No Confusion Here

After seven long years of talks, Bishop Thomas Olmsted of Phoenix, Arizona, has formally stripped a hospital of its Catholic status.  No doubt many of you have been following the story since it broke publicly when a Sister of Mercy approved the abortion of a 11 week old unborn baby in St Joseph's Hospital and Medical Centre.  Since then the bishop has been trying to find out what has been going on it that hospital and its parent organisation Catholic Healthcare West (CHW).  The sister was excommunicated (by her own actions), I'm not sure if she has been reconciled.    It was revealed in the last few months that the hospital and other medical facilities in the CHW had a long history of dissent with regard to Catholic moral teaching, so in reality the abortion was the final step (see here for other violations).

Many blogs are dealing with the story, and some are very angry with the bishop, questioning his right to do what he said, his lack of compassion, his ignorance of medicine which, they insist, disqualifies him from speaking on medical matters, and, wait for it, his ignorance of theology and his intellectual limitations.  This last criticism comes from the Commonweal blog, which seeks to defend the hospital and the arguments of a theologian who was involved in the dialogue process defending the hospital's decision.  One of the most obnoxious comments on this site suggests that the bishop has committed a sin in stripping the hospital of its Catholic status, abused his authority and broke the First Commandment.  This contributor then calls on the sinner to repent.   Well, this bishop did not abuse his authority, nor broke the First Commandment, but rather did his duty as a bishop to stand for the teaching of Christ, the souls entrusted to his care, proclaiming the Gospel of Life and calling those who have violated the commandment to respect life to repent.   The hospital is no longer Catholic in its approach to medical ethics, so the bishop is merely confirming what is a reality.   We need more like him.  We must pray for him because the wrath of dissenting Catholics and the media will come down on his head. 

The Commonweal blog seems particular stung by the fact that the bishop rejected the "moral analysis" offered by a theologian on behalf of the hospital (do you notice how liberals hate to see their critiques critiqued and get all upset by it?).  This theologian, M. Therese Lysaught, is based in Marquette University as an associate professor of theology, she seems to specialise in medical ethics.  In her report she claims the baby was dying, but the bishop in his report contradicts her and maintains that the baby was healthy.   Here's her report.  It seems that the baby was healthy, it was the mother who was ill, so Lysaught then maintains that because the mother was ill, then the baby was ill too. 

A few interesting issues from this whole affair.  First, there is a need for bishops to inspect those hospitals which hold the title Catholic, to see if they are following Catholic moral teaching.  The fact that they may be governed by religious orders is no guarantee that they are faithful - in fact in some cases it may be a good indication that they are no longer faithful.   Secondly, it is sad to see members of once great religious congregations rejecting the faith and cooperating in evil acts like abortion.  The sister involved in this case was a Sister of Mercy, and it was a Daughter of Charity who signed up to Obama's pro-abortion health care plan.  I know many good sisters in these congregations, but there are others who are steering their congregations in a direction which is neither Catholic, Christian or healthy. We must pray for them. 

Thirdly, it seems the author Anne Rice has been involved in this saga, and has been supporting the hospital and Sister of Mercy, and indeed portraying the bishop as merciless.  Sad.  Rice had a conversion a few years back and wrote a memoir about it.  I was going to ask someone to review it for Fraternitas, but something stopped me.  Glad it did.  Rice has since left the Church because she disagrees with our moral teachings, particularly on homosexuality.  Fair enough, but why is she still hanging around complaining?  If she's gone by her own decision, she gone, why keep floating around and harping on?  (Mark Shea asks the same question).