The Grinches at Catholics United

Hope your Christmas day was filled with joy, laughter, love and the presence of our newborn King.    We had a great day here at Camp McKinley.      I don't know about you, but I'm not psyched up for this 'blizzard'.   I don't know how to operate my snowblower.  :O)    Guess today's the day I'm going to learn!

Meanwhile, here's something to warm the cockles of your heart...

I somehow missed this, but apparently Chris Korzen and James Salt of Katholycs United responded to Bishop Olmsted's stripping of Catholic status and excommunication over the abortion at St. Joseph's Hospital by asking him to reverse his decision and saying he's too much of a hardliner and out of touch with many Catholics.

In a nutshell, they do a convoluted jig around the 'moral analysis' relied upon to perform the abortion.   The teaching of the Church is that it is never permissible to perform an abortion no matter what the circumstances, even when the abortion would improve the health of the mother.   If a pregnant woman is in a health crisis, medications, operations, procedures that will improve her health are permissible, even if those procedures risk the life of her unborn child, but never an abortion.

It's a tough teaching in the circumstances these individuals were in, but it is the teaching.     The administrator of the Catholic Hospital was there to uphold the teaching.  You tell her we'll do what we can to stabilize the situation until the baby can survive outside of the womb, give her the best medical care available, get the prayers and novena's going.  If the pregnant mother of four made the choice to pursue an abortion, we don't chain people to their hospital beds and she has the option of arranging a transfer to a non-Catholic hospital.

This is why you see a dance around calling the procedure an abortion in their 'moral analysis', as in this Condomweal piece here.

 “ “The procedure performed at St. Joseph’s Hospital and Medical Center on November 5, 2009, cannot properly be described as an abortion. The act, per its moral object, must accurately be described as saving the life of the mother. The death of the fetus was, at maximum, nondirect and praeter intentionem. More likely, the fetus was already dying due to the pathological situation prior to the intervention; as such, it is inaccurate to understand the death of the fetus as an accessory consequence to the intervention.”

There are numerous flaws in this analysis.  The procedure was an abortion with the direct intention of killing the child.   The child in utero was not dying and saying 'more likely' that it was is 100% conjecture.  But the most compelling observance of their moral poverty was their description of the 'death of the fetus as an accessory consequence to the intervention".

When dilating the woman's cervix, inserting the vacuum to the living child within her womb and tearing the child into small enough pieces to go through the tubes and into the jar, they approached the procedure with the intention of permitting the child to live.  In the course of this medical intervention, the dead child was an unintended accessory consequence and therefore, it is 'bogus' (as Korzen calls it) to describe the procedure as an abortion.

The hospital has the support of the Catholic Health Association, the U.S. Catholic community foremost healthcare authority, Catholics United says. Gotta love that.    (They also have the support of the reliable contradictors of Catholic teaching .  The crew at the National Catholic Reporter.   James Martin conveniently gathers the links of the people adrift from One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church at Condomweal here.  Vox Nova here.)


Taking a quick glimpse at other press releases at "Catholics United", it's quite a peculiar focus for a Catholic group.  In fact, I couldn't find anything that actually defended Catholic teaching.  When they "unite", they "unite" behind people people who procure and legislate abortion or pour ants over the Catholic Crucifix to blame Catholic teaching for the HIV caused by irresponsible sex.

I doubt they were edified with Bishop Olmsted's response --

The Phoenix Diocese issued the following statement: "Unfortunately, St. Joseph's hospital and 'Catholic's United are not in union with Bishop Olmsted and have no claim to being considered authentically Catholic, nor do they speak for the church in any way."

Why don't they just use the take away the right of "Catholics United", the "National Catholic Reporter" and the "Catholic Health Association" to use the name "Catholic" to set up an alternate 'magisterium'?  

Take the ax to the root.

Bishop Olmsted Strips Hospitals of "Catholic" Name

Bishop Olmsted is a Bishop who sure makes it hard to live up to the 23rd Psalm. I want this Bishop here!

After trying to shepherd the flock at Catholic Hospitals, as promised, he stripped the hospitals of the right to use the Name "Catholic".

That's what you call 'pastoral'.

I can't help comparing it to what Boston Catholics were served up with -- contracts with abortionists with promises to give pregnant women free rides to get them.

Enjoy our friend Michael Voris giving the delicious kudos:





Oh, and speaking of things that need to have the Name Catholic Canonically removed, the Katholic Health Association has issued a statement on the katholycity of the hospitals from Lady MacBeth.

NB - Sister McBride, the administrator who 'approved' of the abortion, was also excommunicated by Bishop Olmsted.

I would still be conflicted with Church teaching about contraception and robbed of the state of grace, if the people who told me I was separated from God had not had the courage to do so.

Priests and lay people have got to stop believing they are being 'pastoral' by letting their flock come and sit in the pews every week without telling them what we know to be the truth. The kind of 'pastors' who will let you march towards your death in conflict with Christ are not pastoring your soul to its salvation.

A Bishop Who Takes Canon 216 Seriously

Bishop Olmsted stripping institution scandalizing souls of Catholic Name.

Dear Mr. Dean,

I received your letter dated 27 October 2010 accompanied by the moral analysis from M. Therese Lysaught, Ph.D. [here’s who she is—ja]Undoubtedly, the assessment from Dr. Lysaught is extensive and I appreciate the diligence with which it was drafted. At the same time, however, I disagree with her conclusion. In point of fact, throughout our dialogue and cooperative efforts during these last few months, it is more than apparent that the position of CHW is that discerning minds can disagree. Specifically, you stated in a letter to me dated 6 July 2010, “As you know, many knowledgeable moral theologians have reviewed this case, and reached a range of conclusions. If we may assume that these individuals are motivated by their faith and desire and for justice, one must at least acknowledge that this is a very complex matter, on which the best minds disagree.” Thus, it would appear that your intention is to resolve our disagreement by asserting that there is no single “correct” answer to the question of whether the procedure that led to an abortion at St. Joseph’s hospital was morally permissible under the Ethical and Religious Directives of the USCCB [Bishop Olmsted will later refer to these as the “ERD’s”—ja]. In effect, you would have me believe that we will merely have to agree to disagree. But this resolution is unacceptable because it disregards my authority and responsibility to interpret the moral law and to teach the Catholic faith as a Successor of the Apostles.

The decisions regarding life and death, morality and immorality as they relate to medical ethics are at the forefront of the Church’s mission today. As a result, the Church and her bishops have a heightened moral responsibility to remain actively engaged in these discussions and debates. I have attempted to do my part in calling CHW and your hospitals to uphold the dignity of human life, and to embrace the fullness of what the Catholic Church teaches on the immorality of those actions that are an affront to the gift or human life and its inherent goodness from God. The irony of our present state of affairs is that an organization that identifies itself as “Catholic” (CHW) is operating a hospital in my Diocese that does not abide by the ERD’s, and in the case of St. Joseph’s Hospital, has actively engaged in an abortive procedure that is immoral. Thus far, you (CHW) have insisted that you are not doing anything wrong, but that your interpretation of the ERD’s simply differs with my own. According to Catholic teaching though, there cannot be a “tie” so to speak in this debate. Rather, it is my duty as the chief shepherd in the diocese to interpret whether the actions at St. Joseph’s and other hospitals meet the criteria or fulfilling the parameters or the moral law as seen in the ERD’s.

Until this point in time, you have not acknowledged my authority to settle this question but have only provided opinions of ethicists that agree with your own opinion and disagree with mine. As the diocesan bishop, it is my duty and obligation to authoritatively teach and interpret the moral law for Catholics in the Diocese of Phoenix. Because of this, the moral analyses of theologians are important elements that should assist and inform a bishop in the exercise of his teaching authority. However, it is ultimately the authority of the bishop as teacher and pastor that is determinative, something you yourself have rightly recognized. While the issues discussed in the moral analysis you provided are certainly technical and deeply philosophical, they are also foundationally “theological.” And the theology of the Catholic Faith, as concretized in the Code of Canon Law, dispels any doubt whose opinion on matters of faith and morals is decisive for institutions in the Diocese of Phoenix.

It is now my position that our deliberations regarding the tragic abortion at St. Joseph’s Hospital have gone on for far too long, and I believe that there is little hope that you intend to conclude that this case constitutes a violation of the ERD’s. Similarly, as you are aware, since my arrival in the Diocese of Phoenix, I have sought to engage you and the officials at CHW on the topic of my absolute objection to CHW operating hospitals without following the ERD’s; namely my objections to your administration of Chandler Regional Hospital, where as an organization calling itself “Catholic,” CHW authorizes sterilizations and I know not what other immoral acts. I continue to find this particular arrangement deeply troubling. I see no basis to conclude other than that there is no intention on the part of CHW to modify or change its operations at Chandler Regional.
However, in keeping with my moral authority as Bishop of Phoenix and my interpretation of the ERD’s based on that authority, I have determined after review of the facts and circumstances that an abortion did occur at St. Joseph’s. Additionally, my efforts to convince you of the impossibility of a “Catholic” organization to operate in such a way as to not adhere to the ERD’s, has fallen on deaf ears with no apparent progress in more than six years. If actions speak louder than words, your actions communicate to me that you do not respect my authority to authentically teach and interpret the moral law in this diocese. Moreover, your actions imply that you have no intention to acknowledge that what happened at St. Joseph’s hospital was morally wrong according to the ERD’s. Subsequently, this would entail that you will not change your mode of operation in assessing future cases in which similar circumstances are present.

In sum, my interpretation of where we stand at this point is that you would have me accept that: A) while tragic, what happened at St. Joseph’s Hospital was unfortunate, but an acceptable occurrence in line with the ERD’s. Further, if the same scenario would present itself again, your administration would likely carry out the same measures with the same result. B) Chandler Regional Hospital does not have to explicitly abide by the ERD’s since it is not a “Catholic” hospital, even though operated by “Catholic” Healthcare West.

The conclusion I take away from this analysis is that you do not intend to change anything. While my objections and our correspondence have garnered your undivided attention, you have discounted my legitimate authority. Because of this I must now act. I do so not only to assure that no further such violations of the ERD’s occur, but also to repair the grave scandal to the Christian faithful that has resulted from the procedure that look place at St. Joseph’s and the subsequent public response of CHW.
Accordingly, I now ask that CHW agree to the following requirements by Friday, December 17, 2010. Only if all of these items are agreed to, will I postpone any action against CHW and St. Joseph’s Hospital. Specifically, I require the following in order for me to postpone any further canonical action directed against St. Joseph’s Hospital:

1. CHW must acknowledge in writing that the medical procedure that resulted in the abortion at St. Josephs’ hospital was a violation of ERD 47, and so will never occur again at St. Joseph’s Hospital.

2. CHW must agree to a review and certification process conducted by the Medical Ethics Board of the Diocese of Phoenix to ensure full compliance with the Ethical and Religious Directives of the USCCB. The Bishop and his representative from the Medical Ethics Board must have appropriate access to their facilities and protocols for review. (As hospitals and health care organizations submit to similar kinds of certifications from the government or from medical oversight organizations, it should not be unusual to have a group from the Catholic Diocese to certify that hospitals run by CHW are in full compliance with Catholic moral teaching).
3. CHW must agree to provide for the medical staff at St. Joseph’s Hospital ongoing formation on the ERD’s, as overseen by either the National Catholic Bioethics Center or the Medical Ethics Board of the Diocese of Phoenix.

Failure to fulfill these three requirements will lead me to decree the suspension of my endorsement of St. Joseph’s Hospital, forcing me to notify the Catholic faithful that St. Joseph’s Hospital no longer qualifies as a “Catholic” hospital because of its failure to acknowledge the Bishop’s right and duty to judge whether the ERD’s are interpreted and implemented correctly. This is a decision that will be immensely difficult for me, but one that I can and must make. I intend to publicly revoke my endorsement of St. Joseph’s Hospital as a “Catholic” hospital unless I hear from you by Friday, December 17, 2010. Only when you agree to all three terms as described above, will I agree to refrain from my public announcement regarding the status of your Catholic identity. A revocation of my endorsement of St. Joseph’s Hospital would necessitate the following actions:

• Removal of the Blessed Sacrament from all Chapels and Tabernacles at St. Joseph’s Medical Center.

• Prohibition of all Masses celebrated in Chapels within St. Joseph’s Medical Center.

• Public advisory from the Bishop’s Office issued through the Catholic Sun Newspaper and website that St. Joseph’s no longer qualifies as a “Catholic” hospital.

• Priestly ministry and other ministry to the sick will most certainly continue within St. Joseph’s Hospital, as it does in any hospital when the sacraments or pastoral care are requested by patients.

As for Chandler Regional, I simply invite you to put into motion a process for chancing your modus operandi with respect to the implementation of the ERD’s at Chandler Regional. While my decision regarding Catholic identity does not affect Chandler Regional in the same way, the issues about which we disagree are also related to the authentic identity or CHW as a whole. I recognize that my objections to how Chandler Regional operates are more involved, but I would foresee us needing to address those directly in the near future.

As the chief shepherd of the Diocese of Phoenix, I sincerely hope that you will respect my authority to be vigilant over all entities wishing to represent themselves as Catholic organizations. For the sake of the salvation of souls and in the interest of justice for the scandal that this present arrangement has created amongst the Catholic community, I ask you to reconsider your position and adhere to my requests.

Sincerely yours in Christ,
Thomas J. Olmsted
Bishop of Phoenix

WOW.

That's all. Just Wow.

Bishop Olmsted on the Devil

Kudos to the Catholic Key Blog for kicking this onto the radar screen

Bishop Olmsted on the Devil and Fr. John Vianney:

Fallen angels, also known as devils and evil spirits, try to hinder all of us in our pursuit of holiness. Their ordinary ploy is by means of temptations, which God allows so that we can make good use of our freedom in resisting them and thus growing to fuller maturity in Christ.

In addition to these ordinary ploys, demons resort to other extraordinary acts, on rare occasions, with the same intention of thwarting the plan of God and undercutting our filial trust in Him. These harassments can be of three kinds: infestations, obsessions and possessions.

With infestations, the devil makes use of noises, outcries, rattling, apparitions and other extraordinary outbursts of some sensible nature aimed at terrifying people, intending to undercut their confidence in God. He used these repeatedly on the Cure of Ars, sometimes to keep him from getting badly needed sleep, at other times to disturb his peace of mind and to try to shake his trust in God. All these were aimed at disrupting the effective ministry of this holy priest.

Early on, Fr. Vianney became aware that these infestations were most outrageous just before an outstanding action of grace was about to occur through his priestly ministry, usually the conversion of a sinner. In fact, he remarked that the worst assaults of the devil happened when he was on the verge of “landing a big fish,”...

The Cure of Ars himself never suffered from demonic obsession or possession, but he dealt with them in others whom he served in his sacred ministry. With obsession, the devil goes beyond infestations and actually plays on the external senses of the body or influences a person’s memory or imagination. In cases of possession, which are even more rare than those of obsession, the devil actually uses the whole human organism, with the exception of the mind and will.

The suffering that obsession and possession bring to a person is almost unimaginable. Moreover, to be freed of these satanic harassments, the Church’s sacred power from Christ is needed.

Great piece.