)?
Archbishop Dolan was only a reluctant opponent of the tyranny known as Obamacare, and then only because it failed to protect the unborn. A "robust" Catholic would have known that the entire thing was a bankrupt, bogus power grab, something to be opposed in part and whole, in word and deed, tacitly and openly. Archbishop Dolan and the USCCB, practically to a man, were heartily in favor of the DREAM Act, which would have rewarded criminal behavior on a hitherto unprecedented scale.
This is not authentic Catholic behavior. This is the behavior of the socialist, left-leaning, social gospel-preaching pseudo-Church, the very same force which caused the crisis in Catholic identity to begin with. If we really want to reaffirm Catholic identity, we should start by clamoring for the removal of Dolan and his overfed ilk.
Archbishop Dolan was only a reluctant opponent of the tyranny known as Obamacare, and then only because it failed to protect the unborn. A "robust" Catholic would have known that the entire thing was a bankrupt, bogus power grab, something to be opposed in part and whole, in word and deed, tacitly and openly. Archbishop Dolan and the USCCB, practically to a man, were heartily in favor of the DREAM Act, which would have rewarded criminal behavior on a hitherto unprecedented scale.
This is not authentic Catholic behavior. This is the behavior of the socialist, left-leaning, social gospel-preaching pseudo-Church, the very same force which caused the crisis in Catholic identity to begin with. If we really want to reaffirm Catholic identity, we should start by clamoring for the removal of Dolan and his overfed ilk.
1.5.2011 | 1:14pm
Jose says:
Um, well, you're very wrong Joe, because even though candles were not used in biblical times they fill our churches; and even though the bible doesn't make specific mention of it, we hope that our church leadership will defend life at all stages. The Catholic Church today must face many new human contrivances and fallacies of our increasingly polluted world. The things that we fight for or against say who we are, and more importantly, in whom we believe.
1.5.2011 | 1:19pm
Mike Jarman says:
Richard:
You and I are in a climbing accident and together hanging off a cliff by a thin rope. You are hanging below me, and I conclude, based on a quick email to a "climbing expert" from my iPhone [who is infallible, of course], that the rope can't handle both our weights for very long and that if I wait too long for the rescue that may or may not come we'll both die. You're helpless and innocent and can do nothing to change the situation. I have a knife.
I guess you're fine with me cutting the rope, huh?
You and I are in a climbing accident and together hanging off a cliff by a thin rope. You are hanging below me, and I conclude, based on a quick email to a "climbing expert" from my iPhone [who is infallible, of course], that the rope can't handle both our weights for very long and that if I wait too long for the rescue that may or may not come we'll both die. You're helpless and innocent and can do nothing to change the situation. I have a knife.
I guess you're fine with me cutting the rope, huh?
1.5.2011 | 1:35pm
Don Roberto says:
Thanks, Professor Weigel, for reminding us of the many good leaders we have, like George, Dolan, Chaput, and Olmsted. I pray God sends more.
Matt, your arguments would be more persuasive w/o the personal insults. But even setting aside your rhetorical excesses, you go too far. See Rerum Novarum and similar encyclicals. From my perspective, as a conservative Catholic (who believes the Church has sometimes mistaken permissiveness for real love), we were very lucky to get Archbishop Dolan.
†
Matt, your arguments would be more persuasive w/o the personal insults. But even setting aside your rhetorical excesses, you go too far. See Rerum Novarum and similar encyclicals. From my perspective, as a conservative Catholic (who believes the Church has sometimes mistaken permissiveness for real love), we were very lucky to get Archbishop Dolan.
†
1.5.2011 | 1:40pm
Richard says:
Mike Jarman: Funny you should pose that scenario. It is very close to a real, and well documented, incident in the Andes. Check out the film "Into the Void." Not only did the healthy climber cut the rope but the fellow that supposedly would die said he would have done the same thing. What does the mother do in "Sophie's Choice?" What does one do when the medical decision literally comes down to the life of the mother or the life of a first term fetus? Check out the legal doctrine of choice of evils. Life isn't that neat and clean, black and white, as so many conservatives seem to think.
1.5.2011 | 1:54pm
Joe the Human Person says:
The Didache, which condemns abortion, is not the Bible; it was considered heretical, and was taken out. Moreover, the complete text disappeared for centuries, and was unknown ... until it appeared all too conveniently, in the late 19th century. While other documents, mention it, but make the penalty very minor.
Thou shalt not kill: so you don't use mouthwash? Kills germs. You mean, don't kill or murdur a human being, I guess?
But declaring a clump of cells to be a human being, neglect's thousands of years of philosophy. That said that what makes us human, is our mind or spirit or soul. And St. Aquinas' arguments that a young fetus is too - in the words of the Psalm (139?), "unformed" - to support a mind or spirit.
Those who want to call a clump of cells a human being, are just as much on a slippery slope as anyone else: remember when theologicans said "every sperm is sacred"? Or this one: what do you do, when your 5 year old daughter comes to you, and insists her Barbie doll is a human being? And wants you to devote all your income to saving Barbie dolls from the dumps? Dont' you draw the line ... SOMEWHERE?
See Brettongarcia's writings, showing that the embryo is not a human being; found on his blog, but also in reader's comments in First Things, as in Rosa's recent article on Abortion. And several other articles as well.
The anti-abortion stance of the Church is extreme, and unjustified. And it is an MAJOR extrapolation, and error. Candles are not a very major doctrine, used without BIblical approval. But getting the world to vote Republican in every election, just on the basis of the abortion issue, is HUGE.
God said - in the BIble - that in the last days, people would be declaring their own private ideas, the "doctrines of man," to be from God. And that's exactly what we are seeing here. With conservative "Catholics" in the Church, and their invention/magification, of the abortion doctrine, as the very core of their new, perverse "Catholicism."
The inordinate focus on a clump of cells, makes it indeed, what the Bible warned about: a "strange new doctrine," that pretends to be from God; but that is not.
By the way, Cardinal Joe Ratzinger - who is now the Pope, Benedict XVI - said in his 2004 memo, "Worthiness to Receive HOly Communion," that voting for pro-choice, pro-abortion candicates "can be permitted."
Thou shalt not kill: so you don't use mouthwash? Kills germs. You mean, don't kill or murdur a human being, I guess?
But declaring a clump of cells to be a human being, neglect's thousands of years of philosophy. That said that what makes us human, is our mind or spirit or soul. And St. Aquinas' arguments that a young fetus is too - in the words of the Psalm (139?), "unformed" - to support a mind or spirit.
Those who want to call a clump of cells a human being, are just as much on a slippery slope as anyone else: remember when theologicans said "every sperm is sacred"? Or this one: what do you do, when your 5 year old daughter comes to you, and insists her Barbie doll is a human being? And wants you to devote all your income to saving Barbie dolls from the dumps? Dont' you draw the line ... SOMEWHERE?
See Brettongarcia's writings, showing that the embryo is not a human being; found on his blog, but also in reader's comments in First Things, as in Rosa's recent article on Abortion. And several other articles as well.
The anti-abortion stance of the Church is extreme, and unjustified. And it is an MAJOR extrapolation, and error. Candles are not a very major doctrine, used without BIblical approval. But getting the world to vote Republican in every election, just on the basis of the abortion issue, is HUGE.
God said - in the BIble - that in the last days, people would be declaring their own private ideas, the "doctrines of man," to be from God. And that's exactly what we are seeing here. With conservative "Catholics" in the Church, and their invention/magification, of the abortion doctrine, as the very core of their new, perverse "Catholicism."
The inordinate focus on a clump of cells, makes it indeed, what the Bible warned about: a "strange new doctrine," that pretends to be from God; but that is not.
By the way, Cardinal Joe Ratzinger - who is now the Pope, Benedict XVI - said in his 2004 memo, "Worthiness to Receive HOly Communion," that voting for pro-choice, pro-abortion candicates "can be permitted."
1.5.2011 | 2:43pm
Bangwell Putt says:
My too-hasty comment was a reply to the first comment and not to Mr. Weigel's article. I do maintain however that a person newly formed by the union of sperm and ovum will remain alive unless killed. Calling things by their right names is a first principle of reasonable discussion. Having the courage of one's convictions is another. If a person believes that the young fetus should have been killed to save the life of the mother, he or she would do well to say so in plain English. Serious, principled discussion can then take place.
1.5.2011 | 3:04pm
Rafael Vargas Vargas says:
God created men at his own image (as Genesis insist and repeat from the start): that is the basis of all the catholic anthropology and why abortion is the elimination of someone who is the image of God
1.5.2011 | 3:08pm
Bill Damaso says:
Bangwell... a person newly formed by the union of sperm and ovum will remain alive unless killed? Have you not heard of miscarriages?
1.5.2011 | 3:23pm
Joe the Human says:
Rafael:
A young fetus is a clump of cells; a zygote or a blastocyst, looks like a tiny soccer ball; not a human being. Therefore?
Bangwell:
I and many others firmly believe the young embryo is not a human person; therefore, killing it does not kill a human being. And aborting it to save the life of its mother, is therefore not a sin, to most Protestant Churches, and to many ethicists.
While again, abortion was never mentioned in the Bible - the Bible which is supposed to be honored by the Catholic Church, according to its own pronuncements.
Rather than revisit this topic though: read the reader's comments by Brettongarcia, in "Signposts at the Crossroads" article, First Things, for example. Or for that matter, check out his blog, and his 700-page draft, working paper, refuting "Catholic" anti-abortionism.
Just exactly why conservatives like Dr. Weigel would choose precisely the very most problematic and divisive of recent para-Catholic doctrinal experiments - the "pro life" position of conservative Catholics - to define the Church, is beyond me.
Weigel's position is infinitely damaging to ecumenism.
And since his argument ultimately puts the emphasis on the body, DNA, and not the mind or Soul, Dr. Weigel's position is ultimately, an attack on the soul, the spirit, itself.
A young fetus is a clump of cells; a zygote or a blastocyst, looks like a tiny soccer ball; not a human being. Therefore?
Bangwell:
I and many others firmly believe the young embryo is not a human person; therefore, killing it does not kill a human being. And aborting it to save the life of its mother, is therefore not a sin, to most Protestant Churches, and to many ethicists.
While again, abortion was never mentioned in the Bible - the Bible which is supposed to be honored by the Catholic Church, according to its own pronuncements.
Rather than revisit this topic though: read the reader's comments by Brettongarcia, in "Signposts at the Crossroads" article, First Things, for example. Or for that matter, check out his blog, and his 700-page draft, working paper, refuting "Catholic" anti-abortionism.
Just exactly why conservatives like Dr. Weigel would choose precisely the very most problematic and divisive of recent para-Catholic doctrinal experiments - the "pro life" position of conservative Catholics - to define the Church, is beyond me.
Weigel's position is infinitely damaging to ecumenism.
And since his argument ultimately puts the emphasis on the body, DNA, and not the mind or Soul, Dr. Weigel's position is ultimately, an attack on the soul, the spirit, itself.
1.5.2011 | 3:36pm
Bibbit says:
It's a shame. This used to be a wonderful site, but then the likes of Joe and Richard came along. They come simply to spit on Catholics. A shame, really. They and those if their ilk are why I don't come as often anymore. It might not be so bad if others simply ignored them, but some folks just can't do that, so they keep coming back.
1.5.2011 | 3:37pm
Augusta Wynn says:
" If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament."
AW
AW
1.5.2011 | 4:12pm
Bangwell Putt says:
I have indeed "heard" of miscarriage. I once lost a baby to a miscarriage in the fourth month. I should have been more precise: My intention was to refer to a procured abortion by violent means, either chemical or assault by surgical instrument.
1.5.2011 | 4:13pm
JDD says:
Augusta,
You're implying that the 'right' to abortion is an issue opposed by men only.
What do you make of the fact that so many anti-abortion organizations - both on the local and national levels - are staffed and often founded and led by women?
Why don't you research their stories.
You're implying that the 'right' to abortion is an issue opposed by men only.
What do you make of the fact that so many anti-abortion organizations - both on the local and national levels - are staffed and often founded and led by women?
Why don't you research their stories.
1.5.2011 | 4:45pm
JDD says:
Joe the Human Person,
"But declaring a clump of cells to be a human being, neglect's thousands of years of philosophy. That said that what makes us human, is our mind or spirit or soul."
Another Catholic teaching - the Incarnation - makes it clear that you've left out a 'category' - the physical body is also, indispensably, what makes us human. The physical body which God is forming in the mother's womb.
"Or this one: what do you do, when your 5 year old daughter comes to you, and insists her Barbie doll is a human being? And wants you to devote all your income to saving Barbie dolls from the dumps? Dont' you draw the line ... SOMEWHERE?"
If you are really wrestling with where to draw the line, may I suggest that indeed the 'slippery slope' you're on has been created by our culture, and not the Church. Indeed, where DO you draw the line? There is no need to draw the line anywhere after conception - the beginning. But really - absolutely absurd, more than most other arguments I've heard lately on this topic - you're suggesting that the reasonable person has trouble making a distinction between the moral status of humans and plastic dolls? You're not making a very convincing case, and it's difficult to just overlook this line as just a random extra argument you think holds any weight at all.
"By the way, Cardinal Joe Ratzinger - who is now the Pope, Benedict XVI - said in his 2004 memo, "Worthiness to Receive HOly Communion," that voting for pro-choice, pro-abortion candicates "can be permitted." "
Allow me to correct you: The Pope said:
"A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favour of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons."
Proportionate reasons - may I note that you left that out. The interested reader will investigate that further. A quick web search will bring you the entire one-page document. Slicing three words - literally from the middle of a sentence - and inserting them into your new argument, will not win much credibility for your position here, and future positions.
"But declaring a clump of cells to be a human being, neglect's thousands of years of philosophy. That said that what makes us human, is our mind or spirit or soul."
Another Catholic teaching - the Incarnation - makes it clear that you've left out a 'category' - the physical body is also, indispensably, what makes us human. The physical body which God is forming in the mother's womb.
"Or this one: what do you do, when your 5 year old daughter comes to you, and insists her Barbie doll is a human being? And wants you to devote all your income to saving Barbie dolls from the dumps? Dont' you draw the line ... SOMEWHERE?"
If you are really wrestling with where to draw the line, may I suggest that indeed the 'slippery slope' you're on has been created by our culture, and not the Church. Indeed, where DO you draw the line? There is no need to draw the line anywhere after conception - the beginning. But really - absolutely absurd, more than most other arguments I've heard lately on this topic - you're suggesting that the reasonable person has trouble making a distinction between the moral status of humans and plastic dolls? You're not making a very convincing case, and it's difficult to just overlook this line as just a random extra argument you think holds any weight at all.
"By the way, Cardinal Joe Ratzinger - who is now the Pope, Benedict XVI - said in his 2004 memo, "Worthiness to Receive HOly Communion," that voting for pro-choice, pro-abortion candicates "can be permitted." "
Allow me to correct you: The Pope said:
"A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favour of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons."
Proportionate reasons - may I note that you left that out. The interested reader will investigate that further. A quick web search will bring you the entire one-page document. Slicing three words - literally from the middle of a sentence - and inserting them into your new argument, will not win much credibility for your position here, and future positions.
1.5.2011 | 4:53pm
Patrick says:
The climber analogy doesn't hold water. The abortion situation isn't an issue of "cutting the rope." Even the cutting of a rope doesn't directly kill a climber (as in "Touching the Void"). The abortion situation is different because it was a direct abortion. It seems cold to say that abortion is wrong in this situation, but it is far worse to say that the end justifies the means.
1.5.2011 | 5:12pm
Rafael Vargas Vargas says:
Joe:
God have not delimited in Genesis from or till when a human being is a human being. He only says men is on the image of God and give him the order to generate with a women more of the kind. You first questioned if the Bible speak about abortion and now changes the question. A zygote or a blastocyst looks like a tiny soccer ball only if you have never seen a zygote or a blastocyst.
God have not delimited in Genesis from or till when a human being is a human being. He only says men is on the image of God and give him the order to generate with a women more of the kind. You first questioned if the Bible speak about abortion and now changes the question. A zygote or a blastocyst looks like a tiny soccer ball only if you have never seen a zygote or a blastocyst.
1.5.2011 | 5:16pm
Dennis the Catholic says:
Joe the Human: "A young fetus is a clump of cells; a zygote or a blastocyst, looks like a tiny soccer ball; not a human being. Therefore?"
A young fetus looks exactly like every other human being at that stage of life. Do you also believe that someone born without all four limbs is less human than a person with them since the second looks more like a human being?
Joe the Human: "I and many others firmly believe the young embryo is not a human person; therefore, killing it does not kill a human being."
And I (and the Catholic Church) firmly believe it is a human, so it is killing a human being. I guess I would rather side with the Church founded by Christ.
Joe the Human: "While again, abortion was never mentioned in the Bible - the Bible which is supposed to be honored by the Catholic Church, according to its own pronuncements."
The Bible is honored by the Catholic Church, but is not the only source of authority. To say so would be counter to what the Bible says.
Joe the Human: "Weigel's position is infinitely damaging to ecumenism."
Ecumenism is a foolish endeavor if it leads us away from Truth for the sake of trying to get along.
Joe the Human: "And since his argument ultimately puts the emphasis on the body, DNA, and not the mind or Soul, Dr. Weigel's position is ultimately, an attack on the soul, the spirit, itself. "
Since his argument ultimately puts the emphasis on the soul, the spirit, and the mind, not the body, Joe the Human's position is ultimately an attack on matter itself. Matter that God considers good.
A young fetus looks exactly like every other human being at that stage of life. Do you also believe that someone born without all four limbs is less human than a person with them since the second looks more like a human being?
Joe the Human: "I and many others firmly believe the young embryo is not a human person; therefore, killing it does not kill a human being."
And I (and the Catholic Church) firmly believe it is a human, so it is killing a human being. I guess I would rather side with the Church founded by Christ.
Joe the Human: "While again, abortion was never mentioned in the Bible - the Bible which is supposed to be honored by the Catholic Church, according to its own pronuncements."
The Bible is honored by the Catholic Church, but is not the only source of authority. To say so would be counter to what the Bible says.
Joe the Human: "Weigel's position is infinitely damaging to ecumenism."
Ecumenism is a foolish endeavor if it leads us away from Truth for the sake of trying to get along.
Joe the Human: "And since his argument ultimately puts the emphasis on the body, DNA, and not the mind or Soul, Dr. Weigel's position is ultimately, an attack on the soul, the spirit, itself. "
Since his argument ultimately puts the emphasis on the soul, the spirit, and the mind, not the body, Joe the Human's position is ultimately an attack on matter itself. Matter that God considers good.
1.5.2011 | 6:36pm
The Moz says:
So much hatred from the faux Catholics. I agree with what another post said: Ignore them and they'll go away. I am new to the blogosphere and so maybe I am just on the wrong sites but it seems to me that most if not close to 100% of the hate out there is coming from the "liberals".
1.5.2011 | 6:53pm
Mike Melendez says:
Here's what I hear:
* "Authority A agrees with me, therefore I am right." Forget that that is the reason the authority was chosen.
* "The bible does not specifically use the word 'abortion' therefore being anti-abortion is against the bible." Odd that, you'd think the follow-on would be therefore the bible doesn't care.
* "Embryos don't look human, therefore they are not human." I looked quite different when I was two, so which is the real human, me now or then?
Gentlemen, I hold you are welcome to make your case here, but at least have a case to make.
* "Authority A agrees with me, therefore I am right." Forget that that is the reason the authority was chosen.
* "The bible does not specifically use the word 'abortion' therefore being anti-abortion is against the bible." Odd that, you'd think the follow-on would be therefore the bible doesn't care.
* "Embryos don't look human, therefore they are not human." I looked quite different when I was two, so which is the real human, me now or then?
Gentlemen, I hold you are welcome to make your case here, but at least have a case to make.
1.5.2011 | 8:15pm
ER says:
The idea that the doctors "knew" that the mother would die unless the baby lived is silly. Doctors deal with probabilities, not prophecies. Hence second opinions, malpractice lawsuits and the like. The "dilemma" posed is a false one because you can never decide to kill one person in order to reduce the risk of death to another. (In fact, the climbing accident hypothetical above isn't directly analogous -- the direct analogy would be not severing the rope but stabbing the second climber in the heart--directly murdering him.)
In any case, Bp. Olmsted de-recognized the hospital not for this one grave sin, but for a series of sins that the hospital leadership said it would continue to engage in. That isn't Catholic and the Bishop simply said so. Why is that a problem for so many?
In any case, Bp. Olmsted de-recognized the hospital not for this one grave sin, but for a series of sins that the hospital leadership said it would continue to engage in. That isn't Catholic and the Bishop simply said so. Why is that a problem for so many?
1.5.2011 | 8:26pm
Matt Hummel says:
Joe-
So- When was The Didache declared heretical and when was it removed from the Canon of Scripture?'
And do you want to limit the definition of humanity to accidentals? Who then gets to set the metrics?
So- When was The Didache declared heretical and when was it removed from the Canon of Scripture?'
And do you want to limit the definition of humanity to accidentals? Who then gets to set the metrics?
1.5.2011 | 8:42pm
Anonymous 3 says:
Hoping that this sad case would help many more to try to idenitify better the Catholic identity or rather the Catholic Equation - an equation which in this particular case would have been -
Mother + baby + God and His infinite Love for each involved
or Mother + the agent of fear against the baby
In Equation #1 - the scene could have unfolded thus -Family and the Hospital Administrator calls for prayer warrior teams ( including the Bishop , if needed ) to mobilise supernatural intervention ; pregnancy progresses ; pulmonary hypertension of the mother - an incurabel disorder seems to be alleviated or cured and medical experts come to find that the baby's system /stem cells are capable of same !
Pope John Paul II who was interceded to thus has another miracle attributed to the many others already and the world that ever needs assurance of God's presence and love gets to rejoice !
The baby grows up ... today is Feast of St.John Neuman , an incorrupt saint who too started out as a soul encased in a few marvelously complex cells !
Too bad that it is equation # 2 that was played out !
Good thing that the Bishop has come to the help of the women and men , involved in such equations, to help them to repent and be freed from infinite debts , at the price of The Cross !
Mother + baby + God and His infinite Love for each involved
or Mother + the agent of fear against the baby
In Equation #1 - the scene could have unfolded thus -Family and the Hospital Administrator calls for prayer warrior teams ( including the Bishop , if needed ) to mobilise supernatural intervention ; pregnancy progresses ; pulmonary hypertension of the mother - an incurabel disorder seems to be alleviated or cured and medical experts come to find that the baby's system /stem cells are capable of same !
Pope John Paul II who was interceded to thus has another miracle attributed to the many others already and the world that ever needs assurance of God's presence and love gets to rejoice !
The baby grows up ... today is Feast of St.John Neuman , an incorrupt saint who too started out as a soul encased in a few marvelously complex cells !
Too bad that it is equation # 2 that was played out !
Good thing that the Bishop has come to the help of the women and men , involved in such equations, to help them to repent and be freed from infinite debts , at the price of The Cross !
1.5.2011 | 11:04pm
Richard says:
Well at least ER makes a cogent argument. There are facts we probably don't know. There are, however, other situations I am aware of where the bishop's judgment was not only not caring but extreme and arguably not even supported by a reasonable theological interpretation. And the faithful here can decry my "liberalism" all they want. I happen to be somewhere in the middle on most political discussions around here and consider myself reasonable. It doesn't appear to me that many here are such.
1.5.2011 | 11:06pm
Paul Adams says:
I agree with Bibbitt above. There are many, many public venues for denouncing the Catholic Church, starting with the New York Times. Does FT have to become yet another? All too often a productive discussion of an interesting post is derailed by someone like Joe the Human jumping in first with a deliberatively provocative anti-provocative attack. Seems like time the rules for moderation were tightened.
1.5.2011 | 11:13pm
edmond says:
I re-post, the greatest argument against pro-abortionists are the proponents
themselves....
themselves....
1.6.2011 | 3:12am
FW Ken says:
A Catholic couple I know tried to have kids for a dozen years. She got pregnant and cancer at the same time and the doctors said she had to abort or die. She didn't abort, didn't die, went on to have 4 more kids, and will soon have grandkids from that first little girl (yes, that clump of cells turned out to be a human being).
So we think we think we know everything and can control everything. But we don't.
And for what it's worth: ecumenism requires a level of honesty, good faith, and openness. It's not an applicable point of discussion in this thread.
So we think we think we know everything and can control everything. But we don't.
And for what it's worth: ecumenism requires a level of honesty, good faith, and openness. It's not an applicable point of discussion in this thread.
1.6.2011 | 3:24am
FW Ken says:
Sorry to double-post, but meant to ask something (good point about distraction, Paul Adams):
What is all that about the diocese of Phoenix and the police? It is the job of law enforcement to investigate sexual abuse. It is the job of the bishop - and anyone else with knowledge - to report abuse to the police. That is the "normal church/state relationship" when it comes to violations of the law. Noting, btw, that law enforcement has it's own failures when it comes to clerical misbehavior, and wouldn't you like to read a good expose about that.
What is all that about the diocese of Phoenix and the police? It is the job of law enforcement to investigate sexual abuse. It is the job of the bishop - and anyone else with knowledge - to report abuse to the police. That is the "normal church/state relationship" when it comes to violations of the law. Noting, btw, that law enforcement has it's own failures when it comes to clerical misbehavior, and wouldn't you like to read a good expose about that.
1.6.2011 | 9:44am
John Hinshaw says:
I guess "Joe's" humanity excludes others from being considered "human". The human side of the story told in the Bible is dominated by mankind's (and even the chosen people) drift away from God, almost always descending into infant sacrifice. The God side of the story told in the Bible is about the gentle redemption offered us constantly through repentance and forgiveness of even our worst sins. The culmination is the coming of an unborn baby among us, who is first exalted by another unborn baby! Sorry Joe, I read the whole book.
1.6.2011 | 10:00am
Cornelius says:
I'm all in favor of bishops showing some spine on moral issues, and I'm adamantly pro-life, but I fear that this may not be a helpful example for the pro-life cause.
I was immediately skeptical of the justifications offered by Therese Lysaught for the actions of the Phoenix hospital, but she seems to be relying on the writings of heavyweight, orthodox Catholics such as Germain Grisez and Martin Rhonheimer. See http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/St.-Josephs-Hospital-Analysis.pdf
Indeed, an opposing analysis seems to agree that Lysaught is correctly applying the principles of Grisez and Rhonheimer, but it says those two Catholic moral theologians have strayed from Catholic teaching. See http://www.catechism.cc/articles/Phoenix-abortion-case.htm
I haven't entirely worked through all of the analysis, but the basic issue is that this may be a case where both the mother's and baby's lives were doomed absent some intervention, and the intervention taken was not to attack the baby but to remove the placenta that was causing the problem (and the baby's death was a foreseen but undesired side effect of removing the placenta).
I was immediately skeptical of the justifications offered by Therese Lysaught for the actions of the Phoenix hospital, but she seems to be relying on the writings of heavyweight, orthodox Catholics such as Germain Grisez and Martin Rhonheimer. See http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/St.-Josephs-Hospital-Analysis.pdf
Indeed, an opposing analysis seems to agree that Lysaught is correctly applying the principles of Grisez and Rhonheimer, but it says those two Catholic moral theologians have strayed from Catholic teaching. See http://www.catechism.cc/articles/Phoenix-abortion-case.htm
I haven't entirely worked through all of the analysis, but the basic issue is that this may be a case where both the mother's and baby's lives were doomed absent some intervention, and the intervention taken was not to attack the baby but to remove the placenta that was causing the problem (and the baby's death was a foreseen but undesired side effect of removing the placenta).
1.6.2011 | 11:00am
GFFM says:
The jury is out on Cardinal George's effectiveness as head of the bishops' conference and the jury is also still out on Archbishop Dolan. Who, by the way, was anything but effective in Milwaukee. Recent news of Milwaukee's bankruptcy is one indicator of Dolan's place holding in Milwaukee. I would strongly suggest that Weigel do some investigative reporting concerning how unhappy and disappointed a great many faithful Catholics were with Dolan's "ahem" leadership there. As for Olmsted he is the real thing and so far I see none of his brother bishops supporting his courageous decision. Catholic pundits should be much more careful about waxing enthusiastic too soon about leaders in the Church who have not proven themselves.
1.6.2011 | 1:35pm
Anthony says:
Yes Cornelius,
It seems premature to point to the Phoenix case as an example of rightly standing up for Catholic principles.
The Church rightly rejects "therapeutic abortions" (choices to take the unborn life for the sake of the mother's health). Although the clinical details here have not been released, the claim is that this is a different case, one in which the child could not be saved and the mother could. It is claimed that this case was indeed in the category of those on which orthodox Catholics can hold different opinions. If that is true, then the Phoenix case is instead one that will perhaps require a clarification of Church teaching on a currently disputed case.
It seems premature to point to the Phoenix case as an example of rightly standing up for Catholic principles.
The Church rightly rejects "therapeutic abortions" (choices to take the unborn life for the sake of the mother's health). Although the clinical details here have not been released, the claim is that this is a different case, one in which the child could not be saved and the mother could. It is claimed that this case was indeed in the category of those on which orthodox Catholics can hold different opinions. If that is true, then the Phoenix case is instead one that will perhaps require a clarification of Church teaching on a currently disputed case.
1.6.2011 | 2:14pm
Theophilus says:
Everyone sets limits; and everyone here eventually defines what is a human being, and what is not. Catholics, in trying not to set it, are on a slippery slope. Suppose we regard everything with human DNA in it for instance, as a human being; by that standard, a piece of human skin is a human being. Indeed, Catholicism made itself look ridiculous a few years ago, by slipping down the slope, and declaring that "every sperm is sacred." Next, a piece of skin?
Everyone draws the line eventually in fact; most Catholics stop at declaring Barbie dolls human. Or a piece of human skin. So WHERE do we draw the line is the only question; since we all set the line sooner or later .. let us set the line at the best place.
For myself, no one here reading this, needs feel threatened; I'd set the standard exactly where Natural Law set it: an embryo 9 months of age, was deemed by nature and by God, to be sufficiently "formed," to be able to live relatively independently, and to be its own organism.
What does the Bible say? Did the Bible regard the embryo of John the Baptist, say, to be fully human, because it "lept" in the womb, at the voice of Mary? The embryos of mice respond to sounds, by moving, often. Does that make them human beings? Indeed, the Psalms (139 says Joe) asserted in effect, that the embryo was not quite a fully "formed" human being.
The Catholic Church is committed to the Bible; the rule is, the Church can add to the BIble, but cannot contradict it. But today's "conservative" Catholics are faux Catholics; they bend and distort the Bible any way they want, to match their politically-based Conservative ideology. But they have only managed to influence a small proportion of bishops to date. People here are criticizing the bishops for lacking the "spine" to enforce severe ideas of the status of teh embryo; but their silence means that, de facto ... the effective stance of the Church allows abortion. Since ...MOST BISHOPS ARE NOT SUPPORTING THE CURRENT CONSERVATIVE STANCE, PROTECTING EMBRYOS.
Why don't Catholics obey the majority of their bishops? How is it that Conservative Catholics can pretend to be the "real" church ... even as they disobey the major of the bishops, and the Pope himself? Who said that voting for pro-abortion candidates, "can be permitted"?
At first to be sure, extending humanity downwards, to mere cells, looks like a good liberal thing to do; to protect anything and everything that looks vaguely human. But finally, this "erring on the side of caution," as it has been called, inadvertently by the way, ends up over-valuing the mere body, the "flesh" that the Church constantly inveighed against for 2,000 years; while neglecting and even attacking the soul.
So now a brain-dead body, is considered fully human. And perhaps a dead body too? Whatever happened to the balance between material and mental things? The idea of a body ...with a soul in it? Whatever happened to the 3,000 years of Philosophy and religion, that said that the body was important ... but not as important as the mind, spirit, or soul?
Whatever happened in fact, to the Soul? Oddly enough, it was attacked - and destroyed. By ... faux "Catholic" do-gooders. Who in "erring on the side of over-caution," nevertheless, erred. Who have deified the body, the flesh; over and above a hundred warnings against that, in the Bible itself, and in 2,000 years of Church tradition.
And so now a piece of flesh is a human person? And the soul is now dispensed with, by "Conservative" "Catholics." O brave new world!
And the mind is dispensed with, by an "intellectual" "Catholic" journal?
Everyone draws the line eventually in fact; most Catholics stop at declaring Barbie dolls human. Or a piece of human skin. So WHERE do we draw the line is the only question; since we all set the line sooner or later .. let us set the line at the best place.
For myself, no one here reading this, needs feel threatened; I'd set the standard exactly where Natural Law set it: an embryo 9 months of age, was deemed by nature and by God, to be sufficiently "formed," to be able to live relatively independently, and to be its own organism.
What does the Bible say? Did the Bible regard the embryo of John the Baptist, say, to be fully human, because it "lept" in the womb, at the voice of Mary? The embryos of mice respond to sounds, by moving, often. Does that make them human beings? Indeed, the Psalms (139 says Joe) asserted in effect, that the embryo was not quite a fully "formed" human being.
The Catholic Church is committed to the Bible; the rule is, the Church can add to the BIble, but cannot contradict it. But today's "conservative" Catholics are faux Catholics; they bend and distort the Bible any way they want, to match their politically-based Conservative ideology. But they have only managed to influence a small proportion of bishops to date. People here are criticizing the bishops for lacking the "spine" to enforce severe ideas of the status of teh embryo; but their silence means that, de facto ... the effective stance of the Church allows abortion. Since ...MOST BISHOPS ARE NOT SUPPORTING THE CURRENT CONSERVATIVE STANCE, PROTECTING EMBRYOS.
Why don't Catholics obey the majority of their bishops? How is it that Conservative Catholics can pretend to be the "real" church ... even as they disobey the major of the bishops, and the Pope himself? Who said that voting for pro-abortion candidates, "can be permitted"?
At first to be sure, extending humanity downwards, to mere cells, looks like a good liberal thing to do; to protect anything and everything that looks vaguely human. But finally, this "erring on the side of caution," as it has been called, inadvertently by the way, ends up over-valuing the mere body, the "flesh" that the Church constantly inveighed against for 2,000 years; while neglecting and even attacking the soul.
So now a brain-dead body, is considered fully human. And perhaps a dead body too? Whatever happened to the balance between material and mental things? The idea of a body ...with a soul in it? Whatever happened to the 3,000 years of Philosophy and religion, that said that the body was important ... but not as important as the mind, spirit, or soul?
Whatever happened in fact, to the Soul? Oddly enough, it was attacked - and destroyed. By ... faux "Catholic" do-gooders. Who in "erring on the side of over-caution," nevertheless, erred. Who have deified the body, the flesh; over and above a hundred warnings against that, in the Bible itself, and in 2,000 years of Church tradition.
And so now a piece of flesh is a human person? And the soul is now dispensed with, by "Conservative" "Catholics." O brave new world!
And the mind is dispensed with, by an "intellectual" "Catholic" journal?
1.6.2011 | 4:32pm
Artaban says:
Joe the Human,
You are completely wrong in stating that abortion is not addressed in the Bible. The infant in the womb is recognized as a person in both the Old and New Testaments. I will give you but a few of the citations:
"For You (God) created my inmost being; You knit me together in my mother's womb." Psalm 139: 13
In other words, anyone who destroys what God creates in the womb (whether blastocyst, zygote, or later term) is sinning against God.
"I do not know how you came into existence in my womb; it was not I who gave you the breath of life, nor was it I who set in order the elements of which each of you is composed. Therefore, since it is the Creator of the universe who shapes each man's beginning, as he brings about the origin of everything, he, in his mercy, will give you back both breath and life..." 2 Maccabees 7: 22-23
Again, the Old Testament witnesses that God is the one who co-creates every human in the womb.
New Testament:
"And Elizabeth, filled with the Holy Spirit cried out..."and how does this happen to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? For at the moment the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the infant in my womb leaped for joy." Luke 1: 41-44
Joe, notice three things about this passage. It occurs right after the Annunciation, before the first month of Mary's pregnancy, and the Holy Spirit says Jesus is already a person in her womb. Remember that in his humanity, Jesus is just like us, thus we are people, individuals, ensouled, from the moment of conception. Secondly, Luke was a physician, so the early church did believe in personhood during pregnancy. Finally, John the Baptist is already identified as a person, an infant, a full human, not a "potential human being" when the visit occurs (Elizabeth's six month).
As for the science, it does not favor the pro-abortion view, not even when we speak of blastocyst and zygotes. From the moment of conception you have a completely unique set of living human DNA (the individual). If it were part of the women's body, the DNA wouldn't be different from hers. She has no right to do with it what she would with any other part of her body. Just because it lives in her doesn't give her a right to destroy it either, just as the fact that you live in the United States doesn't give government the right to destroy you.
You are completely wrong in stating that abortion is not addressed in the Bible. The infant in the womb is recognized as a person in both the Old and New Testaments. I will give you but a few of the citations:
"For You (God) created my inmost being; You knit me together in my mother's womb." Psalm 139: 13
In other words, anyone who destroys what God creates in the womb (whether blastocyst, zygote, or later term) is sinning against God.
"I do not know how you came into existence in my womb; it was not I who gave you the breath of life, nor was it I who set in order the elements of which each of you is composed. Therefore, since it is the Creator of the universe who shapes each man's beginning, as he brings about the origin of everything, he, in his mercy, will give you back both breath and life..." 2 Maccabees 7: 22-23
Again, the Old Testament witnesses that God is the one who co-creates every human in the womb.
New Testament:
"And Elizabeth, filled with the Holy Spirit cried out..."and how does this happen to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? For at the moment the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the infant in my womb leaped for joy." Luke 1: 41-44
Joe, notice three things about this passage. It occurs right after the Annunciation, before the first month of Mary's pregnancy, and the Holy Spirit says Jesus is already a person in her womb. Remember that in his humanity, Jesus is just like us, thus we are people, individuals, ensouled, from the moment of conception. Secondly, Luke was a physician, so the early church did believe in personhood during pregnancy. Finally, John the Baptist is already identified as a person, an infant, a full human, not a "potential human being" when the visit occurs (Elizabeth's six month).
As for the science, it does not favor the pro-abortion view, not even when we speak of blastocyst and zygotes. From the moment of conception you have a completely unique set of living human DNA (the individual). If it were part of the women's body, the DNA wouldn't be different from hers. She has no right to do with it what she would with any other part of her body. Just because it lives in her doesn't give her a right to destroy it either, just as the fact that you live in the United States doesn't give government the right to destroy you.
1.7.2011 | 10:57am
Artaban says:
Theophilus, you claim to lament that the soul has "been dispensed with" by the Church, and yet you engage repeatedly in your post in asserting a purely materialist position. The soul was attacked and destroyed by materialists who asserted that a body that appeared brain-dead was (as you say) "now (just) a piece of flesh".
You can't define or measure a soul, yet in a staggering act of arrogance you claim to know when one is present or not. Apparently you're ignorant of the medical cases of comatose individuals who have been medically declared "brain-dead" who have--in some cases after years in a coma--come back to consciousness. CNN reporter and neurologist Sanjay Gupta has detailed several of those cases, pointing out that medical science has had to reevaluate how it determines when one is "dead" over and over again, and it's constantly pushing back those frontiers, not relaxing them.
Faux "Theophilus", I'd ask what has happened to your sense of the mystery of God? What has happened to your humility, that you can so brazenly demarcate boundaries for life in the absence of any firm or conclusive means of measurement?
The Church takes the very spiritual view--one that aligns perfectly with the long-held medical axiom to "do no harm"--that when in doubt, one should err on the side of caution. If we don't know if the blastocyst/zygote is "fully human" (though it Naturally become so unless interrupted, and indeed it's DNA suggests it is), we ought to do no harm. Why risk killing a human being?
No "Theophilus", your thinking is rife with error. A piece of flesh that has DNA is very different from an embryo at conception, and everyone loyal to reason knows it. A piece of flesh with DNA won't spontaneously develop into a whole human being. An embryo will. Huge difference.
Incidentally, you are in the minority in regarding only the 9-month old infant as a human. And you're wrong in calling even that 9-month old "independent", as it will die if not given help for many years yet.
Heck, you plop most of us down in the wilderness by ourselves, and we'll die in a matter of days, weeks, or months--at much higher rates than most people born 150 years ago. If we're defining humanity by the criteria of "independence", few, if any of us, are EVER human, for at some point (even in our adult lives) we are dependent on others for continued life. "Independence" is a myth and illusion, and no basis for determining humanity.
You can't define or measure a soul, yet in a staggering act of arrogance you claim to know when one is present or not. Apparently you're ignorant of the medical cases of comatose individuals who have been medically declared "brain-dead" who have--in some cases after years in a coma--come back to consciousness. CNN reporter and neurologist Sanjay Gupta has detailed several of those cases, pointing out that medical science has had to reevaluate how it determines when one is "dead" over and over again, and it's constantly pushing back those frontiers, not relaxing them.
Faux "Theophilus", I'd ask what has happened to your sense of the mystery of God? What has happened to your humility, that you can so brazenly demarcate boundaries for life in the absence of any firm or conclusive means of measurement?
The Church takes the very spiritual view--one that aligns perfectly with the long-held medical axiom to "do no harm"--that when in doubt, one should err on the side of caution. If we don't know if the blastocyst/zygote is "fully human" (though it Naturally become so unless interrupted, and indeed it's DNA suggests it is), we ought to do no harm. Why risk killing a human being?
No "Theophilus", your thinking is rife with error. A piece of flesh that has DNA is very different from an embryo at conception, and everyone loyal to reason knows it. A piece of flesh with DNA won't spontaneously develop into a whole human being. An embryo will. Huge difference.
Incidentally, you are in the minority in regarding only the 9-month old infant as a human. And you're wrong in calling even that 9-month old "independent", as it will die if not given help for many years yet.
Heck, you plop most of us down in the wilderness by ourselves, and we'll die in a matter of days, weeks, or months--at much higher rates than most people born 150 years ago. If we're defining humanity by the criteria of "independence", few, if any of us, are EVER human, for at some point (even in our adult lives) we are dependent on others for continued life. "Independence" is a myth and illusion, and no basis for determining humanity.
1.8.2011 | 1:08pm
Tom in Lazybrook says:
Its a shame that Bishop Olmstead has remained silent on the Arizona Republicans killing transplant patients by withholding funding so they can extend taxcuts for millionaires. And protect the bottom line of phony "non-profit" Catholic hospitals where administrators make massive salaries.
Seeing as Bishop Olmstead is a 'political' Bishop, and remains silent on this issue, he has lost any credibility on the issue of being 'pro-life'.
I actually agree with Catholic and any other religious group being removed from taxpayer paid for hospitals (most hospitals are paid for by the Federal govt, including "Catholic" ones).
If you want to have a Catholic hospital, pay for it yourself. If you want to claim some 'moral authority' and that you are a 'charity', start performing charity.
There's been none of that from the Arizona Bishop as far as I can see.
Seeing as Bishop Olmstead is a 'political' Bishop, and remains silent on this issue, he has lost any credibility on the issue of being 'pro-life'.
I actually agree with Catholic and any other religious group being removed from taxpayer paid for hospitals (most hospitals are paid for by the Federal govt, including "Catholic" ones).
If you want to have a Catholic hospital, pay for it yourself. If you want to claim some 'moral authority' and that you are a 'charity', start performing charity.
There's been none of that from the Arizona Bishop as far as I can see.
1.8.2011 | 6:15pm
Jimmy says:
So the bishops Olmstead, Chaput, George (recently removed), and one or two others speak out against abortion. But what about the OTHER 3 or 400 American bishops?
So far, say, six out of 400 American bishops have spoken strongly against it. And yet conservatives assure us "The Church" supports their position?
394 bishops out of 400 do NOT support strong anti-abortionism? It seems clear that "conservtive" "loyal" "Catholics" are actually the heretics.
Why do anti-abortion Catholics go against, in effect, 394 American bishops, and the Pope? And why on earth, do they imagine they are the "real" Catholics when they do that?"
So far, say, six out of 400 American bishops have spoken strongly against it. And yet conservatives assure us "The Church" supports their position?
394 bishops out of 400 do NOT support strong anti-abortionism? It seems clear that "conservtive" "loyal" "Catholics" are actually the heretics.
Why do anti-abortion Catholics go against, in effect, 394 American bishops, and the Pope? And why on earth, do they imagine they are the "real" Catholics when they do that?"
1.8.2011 | 9:54pm
Anne Rice says:
This article gives a completely superficial, misleading and ultimately dishonest "version" of what happened at St. Joseph's Hospital in Phoenix. I expect better of First Things. --- Anyone can google the situation and discover the facts. A young pregnant mother of four was dying; the hospital could not save her dying unborn child. But they could save her life if they terminated the fatal pregnancy and they did. The woman's life was saved. Thank God for the courage of Sr. Margaret McBride who was part of this very difficult decision to save a life. ---- M. Therese Lysaught wrote a 24 page report on what happened. This report is well worth reading. --- And it should be noted here that many Catholics agree with the hospital that their decision to save the woman's life was in keeping with Catholic directives and with canon law. ---- Yes, Olmsted disagrees with the hospital's stance and they have been courageous in standing up to him. And so has Sr. Carol Keehan. ---- It is more than worth noting that what the Bishop is asking of St. Joe's is probably illegal. A licensed hospital in America cannot refuse to save the life of a dying pregnant woman by refusing safe, legal and medically recommended care. It cannot simply abandon her to die in a fatal pregnancy because it cannot save her unborn child. --- If Bishop Olmsted had gotten his way, if he had been successful in forcing this hospital to promise to break the law in such situations, it would undoubtedly have been the beginning of the end of Catholic health care in America. Fortunately, the hospital has stood up to him, and so has Sr. Keehan. --- --- It is also worth noting here that there has been no stampede of fellow bishops to support Olmsted. ------- Weigel should be ashamed of this article. --- This was and remains a very complex issue, and First Things, being the fine periodical that it is, could certainly examine the many sides of this issue in depth.
1.9.2011 | 10:12pm
edmond says:
Hi Joe, as the saying goes, "God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!" But
levity aside the bible which you pretend to interpret is replete with no-no's aginst
male to male sexual relations. You can try to interpret these according to your
preferrences, good luck!
Lev 18:22-23 "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination." Lev 20:13 "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death." 1 Cor 6:9 "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals" 1 Tim 1:9-10 "realizing the fact that (civil) law is not made for a righteous man, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers" Rom 1:26-27 "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error."
Please send me scriptural quotes to the contrary.
levity aside the bible which you pretend to interpret is replete with no-no's aginst
male to male sexual relations. You can try to interpret these according to your
preferrences, good luck!
Lev 18:22-23 "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination." Lev 20:13 "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death." 1 Cor 6:9 "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals" 1 Tim 1:9-10 "realizing the fact that (civil) law is not made for a righteous man, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers" Rom 1:26-27 "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error."
Please send me scriptural quotes to the contrary.
1.10.2011 | 12:01am
Donna Bethell says:
I have read Dr. Lysaught's analysis and listened to Bishop Olmstead on his radio program. I have not heard from Bishop Olmstead what he thought the hospital should have done. He says he disapproves of what the hospital did. Then he has to offer an alternative. If he has and I missed it, will someone please fill me in?
Thank you.
Thank you.
1.10.2011 | 1:34pm
Artaban says:
Jimmy,
Just because you've only personally heard 6 bishops speak out against abortion in no way proves the others haven't. Even if one were to have remained silent, that doesn't imply agreement with abortion. More likely, it means they know countless Catholics in their diocese are already fighting that battle, thus they can apply their efforts more broadly.
Just because you've only personally heard 6 bishops speak out against abortion in no way proves the others haven't. Even if one were to have remained silent, that doesn't imply agreement with abortion. More likely, it means they know countless Catholics in their diocese are already fighting that battle, thus they can apply their efforts more broadly.
1.11.2011 | 4:01pm
Rick S. says:
A number of people have made misleading statements where they pretend to have direct knowledge of the case concerning this abortion. The hospital due to privacy laws cannot give out much detailed information about the case. They did indicate to Bp. Olmsted that there was no immediate threat to the life of the mother and that they didn't try any options such as giving her hypertension drugs. They simply went forward with the abortion. That is not a Catholic approach.
2.15.2011 | 10:41am
Rhyme Lekisha says:
For myself, no one here reading this, needs feel threatened; I'd set the standard exactly where Natural Law set it: an embryo 9 months of age, was deemed by nature and by God, to be sufficiently "formed," to be able to live relatively independently, and to be its own organism. And since his argument ultimately puts the emphasis on the body, DNA, and not the mind or Soul, Dr. Weigel's position is ultimately, an attack on the soul, the spirit, itself.
2.15.2011 | 3:50pm
Farin Hortense says:
Joe the Human: "While again, abortion was never mentioned in the Bible - the Bible which is supposed to be honored by the Catholic Church, according to its own pronuncements." My too-hasty comment was a reply to the first comment and not to Mr. Weigel's article. I do maintain however that a person newly formed by the union of sperm and ovum will remain alive unless killed. Calling things by their right names is a first principle of reasonable discussion. Having the courage of one's convictions is another. If a person believes that the young fetus should have been killed to save the life of the mother, he or she would do well to say so in plain English. Serious, principled discussion can then take place.
2.26.2011 | 6:39pm
Trudi Lievano says:
By the way, Cardinal Joe Ratzinger - who is now the Pope, Benedict XVI - said in his 2004 memo, "Worthiness to Receive HOly Communion," that voting for pro-choice, pro-abortion candicates "can be permitted." My too-hasty comment was a reply to the first comment and not to Mr. Weigel's article. I do maintain however that a person newly formed by the union of sperm and ovum will remain alive unless killed. Calling things by their right names is a first principle of reasonable discussion. Having the courage of one's convictions is another. If a person believes that the young fetus should have been killed to save the life of the mother, he or she would do well to say so in plain English. Serious, principled discussion can then take place.
