Posted on 02/15/2011 4:46:37 PM PST by SeekAndFind
In a recent New York Times column, Nicholas Kristof attacked Catholic Bishop Thomas Olmsted of Phoenix. Olmsted did something that Kristof considers unconscionable. He made a moral decision that was consistent with the Bible and the teachings of his Church-and he had the audacity to act upon it.
In late 2009 a pregnant woman suffering from pulmonary hypertension went to St. Joseph’s Catholic Hospital in Phoenix for treatment. And part of the treatment was an abortion.
Now it is true that pregnancy can be a mortal risk for a woman with pulmonary hypertension. But from the bishop’s point of view, St. Joseph’s did not demonstrate that the abortion was strictly required to save the woman’s life-the only morally acceptable reason for terminating a pregnancy.
After an investigation, Bishop Olmsted announced last summer that Sister Margaret McBride, who approved the abortion, had excommunicated herself. In December he announced that for performing the unwarranted abortion and for other deviations from Church teaching, St. Joseph’s was no longer a “Catholic” hospital.
This led Kristof to proclaim a battle of “two rival religious approaches.” “One approach,” he writes, “focuses on dogma, sanctity, rules and the punishment of sinners. The other exalts compassion for the needy and mercy for sinners-and, perhaps above all, inclusiveness.” (As if one excludes the other).
Kristof then wrote that “Jesus might sue the bishop for defamation.” For someone who so easily and flippantly invokes Jesus, Kristof appears to have a stunning ignorance of what Jesus actually said and did. He forgets that the same Jesus who offered “compassion for the needy and mercy for sinners” was very specific about doctrinal truth, the need for sanctity and obedience, and the threat of eternal damnation.
But then, this isn’t about Jesus. It’s just another example of calling good “evil” and evil “good.” That was the first and fatal temptation in the Garden. Satan labeled good-obedience to God-a restrictive evil. Then he labeled evil-disobeying God-an unmitigated good. How little things have changed particularly in matters of sexuality and life.
We see the same thing in Apple’s rejection of the Manhattan Declaration app. The Manhattan Declaration simply restates age-old Christian teaching about life, sexuality, marriage, and freedom. Apple, however, makes the dubious claim that as a result of the declaration’s rejection of homosexuality it is “likely to expose a group to harm” and is “objectionable and potentially harmful to others.”
All this despite the declaration’s affirmation that gays and lesbians possess a God-given, “profound, inherent, and equal dignity.”
And by the way, Archbishop Olmstead is a steadfast proponent of the Manhattan Declaration.
The goodness of a culture is measured by how that culture-its institutions, laws, and habits-measures up to the natural law, that objective and unchanging standard of good and evil God has written into the universe and into our consciences.
Inverting good and evil led directly to the first sin and to the human habit of repeating that sin over and over again.
The solution for Christians is to affirm the truth about good and evil when it’s popular and even when it’s not. And no matter what the New York Times may say about it.
That would entail permitting someone to kill you to save another person's life. See my preceding post; that is never allowed under the moral law.
It is not permitted to kill a child to save a parent. It is not permitted to kill a parent to save a child.
RE: Under no circumstances can an innocent* person be deliberately killed, not even to save another person’s life. No exceptions.
How does that square with this argument made by the doctor — “Consistent with our values of dignity and justice, if we are presented with a situation in which a pregnancy threatens a woman’s life, our first priority is to save both patients, If that is not possible, we will always save the life we can save, and that is what we did in this case.”
So, they argue:
1) They tried to save both mother and baby
2) It was not possible under the circumstances
3) The only life that they could save was the mother, and that’s what they did.
I thought that women usually didn't develop hypertension until later in the pregnancy. It's becoming almost typical for babies born after 22 weeks to survive, and thrive, so if the woman was past 5 1/2 months, the baby could have been delivered, and treated as any other preemie.
The Church teaches that the doctor should try to save BOTH. In this day, and age, depending on the stage of the pregnancy, it can be done. Otherwise, the delivery could be done, and an attempt made to save the baby, but if it dies, at least it wasn't killed intentionally.
That's true of pregnancy-induced hypertension ("toxemia") but this patient had pulmonary hypertension, an entirely different condition which affects the pulmonary circulation and the heart. According to this article the pregnancy was 11 weeks along - first trimester, absolutely not viable.
Women can develop hypertension any time during the pregnancy.By the time I was three months along, each time I had done so. Mine just behaved itself reasonably well, considering.
It's the hospital's responsibility to educate their doctors on how to practice medicine within the bounds of Catholic morality. They obviously dropped the ball pretty completely.
Which brings up the question - should they have let the woman die? Since that’s what would have happened, in which case both mother and baby die - two lives lost instead of one.
I agree with the hospital...The Mother only, lives, or they both die...Easy choice...
RE: I agree with the hospital...The Mother only, lives, or they both die...Easy choice...
Well what can I say? I hope you’re not Catholic, otherwise, you don’t get communion. :(
I watched that all the way through for the first time last week (or was it the week before? LOL), and that is a fine movie. Wouldn’t the world be better off with lots of St. Thomas Mores? ;)
Note to self: Don’t say something stupid in Vladimir998’s presence.
So you don’t think abortion is murder then?
It seems like the bishop is expecting too much here. If the hospital thought they were following ethical Catholic practices and it turns out they weren’t, isn’t the answer to teach them better so they can get it right the next time?
If there is a case to be made that the hospital was trying to get by with something, more should be said about that. If not, why the excommunication?
I’m a lifelong Catholic and I honestly thought that if the mother and baby were both going to die absent intervention, that was one time you could ethically abort the baby, because one life saved is better than two dead. It is not a “good” outcome, but the best that can be done under the circumstances. Also, I thought abortion in the case of tubal pregnancies was not grounds for excommunication, under the same reasoning, that both would die otherwise.
If that’s not right, the bishops had better explain things better to all of us, and do so before the next life-and-death situation arises.
I don't condemn all with such a broad brush as you guys do...
What if a soldier throws a hand grenade into a group of terrorists about to set off a dirty nuke in a city or town, and, the soldier knows there is an innocent civilian within the group of terrorists???
The baby in question would have died anyway...The baby in question possibly would have suffered far more in a prolonged death than it had...
Catholic's do not use moral relative reasoning to determine truth on an issue that Catholics consider absolute truth already clearly defined.
Abortion for any reason is wrong. No good ends can ever justify bad means. In this case all agree there was a direct abortion. The arguments really are only about the 'reasons' those who murdered are justifying said murder by.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.