Lincoln, Douglas and Their First Debate

Tuesday, May 18, AD 2010

I live in rural Central Illinois in Livingston County. Like most counties in Central Illinois, we have our Lincoln sites, places Lincoln visited while he was riding the circuit as a lawyer. In those more civilized days, courts in most areas only operated part time. On a court day, the judges and attorneys would arrive at a county seat, and the trials on the court’s docket would be called and tried. So it was on May 18, 1840 when Lincoln and his fellow attorneys rode into Pontiac, the then tiny county seat of Livingston County, for the first ever session of the Circuit Court in Livingston County.

Lincoln by this time was beginning to be well known in Central Illinois. He was a member of the Illinois House of Representatives, and was one of the leaders of the Whig Party in Central Illinois. He was only 31 and was clearly a young man on his way up in the world.

Lincoln was not the only celebrity attorney present that day in Pontiac. Stephen A. Douglas, Lincoln’s great antagonist, was also present. Only 27, Douglas was already famous throughout the State. Douglas was a fervent Democrat and one of the great orators of his day. Already he had been Attorney General of the State, and a member of the Illinois House of Representatives. Later that year he would be appointed Secretary of State, and in 1841 he would be appointed a Justice of the Illinois Supreme Court, the youngest man ever to serve on that tribunal. Douglas was also clearly a young man rising swiftly in the world.

However, on May 18, 1840 Lincoln and Douglas were not concentrating on grand issues or the future. Their attention was riveted on the case of William Popejoy vs. Isaac Wilson, the first case filed in the Circuit Court in Livingston County. Wilson had accused Popejoy of stealing meat from a Sarah McDowell, and Popejoy was suing him for slander. Slander lawsuits were not uncommon in Central Illinois of that period, and Lincoln, as was the case with most attorneys, represented quite a few clients in regard to such cases.

There was no love lost between Popejoy and Wilson. Wilson had previously sued Popejoy for the death of a horse of his that Wilson had allowed him to borrow. The horse had died and Wilson, represented by Stephen A. Douglas, had sued for $300.00 in damages. Lincoln had represented Popejoy. The jury had returned a verdict for Wilson, but assessed damages at $70.25.

In the current lawsuit for slander, Lincoln again represented Popejoy and Douglas again represented Wilson. Lincoln won the case, with the Jury deliberating on a pile of sawlogs on the bank of the Vermilion River which winds through Pontiac.

Continue reading...

3 Responses to Lincoln, Douglas and Their First Debate

Nuns, Habits, and Disobedience

Monday, May 17, AD 2010

I was reading Father Peter M.J. StravinskasThe Catholic Answer Book a few weeks ago and on page 173 I was surprised to read that all religious are required to wear their religious garb as a symbol of their vow of poverty.

I looked up and found in Canon Law that Father Stravinskas is absolutely and clearly correct on this:

Canon 669 §1 As a sign of their consecration and as a witness to poverty, religious are to wear the habit of their institute, determined in accordance with the institute’s own law.

§2 Religious of a clerical institute who do not have a special habit are to wear clerical dress, in accordance with canon 284.

In fact the Holy See, specifically the Sacred Congregation for Religious, routinely reject religious constitutions that do not have this requirement.

Continue reading...

49 Responses to Nuns, Habits, and Disobedience

  • People who do Gods work will earn eternal Life. Praise the Lord

  • Stefan,

    Only God knows who is and isn’t in Heaven, Purgatory, or Hell.

    Tim Shipe said it very eloquently.

  • When my current pastor realized that a good friend of mine is a priest who always wears his cassock or the black suit with collar, he pointedly told me that he is not required by cannon law to wear clerical clothing. He seemed to feel that he had to defend himself to me, even though I had not said anything to him about the fact that he never dresses like a priest when not at the altar. I know it may be uncomfortable for some priests in this day and age, but isn’t that part of being a priest? I believe a priest who does not wear his clerical clothing misses out on many opportunities to minister. A priest should be set apart so the people know who he is.

  • Susan,

    I believe a priest who does not wear his clerical clothing misses out on many opportunities to minister.

    I couldn’t agree more.

    We don’t want to be of this world, we want to be in this world to evangelize the culture.

    What better way than to be a witness to Christ!

  • What about Vita Consecrata? JPII doesn’t seem to be in agreement with what you claim.

  • Paul,

    JPII can say that the Koran is the sole authority in the Church and it still doesn’t make it right.

    Church teaching trumps one man’s opinion.

    ie, your argument is a straw man.

  • Let’s not be too hasty or get crazy here. JPII is not merely “one man’s opinion.”

    Amen to priests out of their clericals missing opportunities. I encountered a priest who sincerely agonized over whether wearing his collar publicly was the equivalent to ‘lording it’ over others (one can pooh-pooh the thinking, but he was truly sincerely torn and such a twisted perspective is widespread). I urged him that I loved seeing priests in the collars (and nuns in their habits) because when I saw them (even if I didn’t speak to them) I immediately felt our kinship and was strengthened in my faith and witness. To wear the collar/habit (humbly!) is to give a very special kind of witness to the world that is so desperately in need of Christ.

  • Paul,

    In Vita Consecrata, JPII writes:

    Since the habit is a sign of consecration, poverty and membership in a particular Religious family, I join the Fathers of the Synod in strongly recommending to men and women religious that they wear their proper habit, suitably adapted to the conditions of time and place.Where valid reasons of their apostolate call for it, Religious, in conformity with the norms of their Institute, may also dress in a simple and modest manner, with an appropriate symbol, in such a way that their consecration is recognizable.Institutes which from their origin or by provision of their Constitutions do not have a specific habit should ensure that the dress of their members corresponds in dignity and simplicity to the nature of their vocation.

    (Article 25 – Witnesses to Christ in the World, 2nd para.)

    Where’s the disagreement?

  • Tito Edwards: “JPII can say that the Koran is the sole authority in the Church and it still doesn’t make it right.

    Correct as stated. But it’s very unclear what you are attempting to show by stating that in the current context.

    Tito Edwards: “Church teaching trumps one man’s opinion.

    And I have much the same reaction to that.

    The situation you have described is one in which we have Canon Law requiring a particular behavior, whereas the Pope subsequently and publicly requires a lesser standard.

    As far as I can tell, you think that Canon Law trumps the Pope. Why do you think that? And have you looked at what Canon Law itself says about the Pope? Canon 333 might be interesting.

  • Paul,

    You’ve provided evidence that either reinforces the post are has nothing to do with the post.

    I’m not sure what you’re attempting, but disobedience is still disobedience.

    Michael N.,

    You wrote a conflicting comment.

    You applaud disobedience and then you go around and affirm canon law.

    That’s called cognitive dissonance.

    That’s called holding to conflicting ideas simultaneously.

    You don’t make sense.

  • Phil: “Where’s the disagreement?

    For example, as quoted by the original post, Canon 339 states that “Religious of a clerical institute who do not have a special habit are to wear clerical dress”. But in Vita Consecrata, JPII requires a less specific standard: “Institutes which from their origin or by provision of their Constitutions do not have a specific habit should ensure that the dress of their members corresponds in dignity and simplicity to the nature of their vocation.”

    So long as religious members abide by JPII’s request, I do not see a problem.

    I should also point out that that Father Stravinskas’ book (Volume 1, relied on by the original poster) was published in 1990, and Via Consecrata came out in 1996, so the original post likely did not take this into account.

  • Paul,

    In their environment.

    So if they are working in southern Sudan with no air conditioning it’s completely fine and understandable.

    But here in the most industrialized, most modern, and most affluent nation and society in the history of mankind, it’s called “disobedience”.

  • Why is do people think they need to tell the sisters and the nuns what they should or shouldn’t wear? Women religious are a bright spot in the church today, and they can wear whatever they want.

  • David,

    Women religious that are obedient are a bright spot in the Church today!

    Not modernist nuns.

  • Tito,

    In your black-and-white zeal for ultimatums, you are burning bridges unnecessarily.

    There was nothing conflicting in my comment. Perhaps you misread it. Nowhere do I applaud disobedience.

    Your summary (quoted below) is both condescending and insulting. In your zeal for being ‘right’, you are sinning mightily against charity. Perhaps you do not mean it to come across so offensively, but I tell you in charity and fraternity that it most certainly came across that way. Be careful, brother.

    In Christ,

    You wrote a conflicting comment….
    That’s called cognitive dissonance.
    That’s called holding to conflicting ideas simultaneously.
    You don’t make sense.

  • Michael N.,

    Amen to priests out of their clericals missing opportunities.

    What part of your statement is it that you are not applauding disobedience?

    Many liberals get upset when confronted with facts.

    You are no different.

  • Tito,
    Just as I thought. You misread my statement and then judged me unmercilessly based on YOUR mistake.
    I said “Amen to priests out of their clericals missing opportunities”. That means I was AGREEING with previous posters who had expressed sadness that priests out of their clericals were missing opportunities to witness. I then went on to illustrate my AGREEMENT with an anecdote.
    An ounce of charity would make you hesitate before jumping to such wrong conclusions and insulting people as a result.
    You then insult me even further by trying to label me a fact-averse liberal.
    Jumping to wrong conclusions…insults…accusations.
    You are not acting in Christ.
    You are enamored of this notion of ‘being right’, of being the one who knows the rules and their applications, of being unwavering in your loyalty, and in treating those whom you deem as insufficiently faithful as so many infidels to insult and dismiss.
    There is a word for that: pharisaical.
    Beware, brother. Read Matthew 23. Habits and collars are good, but only as they point to Christ. Do not neglect the weightier matters of the law, justice and mercy and good faith.
    In your words to me, you have not been just, merciful or in good faith. Be my brother…
    In Christ,

  • Michael N.,

    You need to be more careful in how you write your comments.

    And for your behavior you should know better than to be more righteous than thou with your uncharitable diatribes.

    I strongly suggest you stop commenting here at TAC because you have a history of being “misunderstood” in order to make points on your liberal agenda.

    God bless you.

  • Tito,
    So now I’m at fault for you misreading my comment?
    And, of course, no apology for the many insults you hurled at me based on your mistake.
    If I was uncharitable in my response, I beg your forgiveness. I am deeply troubled by your politicizing of the Faith and your dismissive tone with people. IMHO, you will drive many away from Christ and his Church.
    I take note that I am unwelcome at TAC by you.
    You continue to try to label me ‘liberal’ despite my correcting your misapprehension. I am sorry you’re not open to my pleas.
    In Christ,

  • Michael N.,

    I apologize and am sorry for misreading your comments.

    Yours in Christ.

  • Michael N.,

    Only Catholics drive themselves away.

    That is called free will.

    You represent those on the margins trying to reconcile your Democratic Party allegiance to your Catholic faith.

    As far as politicizing the faith.

    We are asked to be a witness to our faith.

    If you prefer to cower behind closed doors so as not to “offend” others about what you believe then so be it.

    Your the first one to have ever said that about me and I hope the last.

    But in the end, you make your own decisions not I.

  • Tito,
    Once again, you make statement based on your own mistaken guesses and perceptions.
    You are tireless in your attempt to label and dismiss.
    I have no allegiance to the Democratic Party. My allegiance is to Christ alone.
    Your insinuation that I ‘cower behind closed doors so as not to offend’ is further insult.
    Are you capable of carrying on a civil exchange?
    I am not cowering. I am engaging you in a public forum. Please stop cowering behind labels and insults and engage me charitably in Christ.
    As for “Only Catholics drive themselves away,” that is contradicted by the words of Christ himself: “It would be better for anyone who leads astray one of these little ones who believe in me, to be drowned by a millstone around his neck in the depths of the sea.”
    Not only are we responsible to nurture and spread the Faith in others, it is our singular purpose in life. We cannot control people, but we must invite and share the cause of our hope…and avoid anything that might scandalize or drive others from Christ.

  • FYI: that includes being condescending, judgmental and insulting. As the saint said, better honey than vinegar. Try a little honey from time to time.

  • Michael N.,

    That passage you are referring to is Christ warning priests, bishops, deacons, nuns, ie, religious.

    But if you feel I have sway from my little room here in Houston on an obscure blog then I am flattered that you have such a high opinion of me.

  • There were no priests, bishops, deacons, nuns, or religious at the time Jesus made his statement.
    He was specifically addressing the teachers of the law regarding children, but given the universal ‘priesthood’ of believers, it quite plainly applies to us all.
    A little room and an obscure blog notwithstanding, we all have full-time responsiblities to spread the Gospel in a true and charitable way. Whether to the public or to just our friends and families, our witness has the potential to attract or repel many from Christ.
    That is a responsibility we should take with utmost gravity.

  • Michael,

    I believe your mistaken.

    You’re falling for the liberal teaching that we are all priests.

    Like you said, Jesus was referring to those that lead us in faith.

    I’m not a priest and I do not have a calling to be one.

    Free will.

    I know that is something difficult for you to understand, but ultimately we are responsible for our own actions.

    If anything your frenetic diatribes may actually be driving out actual believers.

    Just sayin’.

  • There is a universal priesthood of all believers. When we are baptized we all receive s responsibility to spread the Faith. That is not a ‘liberal’ teaching. It is a fact of the Faith. As plain as a pikestaff.
    Do not confuse that ‘universal priesthood’ with the priestly ministry. That is a not uncommon ‘liberal’ fallacy.
    Obviously you agree with that or you wouldn’t be participating in a Catholic blog.
    Again with the condescension.
    As for free will – you seem to hide behind it in order to take no responsibility for your insults and attacks (i.e. ‘If I’m offensive in my defense of the Faith and others fall away as a result, then I’m not responsible because they’re free to do what they want.’).
    That’s devilish thinking.
    Nothing frenetic…no diatribe…but good to know you have a thesaurus!

  • Michael N.,

    You keep charging towards windmills and yet won’t learn.

    So I’ll try a different tact.

    “I love you man!”

  • Perhaps you should change your icon image so it doesn’t look so much like Don Quixote.

  • Michael N.,

    It’s pic taken from El Greco’s ‘Burial of Count Orgaz’.

    El Greco was a Greek.

    Where’s your pic?

  • So…I did skip all the other comments, but here is a question that personally pops in my head. Say I become a sister and wear a habit. I want to go swimming at my grandparents cabin with my cousins, how does that stand? That is something I am trying to discover.

  • Actually, the words of Christ found in the Gospels warning not to drive away his brethren is not merely addressed to clergy and it has not been known to be an admonition exclusive to a certain class of individuals — it has been seen as universal beginning in patristic thought up until this very century in contemporary biblical scholarship. I’m not sure how it can even be read in any other way without necessarily imposing on the text.

    My two cents.

  • Ash,

    I’m no canon lawyer, but my best guess is that’s ok to jump into something modest to swim in.


    Thanks for your opinion.

  • Ash: “Say I become a sister and wear a habit. I want to go swimming at my grandparents cabin with my cousins, how does that stand? That is something I am trying to discover.”

    Religious Orders have Rules. They also have Superiors. And a Vow of Obedience. Check them all out before jumping into the water. They’ll have the answer.

  • Paul: For example, as quoted by the original post, Canon 339 states that “Religious of a clerical institute who do not have a special habit are to wear clerical dress”. But in Vita Consecrata, JPII requires a less specific standard: “Institutes which from their origin or by provision of their Constitutions do not have a specific habit should ensure that the dress of their members corresponds in dignity and simplicity to the nature of their vocation.”

    I’m not sure and not inclined to do research right now, but there seems to be a difference between “Religious of a clerical institute”(referred to in Canon Law) and “Institutes which from their origin or by provision of their Constitutions do not have a specific habit” (referred to by Pope JPII)

    “Religious of a clerical institute” may mean religious or diocesan priests and deacons (clerical) and nuns (religious) who belong to an Order.

    Whereas “Institutes which from their origin or by provision of their Constitutions do not have a specific habit” could mean Third Order seculars, mostly composed of lay people.

    They may be apples and oranges that can’t be compared. If so, JPII’s document does not contradict Canon Law.

  • “religious are to wear the habit of their institute, determined in accordance with the institute’s own law.”

    This may sound like a silly question, but what if the “institute” in question dropped habits back in the 60s or 70s and specifically ADOPTS secular dress (say, skirt or suit of a given color or style) as their “habit”? In a case like that, a Sister wearing secular garb, as long as it meets the rules of her order, is wearing the “habit of their institute,” whether we find it appropriate or not, so how would they be breaking canon law?

    Also — another silly question — wouldn’t a “clerical institute” be an association of CLERGY, which by definition would only apply to men? So how could nuns be affected by that requirement?

  • Marie: “Whereas “Institutes which from their origin or by provision of their Constitutions do not have a specific habit” could mean Third Order seculars, mostly composed of lay people.

    I see no reason to interpret those words in such a highly specialized and very unobvious way. It would also disregard the ordering of that text — which first covers those institutes which have a norm, and then covers what to do in the case where an institute has no norm.

    On doing some research, I have found people who clearly take the words as applying to any institute of religious, and no one who takes the words in the sense you suggest.

    Elaine Krewer: “…what if the “institute” in question dropped habits back in the 60s or 70s and specifically ADOPTS secular dress…”

    Are there any such institutes which have that in their laws, and have had such laws formally approved by Rome?

    Elaine Krewer: “…wouldn’t a “clerical institute” be an association of CLERGY, which by definition would only apply to men?

    That seems right to me. On that supposition, the first clause of Canon 669 (“Religious are to wear the habit of the institute, made according to the norm of proper law, as a sign of their consecration and as a witness of poverty.”) applies to both male and female religious, whereas the second clause (Clerical religious of an institute which does not have a proper habit are to wear clerical dress according to the norm of an. 284.)” does not indicate what applies to female religious.

    In which case, Via Consecrata would be indicating what laws would apply to both men and women religious (as the wording of Via Consecrata itself clearly specifies), in the case where there is no specified habit.

  • I looked up Canon 284 and sure enough, it refers specifically to priests. The USCCB’s rules applying Canon 284 in the United States, which have been in effect since 1999, state that:

    “Outside liturgical functions, a black suit and Roman collar are the usual attire for priests. The use of the cassock is at the discretion of the cleric. In the case of religious clerics, the determinations of their proper institutes or societies are to be observed with regard to wearing the religious habit.”

    So one could argue that a priest who does not wear the black suit and Roman collar (or the habit of his order, if he belongs to a Religious order) is disobeying Canon 284.

    Canon 284 clearly does NOT apply to women religious. The rule for them is simply to wear the “habit of their institute,” which as I explained above, could mean some modified form of secular dress.

    I’m not saying, by the way, that I APPROVE of priests or women religious running around in secular clothing.

    Personally I believe all priests should wear a Roman collar most of the time (even if just in shirt sleeves) and all nuns/Sisters should at least wear a veil or head covering, something to make it obvious who they are, and their habits should be simple and easy to care for (it doesn’t have to be a Flying Nun-type outfit). They should NOT be totally indistinguishable from secular professionals. The only exception should be for priests or religious serving in extremely hostile environments (e.g. Communist China, Sudan) where being seen in clerical or religious garb is likely to get them arrested or killed.

    However, as much as we may dislike priests and nuns in secular dress and consider them symbolic of everything that’s gone wrong with religious life, I wouldn’t play “gotcha” with canon law and jump to the conclusion that their dress is “proof” of disobedience and mortal sin.

  • Elaine,
    Amen, amen, amen to your last statement.
    Playing ‘gotcha’ is a dangerous temptation. We should not be so gleeful to catch others in transgressions and rejoice in condemning them.

  • Michael N.,

    No one is playing ‘gotcha’, unless of course if you are paranoid such as yourself, then I can see why you feel that way.

  • Elaine,
    You forgot Mexico, where I am given to understand that the federal law (if not constutution) precludes the wearing of clericals in public outside of specific liturgical, or church related, events (pilgrimages, processions, public open air Mass).

  • Kevin,

    That is one instance where the Church allows religious not to wear their religious garb.

  • I will leave the debate about Canon law to those who are Canon law lawyers.

    I know a priest who was admitted to the Harvard Business School after his ordination. He told the story about his first week at school, which ended with a large reception for all of the new students and their significant others. He said “I’m driving there and I really wanted to just turn around and get a shirt and tie like everybody else. But no, I was admitted as a priest, I’m gonna wear the blacks.” So he walks into this room with, as he put it, 1200 extroverts, and a guy immediately came up to him, exclaiming “I love it! I wish I’d thought about wearing a costume!” He explained to the guy, who became a good friend, that it wasn’t a costume.

    That was Friday. Monday was 9/11. He spent the next two weeks counseling classmates who had worked in the Twin Towers and had friends who had died there that day. And I think he wore the blacks.

  • Patrick,

    Wonderful story.

    Very providential.

  • Michael N.,

    You’re part of the problem of always apologizing for being Catholic.

    Why don’t you crawl back from whence you came and stop denigrating those that defend and uphold our beautiful Catholic faith.

    God bless and good riddance.

  • Jesus’ prayer in John 17 seems to be fitting for the situation. Pax Christi.

  • Pingback: A Second Look at Weapons of Mass Destruction « The American Catholic
  • Pingback: Booming Traditional Relgious Orders! « The American Catholic
  • Pingback: Cardinal McCarrick and Sister Carol Keehan « The American Catholic

Christian Versus Christian on Ultrasound Law

Monday, May 17, AD 2010

In this past Sunday’s Florida Today editorial page “letters to the editor”, there was an interesting juxtaposition of letters taking radically different sides on the debate in Florida over an Ultrasound requirement for women seeking abortions.  The bill is currently awaiting Gov. Charlie Crist’s signature- which is anything but guaranteed.

Continue reading...

5 Responses to Christian Versus Christian on Ultrasound Law

  • Abortion is against Christian beliefs
    God is my King!

  • I think you expressed yourself well here.

    Michele strikes me has having an inherent contradiction in her argument: She urges men supporting the measure to consider that “These are your moms, your sisters, daughters and friends”. This seems based on the misapprehension that pro-lifers would want their relatives to be able to receive abortions without fuss. The whole point is that we don’t want people to get abortions — both because we believe it’s wrong (being the killing of an innocent person) and because we believe it hurts the mother, morally and emotionally. As such, suggesting to us that this would inconvenience our female friends or relatives is no counterargument, since we don’t want them getting abortions either.

  • Good points Tim. I pray Governor Crist doesn’t veto the legislation. I’m also glad to see Florida Democrats for Life really behind this bill.

  • “Why do women seeking an abortion, who have the right to their privacy and the right to a legal medical procedure, have to be subjected to an ultrasound and be required to pay for it”

    “Subjected” to an ultrasound? She makes it sound like these poor women are being forced to endure some horrendous torture, when just about any woman who has had kids knows that the ultrasound is usually one of the LEAST invasive and/or uncomfortable procedures performed during pregnancy.

    And even being “subjected” to a transvaginal ultrasound — the type that would be performed very early in the pregnancy before the baby became large enough to be seen via abdominal ultrasound — could hardly be any more invasive or painful than being subjected to a surgical abortion, wouldn’t you think?

  • I think her point is even further nullified by the fact that it is quite typical for an abortion doctor to give a woman an ultrasound (with the screen facing away from her) to view the unborn child to determine its age and point of development in order to decide what particular abortion procedure is most appropriate to terminate the child at whatever its stage.

    Ultrasound laws require that they simply offer to turn the screen — the horror!

Can You Trust Kant?

Monday, May 17, AD 2010

As can be seen by the above anti-Kant attack ad put out by the Friedrich Nietzsche campaign, the battle of the philosophers has entered into a whole new arena.  American Catholic contacted the Kant campaign for a response and we received the video below.  I am sure some of readers will be able to translate it for me.

We also received this video unsolicited from the Kierkegaard campaign, although it appears to be recycled from their unsuccessful campaign in 2008:


Continue reading...

Lars Vilks, Gay Muhammad and Freedom of Expression

Sunday, May 16, AD 2010

This past week brings news of yet another fracas involving Swedish cartoon artist Lars Vilks (

When Vilks entered a classroom where he was to deliver a lecture to about 250 people — all of whom had passed through a security checkpoint to gain admission — about five people started protesting loudly, Eronen said.

After Uppsala uniformed and non-uniformed police calmed the protesters, the lecture got under way at about 5:15 p.m. (11:15 a.m. ET), Eronen said.

But as Vilks was showing audiovisual material, 15 to 20 audience members became loud and tried to attack Vilks, he said.

As police stepped in, a commotion started and Vilks was taken to a nearby room; police used pepper spray and batons to fend off the protesters, Eronen said. Vilks did not return to the lecture. [Video footage of the event].

Last March, an American woman who called herself “Jihad Jane,” Colleen LaRose, was indicted in the United States for allegedly conspiring to support terrorists and kill Vilks.

In a 2007 interview with CNN he had drawn the cartoon of Mohammed with a dog’s body in order to take a stand.

“I don’t think it should not be a problem to insult a religion, because it should be possible to insult all religions in a democratic way, “ says Vilks from his home in rural Sweden.

“If you insult one, then you should insult the other ones.”

His crude, sketched caricature shows the head of Prophet Mohammed on the body of a dog. Dogs are considered unclean by conservative Muslims, and any depiction of the prophet is strictly forbidden.

Vilks, who has been a controversial artist for more than three decades in Sweden, says his drawing was a calculated move, and he wanted it to elicit a reaction.

“That’s a way of expressing things. If you don’t like it, don’t look at it. And if you look at it, don’t take it too seriously. No harm done, really,” he says.

When it’s suggested that might prove an arrogant — if not insulting — way to engage Muslims, he is unrelenting, even defiant.

“No one actually loves the truth, but someone has to say it,” he says.

Vilks, a self-described atheist, points out he’s an equal opportunity offender who in the past sketched a depiction of Jesus as a pedophile.

Continue reading...

19 Responses to Lars Vilks, Gay Muhammad and Freedom of Expression

  • This “artist” will learn the limits of free speech – the hard way.

  • Why should some peoples belief supercede the beliefs, or lack of belifs, of others?

    Why should I, or anyone else be forced to abide by the rules of THEIR faith?

    What right does religions have to put themselves above everyone else? Is it a godgiven right? Thats what they believe isnt it?

    Religions mock the entire world with their existance alone. Grown men and women believing in old fairytales make a mockery of humanity as a whole.

    Yet we shouldnt be allowed to point out the glaring flaws, the insecurities, and the barbarism their faith entails?

    The very thought is disgusting. The very reason religions are mocked is because they demand respect for their belief, while having no respect at all for those of us who do not believe in any god.

    If one imposed limits on the freedom of expression it would cease to exist.

    Freedom: the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action.

  • I really am disgusted by the abasement of religion in this manner.

    Showing a gay Mohammed is almost as repugnant to me as it is to a Muslim, and is a deliberate act of provocation.

    Things were bad enough with Comedy Central. But the reason I defended the creators of South Park is that, first of all, they already SHOWED Mohammed in an earlier episode before the Danish cartoon scandal and no one cared.

    It wasn’t a particularly vulgar depiction either. What happened this time around was absurd – they only wanted to “show” Mohammed as they do other religious figures, they’d done it before, and saw the proscription of this time around as arbitrary and irrational, which it was.

    In this case, though, I’d say we’re way outside the scope of the Danish cartoon scandal or South Park. To depict is one thing; to associate a revered prophet with sexual immorality in such a blunt way is another. This isn’t about expression because no one believes Mohammed was gay. It is about pissing off Muslims and doing a thing simply because it can be done.

    Maybe the distinction I’m making is wrong, maybe it doesn’t exist. But I do see a difference.

  • Joe, I’m not aware of the South Park depictions of Muhammad before the Danish cartoon scandal. Do you have a source?

    I think censorship, whether religious or otherwise, should be based on community standards. In America, we’re not sufficiently outraged over irreverent depictions of religion to warrant legal censorship.

    Should material of academic value that offend community standards be protected speech? Would Islamic states be justified in completely censoring (as opposed to hide behind a “spoiler warning”) drawings of Muhammad from Wikipedia?

  • Well that kind of begs the question – what academic value does this really have? That Nathan quote could be re-worded only slightly and it would apply to the artists tehmselves – living off the fruits of Christianity, they can only mock it because they do not have the talent to meet or exceed Christianity’s greatest accomplishments. Where’s our contemporary Sistine Chapel? Our Mona Lisa? Our Pieta? Our art is ugly because our society is ugly.

    Largely we are not outraged because most of this “art” is ignored, at least by the unwashed masses.

  • Art ought to be all about aesthetics and edifying the beholder. Soap boxes/op-ed pages/letters to Congressmen are venues for free speech.

    I’m a charter member (from birth) of the unwashed masses.

    Here’s the reason I ignore art that scandalizes Christ: “Forgive all injuries. Bear wrongs patiently.”

    Our Lord will come again in glory and He probably will foresake those that made fun of His Redemptive Life and Salvific Sacrifice.

    Finally, it’s not my job to bring justice to poor benighted elites.

    Er, I don’t frequently shave, either.

    OTOH, muslims must defend Muhammed. That mass murderer is not getting out of Hell.

  • Couldnt help but notice that my original comment has “Your comment is awaiting moderation” stamped on it and is hidden from view of other visitors to this page.

    Since my post contained no links, no swearwords, no racism etc the only reason I can think of is because I do not agree with the viewpoints in the article.

    The viewpoints in this article must be fragile indeed if only comments of agreement are allowed.

    Here, there is no freedom of expression, there is only the freedom to agree.

  • Couldnt help but notice that my original comment has “Your comment is awaiting moderation” stamped on it and is hidden from view of other visitors to this page.

    Imagine that.

    Since my post contained no links, no swearwords, no racism etc the only reason I can think of is because I do not agree with the viewpoints in the article. The viewpoints in this article must be fragile indeed if only comments of agreement are allowed.

    Or, it could possibly mean I’m currently dealing with a newborn and a two year old, and — operating on about 2-3 hours sleep a night — don’t have time to moderate comments with as much punctuality as you desire.

    In fact I have no idea why it was stuck in moderation, but go ahead and assume the worst of my motives if it suits you. I can understand the guilty pleasure of such conspiracy theorizing. =)

    Why should some peoples belief supercede the beliefs, or lack of belifs, of others?

    Certainly I think nobody ought to be forced to accept the tenants of Islam or Christianity or any other religion, for that matter. Faith born of coercion is no genuine faith at all. I’m actually very much in favor of non-coercion in this respect.

    However, I’d say defining freedom solely in negative terms as “the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action” offers a rather pathetic understanding of freedom. It also poses a challenge to our ability to reside together in some kind of civil community (surely you’re in favor of such?).

    Even as a self-proclaimed atheist, I’d venture that you probably find yourself upholding certain laws or norms of moral conduct — prohibitions against theft, taking the life of another, treating each other with basic respect etc. Are these simply “beliefs imposed” upon you? Do they spring from something deeper?

    John Paul II spoke of “a false notion of individual freedom at work in our culture” —

    “… as if one could be free only when rejecting every objective norm of conduct, refusing to assume responsibility or even refusing to put curbs on instincts and passions! Instead, true freedom implies that we are capable of choosing a good without constraint. This is the truly human way of proceeding in the choices–big and small–which life puts before us. The fact that we are also able to choose not to act as we see we should is a necessary condition of our moral freedom. But in that case we must account for the good that we fail to do and for the evil that we commit. This sense of moral accountability needs to be reawakened if society is to survive as a civilization of justice and solidarity.”

    What do you think about that?

    Religions mock the entire world with their existance alone. Grown men and women believing in old fairytales make a mockery of humanity as a whole.

    Spoken like a true Stalinist. But surely we can progress beyond this kind of intolerance? 😉

    Yet we shouldn’t be allowed to point out the glaring flaws, the insecurities, and the barbarism their faith entails?

    Perhaps. But if your purpose is to enlighten and educate, you might do better than simply lash out and taunt them with the artistic equivalent of a cudgel.

  • First of all, I find it hard to believe that you “had no idea why it was stuck in moderation”. Its your blog after all, even if its an automated process registering on key words, you should have some idea how it works.

    Secondly, how long it takes for you to moderate a post was not an issue at all. I reacted to the fact that it was marked for moderation in the first place.

    I used the definition of freedom together with the term “freedom of expression” spesifically because I suspected that you might try to use the definition of freedom in the way you just did.

    The concept of freedom of expression should be free of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action. Just like the definition.

    I didnt, like you imply, include concepts like “freedom of murdering people”, “freedom to steal” or “freedom to set oneself above the law” when I put down the definition of freedom.

    As for your thoughts about moral conduct:

    Laws and norms of human conduct is a result of the society one lives in.

    If you some day take a good look at the world around you, I think you will realise that in socities in parts of the world that do not have the luxuries and/or traditions of western culture, the defintions of right and wrong are vastly different.

    Surely,if “upholding certain laws or norms of moral conduct” springs from something deeper, as you say, shouldnt people in all corners of the world share the same sense of morality?

    Yet they do not.

    I also note that you are labeling me a “stalinist”.

    Indeed, atheism and stalinism are required to go hand in hand arent they? There is no way that anyone can be opposed to religion without being some sort of communist.

    Labeling any opposition communist or stalinist regardless of which issues are being discussed seem to be popular in america.

    And then you preach about intolerance. Or spesifically “this kind of intolerance”, implying “intolerance against religions”.

    Which is appropriate, since religious groups, including catholics, traditionally have a large number of things they have zero tolerance for.

    It sure is good to know that believers have the right and knowledge to define what kinds of intolerance are acceptable or not.

    The purpose with which lars vilks lash out and taunt the muslim fundementalist is obvious: Its to teach people that they cannot have their way by resorting to violence. Many religious groups, including your own, realised this a long time ago by themselves.

    But before that, catholics and other christians were just as quick to resort to violence as these muslims are now.

    Unfortunatly, with the way things are, its impractical to wait the hundreds of years it could take for muslims to reach the same level of peaceful conduct as the major christian factions.

    Lastly, from a western moral perspective, who do you think have the moral high ground? The guy who is making pictures and drawings, or the people who are trying to beat him up, kill him and burn his house down?

  • I put your comment in moderation Moozorz. If it had been in one of my threads I would have deleted it since you merely regurgitate the “I hate religion” meme and have nothing fresh to offer to the debate. Since it was Christopher’s thread I left the ultimate decision as to what to do with your diatribe up to him when he looked over the thread. He duly approved it since he has much more patience than I do for people who repeat tired cliches as a substitute for substantive argument, and is one of the most fair-minded individuals I have encountered on the internet.

  • First of all, I find it hard to believe that you “had no idea why it was stuck in moderation”. Its your blog after all, even if its an automated process registering on key words, you should have some idea how it works. […]

    See Don’s comment as to why you were in moderation.

    The concept of freedom of expression should be free of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action. Just like the definition. I didnt, like you imply, include concepts like “freedom of murdering people”, “freedom to steal” or “freedom to set oneself above the law” when I put down the definition of freedom.

    Unrestrained freedom, absent force of law, can lead to precisely that.

    I’m curious what you might say with respect to a women’s “freedom” with respect to the life of her unborn child?

    Laws and norms of human conduct is a result of the society one lives in.

    If you some day take a good look at the world around you, I think you will realise that in socities in parts of the world that do not have the luxuries and/or traditions of western culture, the defintions of right and wrong are vastly different. Surely,if “upholding certain laws or norms of moral conduct” springs from something deeper, as you say, shouldnt people in all corners of the world share the same sense of morality? Yet they do not.

    Diverse, but now wholly different. I think if you examine different parts of the world, cultures share remarkably similar moral-cultural norms. Show me a culture that specifically endorsed theft, lying, deception, murder, injustice, etc. in direct inversion to what we think of as morality?

    For example, C.S. Lewis in examining various traditions around the world pointed out how they share similar behaviors with respect to the prohibition of murder; the doing of good towards children, parents, kinfolk and neighbors; prohibitions against adultery, etc. I think history has shown as well what happens when cultures or societies abandon or deliberately ignore such ‘laws’:

    I also note that you are labeling me a “stalinist”.Indeed, atheism and stalinism are required to go hand in hand arent they? There is no way that anyone can be opposed to religion without being some sort of communist. Labeling any opposition communist or stalinist regardless of which issues are being discussed seem to be popular in america.

    While atheism and stalinism aren’t necessarily identical, one can point to a number of historical examples (the french revolution, the bolshevik reovlution, national socialism, etc.) where atheism and totalitarian violence have gone hand in hand. And the nature of your comment — “Religions mock the entire world with their existance [sic] alone” — wasn’t far off from that kind of thinking. What do you propose then, since the mere presence of religion itself is an abomination?

    And then you preach about intolerance. Or spesifically “this kind of intolerance”, implying “intolerance against religions”. Which is appropriate, since religious groups, including catholics, traditionally have a large number of things they have zero tolerance for.

    I’m not necessarily opposed to intolerance. I happen to think “tolerance” and “non-judgementalism” are highly overrated. As Chesterton said, “The object of opening the mind, as of opening the mouth, is to shut it again on something solid.”

    It sure is good to know that believers have the right and knowledge to define what kinds of intolerance are acceptable or not.

    But there you go again — having just indicated by your example that we should all be intolerant of religion.

    The purpose with which lars vilks lash out and taunt the muslim fundementalist is obvious: Its to teach people that they cannot have their way by resorting to violence. Many religious groups, including your own, realised this a long time ago by themselves.

    As I’ve said, there is little question that many Muslim’s response to Vilks is disproportionate and extreme — at the same time, Vilks does not help the matter with his direct provocation to violence by taking what Muslims hold dear — the prophet Muhammad — and violating it.

    Unfortunatly, with the way things are, its impractical to wait the hundreds of years it could take for muslims to reach the same level of peaceful conduct as the major christian factions.

    Muslims have a ways to go, yes. But they might get there a lot faster if we didn’t resort to such tactics as Vilks. You teach toleration and respect for others by practicing it. Vilks’s desire to deliberately invoke violence by blaspheming what they hold dear is merely an echo of Muslim intolerance.

    Lastly, from a western moral perspective, who do you think have the moral high ground? The guy who is making pictures and drawings, or the people who are trying to beat him up, kill him and burn his house down?

    In this case, neither — if the guy who is “making pictures and drawings” does so with the specific intent of inciting people to violence. Come now, it’s not as if Vilks was showing photos of the Mona Lisa or Michaelangelo’s David.

  • @Donald R. McClarey

    I dont hate religion, I just oppose it :3

    Especially when some people in the various religions are attempting to put belief in god above all else, not just for themselves but for others as well.

    @Christopher Blosser

    As I was reading through your latest post, I noticed several things.

    You took my paragraph about freedom of expression and somehow try to twist it into a pro-choice/pro-life issue.

    Undoubtedly because you couldnt, at the time, think of a counter-argument that related to the actual issue that was being discussed, i.e. freedom of expression (other than groundless speculation that having freedom of expression will somehow, in a nondescript fashion, lead to a society where one can freely steal, murder, and put oneself above the law.)

    Next, funny you should mention a connection between atheism and national socialism.

    Let me quote from the The National Socialist Party program from 1920, proclaimed by Adolf Hitler, point 24:

    “We demand freedom of religion for all religious denominations within the state so long as they do not endanger its existence or oppose the moral senses of the Germanic race. The Party as such advocates the standpoint of a positive Christianity without binding itself confessionally to any one denomination. It combats the Jewish-materialistic spirit within and around us, and is convinced that a lasting recovery of our nation can only succeed from within on the framework: The good of the state before the good of the individual.¨”

    Restrictive, perhaps, but hardly atheistic.

    Your other examples are more accurate at least.

    Furthermore, in your previous post, you said “But surely we can progress beyond this kind of intolerance?” when I said that religions are old fairytales.

    Yet in your latest post, you say you arent neccesarily opposed to intolerance.

    Thanks, I guess, for demonstrating with such perfect detail that what I said previously about your brand of “tolerance” is absolutely true.

    You have the exact same mindset as the muslim fundamentalists, that your beliefs must be tolerated above all else while the religions themselves should be free to judge and comdemn and generally be intolerant towards anything they wish.

    Be honest: it is because you believe that god is on your side.

    Is it not so? What other reason could you have to justify the difference between religious intolerance against people and peoples intolerance against religion?

    Anyways, your paragraph about Lars Vilks state that he is making pictures and drawings “with spesific intent of inciting people to violence”.

    That something you made up completely on your own.

    You are basically saying he is asking for it, even though nothing has ever indicated that Lars Vilks is trying spesifically to create violence.

    In fact, saying so is an insult to the islamic people, since it implies that we should expect them to react in a violent and barbaric fashion.

    A comparable anology is to say that a woman who wear sexy clothing is asking to be raped, after all, everyone knows that men are primitive and lack the self-control neccesary to stop themselves from assaulting women who arent “properly” dressed.

    While in reality, men do in fact have the potential to control their own behaviour, and many choose to do just that.

    Similarly, I think todays muslims have the potential to control their anger and violent reactions and instead react in a modern and civilized fashion when faced with such displays.

    Unfortunatly, some of them choose not to.

  • Religions should be insulted democratically.


    Because if you’re going to insult one, you have to insult them all.

    Oh, OK, very reasonable. Now, run by me why we just, don’t tell really unfunny jokes to “insult” religions again.

    I feel like I’m in that episode of Seinfeld, where he tells a priest that one of his former congregants starts making a lot of anti-semitic jokes, and he asks him if it offends him as a Jew, but he responds, “No, it offends me as a comedian.” That’s just not funny, and therefore, beyond the realm of cartoonists.
    I get that the Jihadists are worse, but come on, are we really going to say, “we’re OK, so long as we’re not terrorists!”?

  • By the way, Moorzorz, you sound so smart. I think you sound so convincing, as though you’re not writing generalized emotional ejaculations (funny word right?); you sound as if you’re not just some pasty white atheist teenager to mid twenty year old, “trolling” (as the “kids” say) on a Conservative Catholic blog saying nothing remotely cerebral, desparately seeking attention, even if it’s only from angry papysts over the internet- that’d be like a neglected child turning form his parents to people he’ll never meet for attention.
    Oh, and also, if you could get me a copy of Dan Brown’s latest work of history, and a t-shirt depicting our hero Che, that’d be great.

    Hipsters 4 Life!

  • You took my paragraph about freedom of expression and somehow try to twist it into a pro-choice/pro-life issue.

    I was basically operating on the assumption that if you define “freedom” as “the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action”, your definition is not merely limited to “self-expression” but freedom of action per se. Hence the question: where does such freedom from coercion begin and end with respect to the unborn?

    Undoubtedly because you couldnt, at the time, think of a counter-argument that related to the actual issue that was being discussed, i.e. freedom of expression (other than groundless speculation that having freedom of expression will somehow, in a nondescript fashion, lead to a society where one can freely steal, murder, and put oneself above the law.)

    Well, I thought we were talking about the nature of freedom per se. If only self expression, then may I assume you would define freedom otherwise — and that there are justifiable limits to freedom when living in society?

    Next, funny you should mention a connection between atheism and national socialism. [Insert quote from the Nazis]. Restrictive, perhaps, but hardly atheistic.

    National socialism was accomodating of religion only insofar as they found it expedient to do so. Ultimately it became a kind of religion of its own, elevating the ‘superman’ (ditto or the Communists). Case in point — Christians who went along with the Third Reich were tolerated; those who didn’t went to the camps along with the gypsies and the Jews. For a firsthand account from one priest, see Priestblock 25487: A Memoir of Dachau. For a broader view, I recommend Michael Burleigh’s The Third Reich: A New History.

    Furthermore, in your previous post, you said “But surely we can progress beyond this kind of intolerance?” when I said that religions are old fairytales. Yet in your latest post, you say you arent neccesarily opposed to intolerance.

    You’re getting the picture. I think it would be difficult indeed to go through life without being discriminating. Moral judgement is as elementary to existence as eating or breathing. And there are things we should quite justifiably be intolerant about.

    On the other hand, when you arrive at a sweeping judgement that religion in toto is an evil and a mockery of human existence, I think such a sweeping condemnation such as your own is a choice example of intolerance born of ignorance. I know of other atheists or agnostics who are quite capable of studying the breadth of human history and discerning positive elements in religion. An attitude that simply mocks and condemns religion strikes me as a rather stunted perspective.

    Anyways, your paragraph about Lars Vilks state that he is making pictures and drawings “with spesific intent of inciting people to violence”. That something you made up completely on your own.

    No need to impute motives here. I need only quote Lars: “It should be possible to insult all religions in a democratic way … If you insult one, then you should insult the other ones.” In the past he depicted Jesus as a paedophile. Don’t tell me he wasn’t hoping to get a reaction. In no way does it justify violence on the part of the protesters, but he certainly wasn’t seeking applause on their part.

    […] Similarly, I think todays muslims have the potential to control their anger and violent reactions and instead react in a modern and civilized fashion when faced with such displays. Unfortunatly, some of them choose not to.

    I think you and I agree on this point — our hope is that Muslims, when they find what they hold most dear insulted in this manner, should be able to restrain themselves from violence.

    That said, I don’t think Lars Vilks necessarily has the right to provocate Muslims in this manner.

  • Lars Vilks has every right to provocate Muslims if that is his wish under Swedish norms as long as he is prepared to pay the price. By what right do the crazed Muslims given residence, asylum and baksheesh in the West under the same suicidal liberal norms, now claim that their Jim Jones is above caricature? The liberal order is unwinding, some honest men Lars Vilks among them, have taken it upon themselves to bring the whole house of lies down.

  • @Clay

    I am dreadfully sorry to come all the way here to this catholic site when I was searching for news about Lars Vilks, I know that people disagreeing with your views must be terribly frightening.

    See? I can use sarcasm to apply attributes to other people too. Thank you for bringing your insight into this discussion.

    In all seriousness though, I am a norwegian, I live in norway, and up here in the north there are no “unwritten rules” that its distasteful internet behaviour to display ones views on a site where people have different views.

    If there is some kind of american unwritten rule about this, please inform me about it and I`ll stop posting.

    Also, if being norwegian somehow invalidates all my views, please inform me and I`ll stop posting.

    @Christoffer Blosser

    I am not just now “getting the picture”, you have read my previous posts, so it should be pretty obvious that I was, unfortunatly, completely right about your views on tolerance from the start.

    I was actually hoping you would disprove my preconceptions on that spesific issue.

    You choose not to address several parts of my paragraph, which is fine, you are free to address the parts you feel neccesary, but I still would like you to tell me how you justify the difference between religious intolerance against people and peoples intolerance against religion, like I asked before.

    I think its because, as I said, you believe your god gives you the right to do so, but I like to think thats not your only reason.

    Furthermore, I have never said religion is evil. Religion is regressive to society, often intolerant and I would even call it irrational.

    But I do not think religious people do what they do and say what they say just for the sake of making other people suffer. If they did, they would be evil.

    By the way, if there is no need to impute motives here, as you say, then perhaps you shouldnt impute motives onto Lars Vilks either?

    Sure, Lars Vilks was hoping to get a reaction. But you said he was spesifically trying to incite a _violent_ reaction.

    Was he trying to incite violence by displaying jesus as a pedophile? Did he except christians to physically attack him and issue death threats when he did?

    I think not.

    Your misconception about Lars Vilks seeking a violent reaction to his displays are only based in your preconcieved judgments against the muslim people.

    You expect them to answer with violence, so to you its obvious that everyone else thinks so too.

    There are several other things I suppose I could, and should, have addressed, but right now I`m out of time, Ì have to head to work.

    I will say this though, Christoffer Blosser, even though we disagree on a great many things, its refreshing to talk with a christian who is willing to argue, rather than the ones who prefer to “answer” only with moderation or bland sarcasm.

  • NOTE: This will be quick, because I think Moozorz and I have discussed this long enough and are conversation is heading into other topics not related to the actual post.

    I still would like you to tell me how you justify the difference between religious intolerance against people and peoples intolerance against religion, like I asked before.

    When speaking of “intolerance”, I think you really need to go into specific detail about what it is you are criticizing. To merely condemn religion in toto as a mockery of humanity — such a sweeping condemnation speaks rather badly and comes across as intolerant. Religions, like anything else, are a mixed bag. If you study Christianity you will find that it, like any other religion, has made positive contributions to society. (Certainly as a Christian I believe it has done more than that; I also recognize that there are many instances where Christians have not behaved in a Christlike manner). At any rate, I think there are positive goods which the religions of the world have to offer which any atheist can recognize if they tried.

    Likewise when you speak of “religion’s intolerance against people”, it may help to be specific.

    I think its because, as I said, you believe your god gives you the right to do so, but I like to think thats not your only reason.

    If you subscribe to a revealed religion, I suppose it’s natural that you will make distinctions between believers and non-believers and to be “intolerant” of certain kinds of actions. But as I’ve pointed out, you don’t have to be religious to make moral distinctions, to condemn certain kinds of behavior, to place limits on human freedom.

    By the way, if there is no need to impute motives here, as you say, then perhaps you shouldnt impute motives onto Lars Vilks either?

    There is no need, because Vilk already gave the reason. He wanted to insult Muslims. He was undoubtedly hoping to get a reaction. A necessarily violent reaction? — Perhaps he wasn’t expecting to get his house firebombed (although in light of past examples, such as the violent reaction of many Muslims to the Pope’s Regensburg address — he might have anticipated such). I do think he would have been sorely disappointed if he didn’t cause offense to Muslims.

    Your misconception about Lars Vilks seeking a violent reaction to his displays are only based in your preconcieved judgments against the muslim people.

    Oh, please. Read what I’ve written about the “Muslim people”, and then decide. (I’m far closer to Muslims than you imagine).

    I certainly don’t think all Muslims respond in the way that Vilks’ critics have done — but let’s face it, there is a subset of Muslims, those who tend to occupy the headlines, who have a propensity to react with threats or actual violence when their religion is mocked. It happens. So I don’t think the possibility of such happening was remote from Vilks’ mind when he decided to ridicule the Prophet Muhammad in the fashion that he did.

    You expect them to answer with violence, so to you its obvious that everyone else thinks so too.

    Actually, no.

    I will say this though, Christoffer Blosser, even though we disagree on a great many things, its refreshing to talk with a christian who is willing to argue, rather than the ones who prefer to “answer” only with moderation or bland sarcasm.

    Feel free to email me if you wish to talk further. blostopher @

One Percent/End the Fed (Nader-Paul, Paul-Nader American Presidency!)

Sunday, May 16, AD 2010
I just watched the documentary “One Percent” with my wife and I have been reading Ron Paul’s book – End the Fed. Very interesting points of contact and dissonance between the two viewpoints.
Continue reading...

3 Responses to One Percent/End the Fed (Nader-Paul, Paul-Nader American Presidency!)

  • The little guy is getting shafted by the World Bank?

    Today’s little guy will usually be the least prepared to weather economic changes. Tomorrow’s little guy has the most to gain but he doesn’t know it yet. Thus, the appeal of protectionism. It’s better to aid the adversely affected than to shield them.

    Lots of little guys depend on big banks and multinationals.

    Both Nader and Paul are experts at proposing the wrong solutions to the right problems. I was swept up in the Ron Paul Revolution in 2008 but I’ve recovered. My biggest issue with him is that, to my knowledge, he’s never articulated how he expects to pay for anything.

  • So the very wealthy investor class member has found a way to get government to print up money to cover the biggest of losses, and enough extra money is spread around giving people some unemployment bail out monies, dubious temporary stimulus paychecks, and other little social service type funds- so that no one wants to completely overturn the current establishment.

    For the record, the folks receiving ‘bailouts’ thus far are as follows:

    1. The Federal National Mortgage Association and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp.

    2. Citigroup and the Bank of America.

    3. Chrysler and General Motors

    4. The American International Group.

    5. Miscellaneous finance and insurance companies who received access to the soft loan windows opened by the Treasury department and the Federal Reserve.

    The last were ancillary beneficiaries. The shareholders of the American International Group saw their stake in the company diluted to the tune of 80%. It was the creditors of AIG who were bailed out. That would be institutions like Citigroup who bought credit default swaps from Mr. Cassano’s outfit, and miscellaneous others.

    The shareholders of Citigroup saw the value of their holdings fall by more than 90%, and those of Bank of America more than 60%. Who got paid in full were the owners of bank bonds. Bank bonds are owned by insurance companies and pension funds, whose clientele may be affluent as a rule, but far from ‘very wealthy’.

    The shareholders and owners of mortgage backed securities issued by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac likely are an affluent crew, maybe even ‘very wealthy’. Commercial banks held about a quarter of the outstanding Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac debt, and commercial banks have depositors. Sovereign wealth funds held another large bloc, so defaulting would likely create a political problem with the Far East. Please recall that these are leftover New Deal programs and that efforts by the Bush Administration to reform their accounting practices and increase their capital cushions were sabotaged by Barney Frank, whose boy toy was a Fannie Mae official. Frank ‘cares’ about housing, dont’cha know.

    The Chrysler and General Motors deals were a gift bestowed upon the United Auto Workers, whose clientele are certainly better off than the average American, but not ‘very wealthy’.

    The folks who were bailed out were those whose defaults might generate systemic problems and those who had connections. The latter are not the generically wealthy, ‘very’ or not.

    They are both very good at identifying the wastefulness of most of the wars that now seem to be perpetual,

    Identify for me a bloc of years prior to 1940 when there was not armed conflict in progress somewhere on the globe.

    If you are speaking about the United States in particular, we have not been subject to a general mobilization since 1945. In the intervening 64 years, we were at war for 3 years in Korea, 8 years in Indo-China, < 1 year over Kuwait, and 8 years in Iraq and Afghanistan. That would be about a third of the time, which falls short of 'perpetual'. The wars in Korea, Kuwait, and Afghanistan were initiatives of the other party without qualification and none of our opponents in any of these wars were of the character of the Hapsburg or Hohenzollern empires.

    and they both see that the little guys in this country and around the world are basically getting shafted by the global econom

    Yeah, they are being shafted by reductions in excise taxes on imports.

  • I certainly agree with both men in the video. Both parties are owned by the same people behind the scenes. It is easy for us to fall in lockstep with that idea because we hear that American Electorate process is so civil and gives the people real choices.

    The more I learn what it means to be Catholic, the more I reject our broken political process. I really can’t believe my choices last year were John McCain and Obama just like people were forced to choose between Bush and Gore. Believe what you will, but they are all the same people. They are basically owned.

5 Responses to Beware Werewolf Prevention Scams

  • Where can I make my tax-deductible donation to the Society for the Prevention Of Cruelty to Werewolves?

    Or, would that be the DNC?

  • Beats me T. Shaw. As far as I am concerned, I’d quite readily wear a werewolf fur coat and dare Peta to splash blood on me! 🙂

  • Now, I can’t approve of that– they are, after all, humans. Homicidally insane humans who are morphed into hideous monsters bent on blood shed and mayhem, but that’s not so rare outside of metaphysics.

    Naturally, if there’s no other way to prevent harm (including metaphysical infection!) then you must kill them, but morally we shouldn’t have killing as our primary goal.

    Given modern situations, I doubt we’d be able to safely contain them, so defense may require us to kill werewolves….

  • Wait Foxfier, I’m now confused. Are you talking about werewolves or the Democratic Party leadership?


  • Hmmm? What does happen to the Lying Worthless Political Hack when the moon is full? 🙂

Roman Polanski and Hollywood Defending the Indefensible

Saturday, May 15, AD 2010

Whoopi “it isn’t rape-rape” Goldberg, Woody “I married my daughter” Allen, Martin “Jesus slept with Mary Magdalene” Scorsese, Monica Bellucci, David Lynch, Michael Mann, and Tilda Swinton are just a portion of the Hollywood crowd that are clamoring for the release of Roman Polanski who is being held in Switzerland waiting extradition to the United States.

Roman Polanski is on the run from the law for his rape of a 13 year girl in 1977 when he was a young 44 years of age.

Yesterday a former Hollywood starlet, Charlotte Lewis known for costarring opposite Eddie Murphy in The Golden Child, came out in a news conference that she was raped when she was 16 years of age in Paris by Roman Polanski when he was 50 years old.

Her reasons for coming out now?

Her disgust at how Hollywood is defending Roman Polanski and minimizing his offenses.

Continue reading...

7 Responses to Roman Polanski and Hollywood Defending the Indefensible

  • Joe Friday says it all:

  • It’s kind of funny to see figures in Hollywood do all sorts of moral gymnastics to defend Polanski. Say what you will about the scandals in the Church, you don’t see Catholics suddenly stretching Catholic teaching in order to defend genuine abuse cases.

    I can only imagine people would defend Polanski out of a horribly misguided sense of compassion, or they too have some skeleton in their closet that makes them think “that could have been me.”

    Seriously. The guy took advantage of a minor and then evaded the rulings of U.S. courts. Wouldn’t it have just been easier to do the time and move on? I mean, if he’s such an amazing and important “artist” wouldn’t all of his buddies been waiting to work with him when he was available again? Wouldn’t they have “understood” the horrible injustice of his incarceration and worked to put together projects so Polanski could “redeem” himself?

    I imagine all this is happening because Polanski, and his friends, know that going to jail means the end of his film career. I still contend to this day that had Michael Jackson been found guilty of child molestation none of us would be playing his music today.

  • Actually, we have seen some Catholic prelates stretch or dismiss church teaching to make excuses for sex offenders. Certainly it happens among cardinals who have, until recently, been “promoted.” For every Woody Allen or Tilda Swinton, there’s Bernard Law “and Order” and Angelo “Petty Gossip” Sodano.

    That said, I think Roman Polanski is a creepy criminal and should be prosecuted. If guilty, he should go to prison. I’m happy to stand shoulder to shoulder with Charlotte Lewis, Michael Douglas, and even the conservatives at AC in saying so.

  • If Polanski has two who have reported his actions then there are dozens more who have remained silent.

  • Todd,

    For once I agree with you (mostly).

    Certain prelates have done injustice to the many abused children and youth in the Church.

  • I think they should hand Polanski over to the 16th Century Brits and accuse him of being a Papist.

  • Actually, we have seen some Catholic prelates stretch or dismiss church teaching to make excuses for sex offenders.-Todd

    Got any actual examples supported by actual quotes?

    I’m most interested in your accusation that a prelate would “dismiss church teaching” – the criteria for “stretch” is potentially too subjective. Dismissal is an active act of the will. Do you really know of a statement from any of those prelates you named such as “Church teaching on this subject does not matter,” or was your accusation a rhetorical stretch?

Talking About Sinful Lifestyles With Children

Saturday, May 15, AD 2010

Eric Brown wrote a post about the question of whether children of same-sex-couples should be allowed in Catholic schools the other day, which generated some interesting conversation. One of the problems that lies at the root of this controversy, I think, is the question of how to deal sinful lifestyles when talking to your children.

Obviously, one of the duties of a conscientious Catholic parents is to successfully pass on to their children belief in Catholic moral teaching. We believe, after all, that living according to the Church’s moral teachings is key to both the happiness and salvation of our children, and both of these are things we ought to care about a good bit.

This much, at least, is widely agreed upon. Why, however, should that be a reason not to want your children exposed to the children of a same-sex-couple? Isn’t that simply a great chance to talk about the Church’s teachings about marriage and sexual morality?

Frankly, I (and I think many other Catholic parents) would rather not have to rush that one. Why?

Both thinking back to my own childhood and also about my children (currently ages 8 through 1.5) one of the things that stands out to me very clearly is that children are naturally dualistic. There’s a reason why the fairy tale is a genre so enjoyed by children — children like clear heroes and villains. The adult my be interested in why it is that the wicked witch became wicked, and whether she really thought she was wicked, but to a child, the fact that she is wicked is all they need. Heroes do good things, villains to bad things, and children under the age of 10-12 have a great deal of difficulty seeing people in between.

Continue reading...

30 Responses to Talking About Sinful Lifestyles With Children

  • I like your approach, Darwin, on the whole. Yet the primary “heroes” in a child’s life are her or his parents. And they certainly see us at our best and at our worst. If children can navigate our blunders and triumphs, I suspect they might be able to make distinctions sooner than we realize.

    Perhaps key to addressing the nature of sin and sinners with kids is for parents to be more forthright than my parents were. I was 29 the first time my mother apologized to me. That strikes me as being about 25 years too late.

    Kids also have a sense of fairness about them. It would indeed be interesting to check with our kids about the children of same-sex couples issues. Would our daughters and sons think it “unfair” that one of their peers not be allowed to enroll in their school because of their mom and mom or dad and dad?

    I don’t know the answer to that. Maybe for some adults, that sort of childlike fairness trumps a childish knee-jerk reaction we see from some adults.

  • A good analysis.

    But I thought that the reasoning for not admitting to Catholic school the children of parents living objectively sinful lifestyles was NOT so much to avoid scandalizing the other children, as it was that it could cause objective harm to the child, by putting her in a position where the teachers would be teaching truths that would directly conflict with the parents’ teaching by example; it would have no option other than to teach that child, “Your loved ones are unrepentant sinners in danger of losing Heaven.”

    That the Church respects parents’ right to teach and form their own children — a primeval, natural right — so much that it ought not interfere with that right even by the parents’ own consent.
    Am I incorrect about this?

  • Todd,

    Kids also have a sense of fairness about them. It would indeed be interesting to check with our kids about the children of same-sex couples issues. Would our daughters and sons think it “unfair” that one of their peers not be allowed to enroll in their school because of their mom and mom or dad and dad?

    Childlike fairness works in many ways that we seek to curb. For instance, most children under 9 I know considered, “But he made me angry,” as a perfectly acceptable reason for hitting someone. Children’s sense of fairness also often involves things which parents know are not good for them: late bedtimes, dessert every night, unlimited movie privileges, etc.

    The entire point I make here is that we at times seek to keep our children in ignorance of certain sins for the very reason that they are not yet capable for forming just and charitable responses to many situations — situations they are not well able yet to understand. Laying out the nature of same sex marriage to a child in order to ask the child if such families should be allowed into their school would mean starting out by rejecting the idea of forming a child’s experience of the world in order to guide his or her moral development.

    (Am I really sure how the digression about apologizing to children comes in — certainly, I think it would be a deeply foolish and misguided instinct to attempt to portray oneself to one’s children as being perfect, but I never suggested that in the piece.)


    I think I’d more heard concerns about scandal and about the presence of such families in a parish school (with young children) serving as a mute teaching that same sex marriage is a good thing — but I think your point is a good one. I honestly can’t imagine why, having entered into a same sex marriage or “partnership”, parents would want to put their children in a school which so directly contradicts their moral beliefs. Catholic schools are often better at academics than nearby public ones, but I certainly wouldn’t take that as a reason to send my children to a school where they’d be taught morality that I expressly disagreed with.

    I suppose one could posit that a same sex couple believes that homosexual activity is a moral sin, but live in relationship anyway — but I must admit that in our “I’m a good person” society I find that a rather unlikely claim.

  • Two notes that might add some clarity to my argument here:

    – It’s specifically the bad teaching by example as to the nature of marriage here which I have an issue with. I would not have an issue if a single divorced woman who was a lesbian wanted to put her kids into a Catholic school, so long as neither she nor the child were causing problems as regards to teaching in the school. It’s specifically the “same sex relationship” with “two mommies” or “two daddies” that I see as a problem.

    – While I can see this as a good reason for a school restricting its student body, or parent choosing who they let their children socialize with, it’s probably also fair to point out that one of the main reasons that my wife and I homeschool rather than putting our kids in parochial school is that few parish schools seem to provide a Catholic enough atmosphere for us to see a reason to pay so much more to put our kids there. So while I’d see it as reasonable for a school which did maintain an authentically Catholic culture and moral environment to exclude the children of a same sex couple — there are a host of other cultural and moral problems (routinely tolerated) which similarly cause me to see many parish schools as not worth bothering with. If I’m going to put my kids into a hostile moral environment at school, I’d at least like it to be an explicitly secular one rather than one which purports to be Catholic.

  • It’s specifically the “same sex relationship” with “two mommies” or “two daddies” that I see as a problem

    My guess is that as these relationships become more and more common, and they will, more and more children will come to hold such relationships as legitimate. And in the next generation or two, we’ll find that those who hold to the “old” view of marriage are in the minority. I wonder if being in the minority will make the problem you intentify more difficult or less difficult to deal with.

  • Bearing,
    You’re correct. Years ago our family left a parish where we’d worshipped for ten years because the priests (not diocesan, an order) decided that lesbian couples could have the (implanted) children baptized at the main Mass on Sundays. That way, we’d all be godparents!
    Even after we (& many other parishioners) were called “unloving”, “judgemental”, “homophobic” etc, we still moved our membership to another parish because we felt (& were told by the diocese) that the objection to such baptisms is that it is, in reality, “unloving” to baptize a child into a Church that recognizes their parent as involved in a disordered relationship. That action puts the child in an untenable position.
    As to why in the world the women in question would want to do that their children, I have no idea.

  • gb,

    Canon lawyer Dr. Edward Peters wrote on the subject of delay (but not denial) baptism to some children. Quoting an excerpt:

    Understandably, canon law does not specify exactly what material needs to be mastered by parents and sponsors prior to presenting their child for Baptism. But a clue as to how much (or how little?) might be required is found, I think, in Canon 868 § 1, n. 2, which states that for the licit baptism of a child there is required (beyond parental consent) a “founded hope that the child will be raised Catholic.” Most observers would agree, that it is not much of a juridic requirement, especially when the canon goes on to state that only if such a hope is “altogether lacking” can the baptism be, not denied, but delayed for a time according to diocesan policy.

    On the other hand, the “founded hope” requirement is generally considered to be more than sufficient grounds for a pastor to delay a child’s baptism because of, say, the parents’ irregular marriage situation. Although the child’s right to baptism will eventually outweigh the parents’ duty to rectify their marital status, resulting in conferral of the sacrament, pastoral evidence is clear that many couples do correctly address their own status in the Church as part of the preparation for their child’s baptism.

    ~~~end quote

    Based on this, I think you are wrong to seek denial of baptism to children of lesbian couples.

  • I’d posted this at my personal blog as well, where one of our regular readers who is from the Philippines left this comment I liked quite a bit:

    My little brothers go to a very small Catholic school and are classmates with a boy who has “two daddies.” (I think they chose the school precisely because of its tiny student body and its repuation for being “progressive.”)

    One time, my brothers were talking about getting that classmate a birthday present, and I asked, “Is that the day he was born or the day he was adopted?”

    I found myself on the receiving end of two wide-eyed stares. Then the younger of my brothers asked, “Why do you think he’s adopted?”

    Then my mother yelled from the other room: “Your sister is just teasing. Hahaha! What a joker!”

    My brothers don’t seem very bothered by the idea of two dads, but they do wonder where the mother is. They’ve asked about it, and the answer they got was predictably vague: “Oh, maybe she’s in America . . . But don’t ask your friend about her, okay? It might make him feel bad because she doesn’t live with him.”

    Anyway, I have no quick answer here; just the opinion that the situation doesn’t spell the end of the world. I can understand why parents wouldn’t want to deal with that moral question when kids are so young, but I wonder whether the political situation in the United States is making this more of an issue than it has to be.

  • My guess is that as these relationships become more and more common,

    That’s interesting, Kyle. Is it your contention that there is no ceiling to the proportion of homosexuals in the population or that there is a secular trend toward homosexual monogamy?

  • Art Deco,

    I would guess that the proportion of children who are being raised by an openly same-sex couple is in fact rising.

  • Bearing has to be correct. Seriously, the quoted assertion has nothing to do with the proportion of homosexuals in the population or trends toward homosexual monogamy. The key variable is social and legal acceptance of such arrangements.

  • Mr. Kupp, who is capable of replying for himself, had this to say:

    And in the next generation or two, we’ll find that those who hold to the “old” view of marriage are in the minority.

    Which is a reference to the lateral association between the ‘parents’.

  • I’m sure Mr. Kupp is capable of replying for himself if he wishes to continue reading the thread.
    I don’t know about you, but I don’t always come back to re-read every comment thread I post on.

    Just in case he doesn’t choose to do so, I believe I am free to express my own opinion along those lines, which is that it’s the proportion of families headed by same-sex couples and raising children which matters here, not (as you suggest) the proportion of people with same-sex attraction nor the proportion who are monogamous (because, of course, monogamy and child-raising are not in one-to-one correspondence in any population).

    The relevant population is indeed rising.

  • I suspect that in a few years homosexual marriage may in fact not only be tolerated but legislated as a protected alternative. As such it may be as in Canada where if we were to denounce such a thing we will be brought before a Human Rights Commission.
    Perhaps part of the problem is the degree to which such attitudes have been accepted in general – even in Catholic education. How many students in Catholic Universities hear about the adverse consequences of contraception, divorce and single parenthood? How often do Catholic Universities actually endorse such trends and are even now endorsing homosexual activity? How much of this spills into Catholic families that have incorportated these secualar ideas into thir own lives and send their kids to Catholic schools with the expectation that these are normal beliefs? Should the Catholic school, including the university, be distinct from the secular world? How much “in the world” without being “of the world” should be tolerated among Catholics? That is, how many ideas should be tolerated in a school, either through direct teaching or through the passive example of families admitted, that are contrary to the faith?
    The idea of the Catholic hospital comes to mind. How much contraception, abortion or IVF should be tolerated? I would say none though from a post below we see that that is clearly a problem with hospitals. While these are direct attacks on life and the foundation of the social fabric, so too is the education of children that flaunts moral norms – even if indirectly in the form of scandalous behavior. And for many children, ultimately the emotional argument that “they love each other so its okay” will trump many a logical argument to the contrary. This particularly so in middle and high school when children are naturally rebelling and more inclined to accept such arguments. Let’s not forget the admonition not to teach children evil or be cast into the sea with a millstone about one’s neck.
    I might suggest that, as there are a great deal of arguments on this and other Catholic blogs on basing our choices on the Faith and not on ideologies, that this is a good place to start. Perhaps we should not expect the secular anti-life mentality of contraception and abortion to be taught in our schools. Perhaps we should be able to condemn the sin while we love the sinner – even in a school. Perhaps if the condemnation will hurt the child then we should accept that that child shouldn’t be there. Perhaps we should accept that not offering a forum for scandal is more prudent when educating a child than seeking to provide a Catholic education for everyone. Perhaps we should accept that making such a choice is part of being Catholic.

  • Perhaps if the condemnation will hurt the child then we should accept that that child shouldn’t be there.

    If the Catholic school is a good one and doing it’s job, all the students will eventually hear condemnation of a sin that is in some way personal to them.

  • True enough. And they will hear of reconciliation and penance. And they will hear of going and sinning no more. The problem with two “mommies” or “daddies” is the “going and sinning no more part.” This especially for other children who continue to hear that Joey has two “mommies” or “daddies.” Thus that scandal that emerges from allowing such an arrangement in a school. More obvious than a contracepting family or a divorced and remarried one. Of course both of those also need to go and sin no more. And if they don’t, then the child will feel a measure of pain. And if the parents make their sin public and are causing scandal to children then they should be asked to leave also.

  • spambot,

    Agreed. Though let’s be honest, most Catholic schools are not good ones and are not doing their job. If I had strong confidence that schools were doing a good job of passing on both Catholic teaching and culture, I’d actually have a lot less worry about things like admitting people who don’t agree with Catholic teaching.

  • Amen to Darwin’s comment. If Catholic schools weren’t afraid to be Catholic, and the parents in question *still* wish to send their kids there, more power to them.

    On the matter of Catholic schools being Catholic, there is a small but promising body of schools that fit the bill:

  • I experienced quite a similar situation growing up. In my small Catholic school, my friend’s parents separated, due to the mother finally coming out as a lesbian. It did not explode my precious little mind. You underestimate your children, and seem to think that they are destined to inherit exactly your moral code. Nowhere does the bible come out and judge homosexual relationships to be any worse a sin than any other. Can any of you honestly say that you live a life free of sin, never returning to commit the same one time and time again? Are you so pure that the thought of your children learning the reality of the world makes you queasy? Education, tolerance and love are all that you need. The lesbian parents wanted to be good Catholics, to teach their children, and you forsake them? Shame on you all.

  • Eli,

    In general I support allowing the children of gay parenting partners into Catholic schools, as long as there is no deviation from Catholic teaching that is presented to the students. The parents have to agree to that at the time of enrollment, and the students must learn Catholic teaching well enough to pass requried tests (whether or not they actually believe it).

    Having said that, this is what the Catheism has to say on the subject of homosexulaity:

    2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, [Cf. Gen 191-29; Rom 124-27; 1 Cor 6:10; 1 Tim 1:10] tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

    2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

    2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

    ~~~end quote

    Eli, the lesbian parenting partners must agree to allow the school to teach their children this (in an age-appropriate manner), or no deal. They are being singled out. The Catechism has items that push us all against our natural inclinations.

  • Well, since we’re still discussing this, I’ll reiterate my total opposition to both the idea of homosexual partners “raising” children, as well as the idea of Catholic schools admitting these students.

  • Actually the Catechism calls on homosexuals to live chaste lives. Its unclear but perhaps the homosexual partners in question were living as sisters. If so, and if they were making that clear to everyone, then there would be an argument to admit them. But if they are continuing the appearance of being “married” which implies ongoing sexual relations, then they are continuing to commit acts of “grave depravity.” As such, there is still plenty good reason to refuse admission.

    Yes the Catechism does challange us all.

  • Living as sisters? Oh come on!

  • I take that from the Church teaching that men and women living together in irregular relationships (divorced and remarried) who cannot for whatever reason separate (i.e. raising children of the marriage) live as brother and sister.

    Hard to do yes. Best not to get in such a situation.

  • You underestimate your children, and seem to think that they are destined to inherit exactly your moral code.

    If I thought my children were destined to inherit my moral code, I wouldn’t be putting in hard work in order to try to teach it to them. But, obviously: yes, I do hope my children will grow up to share my moral code, since I believe it is true and I want them to have God’s truth.

    Nowhere does the bible come out and judge homosexual relationships to be any worse a sin than any other.

    At a minimum, the bible teaches that homosexual relations are very serious sins, along the lines of adultery, idol worship, etc.

    Can any of you honestly say that you live a life free of sin, never returning to commit the same one time and time again? Are you so pure that the thought of your children learning the reality of the world makes you queasy? Education, tolerance and love are all that you need.

    I absolutely do not claim to be free on sin — but that has nothing to do with trying to teach my children about morality and protect them (where possible) from its messier manifestations. There are a lot of things which I don’t think that very young children are able to think about and deal with clearly. While on the one hand I would never try to hide homosexuality from a 15-year-old, I would also never try to discuss it with a 6-year-old. Nor is my attempt to shield my children from the graver perversions of family restricted to same sex relationships — for instance, there’s been a nasty divorce (complete with adultery, calling the cops on each other, stealing each others cars, snatching the kids back and forth and constant recriminations) ongoing between a couple in our parish whose kids my know my own kids slightly, and you may be assured that I have done all that I can to shield them from knowing any of the details about that situation.

  • The bible is far more concerned with matters of prohibiting what food you eat and the clothes you wear than condemning homosexuality. You pick and choose the words of your almighty god. If someone were to tell me they took their morals from the bible, I would refuse to stay in the same room as them. The bible teaches that it is good for a man to impregnate his brother’s widow. That it is good to send out your virgin daughters to be raped by a mob in the place of 2 strange men. That after a victory, you should kill all of your enemies apart from the virgin women, who you should take for your wives. You do have more than one wife and have plentiful offspring, right? If you only have your father around, getting him drunk then having sex with him is doing the lord’s work. Doing otherwise would surely be an affront to god. I understand that this venue is not going to find anyone with an open mind, but have you read the bible lately? It’s full of filth, incest, murder and confused mistranslations and repeats. Holding up the moral writing of livestock obsessed tribesmen with no knowledge of how the universe worked is not something to be lauded.
    The catholic church in particular needs to stop persecuting others on such a minor matter as 2 people who love each other while ignoring the far more serious matters of abuse within its own ranks. Protecting abusers and exposing children to known criminals has been institutionalised. Having loving parents, no matter who they are, is not something to recriminate.

  • You are not being persecuted, and if the matter were ‘minor’, the opposition would not be so vehement about it.

  • Stop being such an emotivist, Eli, and think with the brain that God gave you. In our hyperindividualist society, in which anything that stymies self-determination is considered a sin, it’s no surprise that such responses are common. But really, give it a shot: Think about something other than the reflexive sympathy of “two people who love each other should be together.” Think about the family as the unit of civilization. Think about cultural norms about marriage and how they might be negatively conditioned by permissive attitudes and laws. Think about how the principle you apply to gay marriage would work equally well with any other number of logical absurdities.

    Just think, for crying out loud.

  • “It’s full of filth, incest, murder and confused mistranslations and repeats. Holding up the moral writing of livestock obsessed tribesmen with no knowledge of how the universe worked is not something to be lauded.”

    Ludicrous. I assume your reading of Scripture is limited to what you have cribbed from atheist websites. The lengths people will go to hang on to their cherished sins.

Nun Automatically Excommunicated For Approving Abortion

Saturday, May 15, AD 2010

Sister Margaret McBride

[New Updates with Father Zuhlsdorf chiming in]

[Breaking Update at the bottom of this post, more “mercy” killings by Sisters of Mercy]

Bishop Thomas Olmstead of the Diocese of Phoenix has confirmed that Sister Margaret McBride of Phoenix’ Saint Joseph’s Hospital and Medical Center had incurred an automatic excommunication or latae sententiae excommunication.  What this means is as soon as the offense is committed Sister McBride was automatically excommunicated by her own actions[1].

Sister Margaret McBride made the decision to kill a critically ill mother’s innocent unborn child because there was a high risk of the mother not surviving the innocent child’s birth.  In essence Sister McBride allowed for an abortion.

The decision was made in an ethics committee meeting due to the urgency of the situation.

Continue reading...

257 Responses to Nun Automatically Excommunicated For Approving Abortion

  • Little surprise. The Sisters of Mercy went the left-wing loon route long ago. A perusal of their web-site demonstrates that. All the trendy left-wing causes are present while the fight against abortion is absent.

    No doubt Mother McAuley is shaking her head in Heaven over her wayward daughters.

  • Wonder if the woman in question already had, say, a couple of young children? So you don’t do the procedure, the fetus survives, the mother dies, and you end up with three orphans plus a widower.

    Trying squaring that one with her living children…and with God.

  • God’s plans are mysterious, who are we to judge?

    So you would purposely murder an innocent child instead of allowing this child to live and a chance for the mother to be alive as well.

    All life is sacred period.

  • “Trying squaring that one with her living children”

    All of her children were living until one was put to death.

  • Mr Foster,
    Actually, that’s just exactly what happened with Dr. Gianna Molla, only she had 3 older children when she was advised by her physicians to abort her fourth to save her life. She declined, of course, because she knew she could only save her life by losing it. This proved to be true when her 4 “orphaned” children & her spouse lived to attend her canonization. So I guess we could say that her decision did, in fact, “square with God.”
    With respect, you’re “looking at the world with the eyes of man & not the eyes of God (Mk 8).”

  • As a mother myself, I know how scary it is to contemplate the possibility of dying of pregnancy or labor. What will you not justify when your life is on the line?

    Also, I’m sure that Sister McBride’s decision came out of great compassion and with sadness. So I have sympathy for her too.

    But ultimately, the end can never justify the means. The only reason that it seems easy to justify an abortion here is that the little one who is to be killed is invisible to the outside world. But it becomes quite different when you consider the prospect of a baby and a woman, lying next to each other in bed, and saying, “The baby’s existence gravely harms his mother. The only thing to do is kill him.”

    What an excruciatingly difficult world we live in. But Jesus always promised us the cross. As Christians, to take the world’s answer is to put down that cross. God give me the strength never to put it down, even were it to come to a decision like this.

  • What exactly was this condition that required an abortion at 11 weeks? I have not yet found a case where abortion was truly the *only* life-saving option. It might be true that it reduces physical risk for the mother more than non-abortion options, so they might be able to say truly that it is “safest” for the mother… but they never claim that. They only claim that they had to perform an abortion to save the mother’s life. If you dig deeper, I predict you’ll find it’s simply not true; there usually are other options. (And it seems that no journalist ever asks the question, “Were there other options? Why were the other options rejected?”)

    There is only one condition I can think of where you would be hard-pressed to avoid the conclusion that deliberately killing an unborn child was necessary to save a mother’s life, and that is the theoretically possible case of ectopic pregnancy where the embryo had attached to a vital organ (not, as in most ectopic pregnancies, to the fallopian tube, which, when it becomes a “diseased body part” as a result of the pregnancy, can be removed licitly — even if this will, as an unintended consequence, kill the child –without killing the mother.) But I don’t even know if that actually ever happens.

  • Bearing makes a good point.
    The assumption here is simply wrong, the lives of the mother and the child cannot be made to be in competition, and there doesn’t seem to be any imminent life threat from an early 11 week pregnancy. What one probably will learn is that it is a doctor’s prediction that taking the baby to full term may cause a risk.
    This is of course quite a different matter and these SISTERS need to be held accountable.
    They have given their soul over to the liberal modern world and turned their backs on Christ. Hard words but unfortunately the truth.

  • “The treatment necessary to save the mother’s life required the termination of an 11-week pregnancy.”

    This is just total speculation on my part, but could it be that the mother had an aggressive cancer that required all-out radiation or chemotherapy to stop, and that such treatment would likely have killed the child? Was the cancer spreading so fast that if the mother had refused treatment, she would have died anyway before the child was viable?

    If that was the case — and someone feel free to correct me if I’m wrong — could the Catholic hospital have allowed the mother to receive radiation/chemo anyway with the child still in her womb, even if there was a strong likelihood that it would kill the baby? She would then be treating her own disease but not intervening directly to kill the child.

    If the child happened to die as a result of the treatment, that would be a case of double effect — but it would also leave open the possibility that the child might miraculously survive. (Paging St. Gianna Molla!) However, it would NOT be permissible to, in effect, euthanize the child ahead of time on the grounds that he/she will “die anyway” or be diseased or deformed.

    Also, it’s my understanding that church penal laws (including, of course, those that impose excommunications) are supposed to be strictly construed — that is, if there is any reasonable interpretation of the law under which a person would NOT incur excommunication, that interpretation should be followed. Surely Bp. Olmsted and his canon lawyers know this. If they could not find ANY justifying reason for this action — an honest mistake being made, or a snap decision being made in extreme duress in a life or death situation — then one likely did not exist.

    So I suspect the case in question was not quite as dire as one is led to believe, and it was simply a case of one or more doctors predicting that the mother would die if she carried her child to term, and the “Sisters” accepting their diagnosis without question.

  • Actually, I should have said “If they could not find ANY mitigating factor in this action…”

    “Justifying reason” was a poor choice of words because while a sinful action can never be justified, the level of guilt involved (mortal or venial sin) could be affected by factors such as mental or physical duress, ignorance of an alternative, etc.

  • …could the Catholic hospital have allowed the mother to receive radiation/chemo anyway with the child still in her womb, even if there was a strong likelihood that it would kill the baby? She would then be treating her own disease but not intervening directly to kill the child.

    I am better than 50% sure that that would be allowed.

    Because you are not purposely killing the baby, only treating the mother (if there were no other avenue that doesn’t kill the baby purposely).

  • “The Sisters of Mercy went the left-wing loon route long ago.”

    It depends on which Sisters of Mercy you are talking about. For example, check out this story from National Review Online concerning a member of the Religious Sisters of Mercy of Alma, Michigan:

    The Alma RSMs should definitely NOT be confused with the Sisters of Mercy of the Americas — the “left wing loon” group which Don cited.

    I would sure love to know how Sister Prudence (the nun interviewed by NRO) would have handled the Phoenix situation.

  • McBride should have excused herself. The patient should have been transferred to another hospital. Catholic hospitals do not perform abortions.

  • Don, try checking out this link… the difference from the loony RSMs of the Americas site is like night and day:

  • SaraJ,

    McBride should have excused herself. The patient should have been transferred to another hospital. Catholic hospitals do not perform abortions.

    Well said.

    With the caveat to persuading to keep the baby at the hospital and if the woman balked then transfer her to another hospital.

  • Unfortunately these Sisters of Mercy from Phoenix fit the stereotype of dissident nuns.

    They don’t wear habits and wear short hair.

  • Two questions (one of which, due to privacy laws, probably cannot be answered)
    1) Was the patient Catholic?
    2) If the sisters and doctors involved had denied the termination and the woman had subsequently died, would St. Joseph’s potentially have been legally liable?

  • Mr Foster,
    As a NP for the last 20 yrs, let me assure you that neither one of those questions should have in any way influenced the hospital Ethics Comm. Both are irrelevant to the question at hand.
    To my knowledge, its highly unlikely that anyone could carry an ectopic to 11 wks gestation if implanted in the fallopian tube d/t rupture of the FT long before the baby reached that age.

  • “Don, try checking out this link… the difference from the loony RSMs of the Americas site is like night and day:”

    Those seem like solid sisters Elaine!

  • I am ever grateful that I have not had to face that choice, as clear as it is from the perspective of the Catholic Church.

    We should pray for everyone involved.

  • First, I take at face value the hospital’s statements that the abortion was necessary to save the mother’s life. Without in any way dismissing the earlier comments that cast doubt on the accuracy of these statements, I’m simply not competent to question these statements.

    That said, I agree with most of the comments regarding the moral question, including Karl’s. Catholic teaching is clear; this teaching is a correct application of natural law; and Sister McBride and the hospital failed terribly. Nonetheless, the temptation to take a life that “appears” remote and unknown in order to save the life of a patient or loved one is probably considerable. This temptation is aggravated by the practical reality that the moral difference between (i) undertaking a procedure to save a mother’s life which has the indirect but certain consequence of killing the baby and (ii) undertaking a procedure to directly kill the baby in order to save the mother’s life is more nuanced than most people are likely to grasp. There are indeed theologians, including Catholic theologians, that struggle with this distinction and question its moral validity. While the principle of double effect is well established in Catholic moral theology, it is not at all intuitive for even many very intelligent and well-intended people.

    But. Catholic teaching should not have been mysterious to this sister. She failed in her duties, and the ex communication is inevitable. Like Karl, I pray for her. I would like to think I would have done the right thing under these circumstances, but know with absolute certainty that would not want this high opinion of myself tested.

  • Karl & Mike Petrik,

    I agree. We should pray for all those involved, both hospital staff and family.

    I know I wouldn’t want to be in that position.

  • So, if the woman would actually not survive long enough to give birth–which was extremely likely–then 2 people would die. That’s pro life, right? This whole thing reminds me of what Christ said to the Pharisees in Matthew 23:4: They tie up heavy loads and put them on men’s shoulders, but they
    themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.  

    I don’t think you’d like nonmedical people telling your doctor how to treat you. Then why are you folks doing so, & why do you think that people should do so simply because they occupy positions high up in the church ?

  • I know Sr. McBride very well. I worked with her for several years. She always teaches the importance of evaluating all sides of a situation and making the best decision. As noted, the baby would NOT have survived at 11 weeks if birthing had occurred. Also, keep in mind that Sr. McBrie was ONE of several people who made this decision.

    Sr. McBride worked incredibly hard to get where she was going at St. Joe’s and I think it’s a tragedy to see this be the legacy that she carries with her. I think we have many more pressing issues in the diocese which require Olmsted’s attention. But this story gets attention and readers..all at the expense of a nun who must have anguished over this decision before signing off on it.

    I echo everyone’s comments…Prayers to all.

  • all you people are nuts. This is the 21st century and you still believe in fairy tales? A woman would have died and instead an abortion was done to save her life. An 11 week old abortion, an embryonic cell was aborted. You all need to read maybe…a science book? instead of believing that men lived in a whale for 3 days, women were created from a rib etc….

  • An 11 week old abortion, an embryonic cell was aborted


    You all need to read maybe…a science book?

    You might want to follow your own advice there.

  • I have had some experience with the sisters at Alma, Michigan. Don’t idealize them. By which I mean, Don’t go near them.

  • Randy519:
    The fact that the baby is not viable at the time it is killed does not diminish the moral culpability. This is the same reasoning use by all manner of pro-aborts — i.e., the babay is not a human life worthy of respect and protection until vialbility. That is contemptable nonsense.

    Dr. Who:
    I could not find anything in the story that suggested that the baby could not be brought to term. Do you know facts that we don’t know? Did I miss something in the story? I do think you raise a fair point in that if it is a medical fact that the baby would not survive without the mother and the mother could only survive without the baby, the moral issue at least seems much harder. If the only choices are (i) both mother and child die versus (ii) only child dies, then I do speculate whether a wrong is committed under (ii). I’ll let real moral theologians answer that one.
    But that said, the article did not suggest that were indeed the only choices.

  • Let’s assume the in my opinion less likely situation that the woman really would have died without this abortion. I think there is a rare situation in which the woman has something like an allergic reaction to the pregnancy, where this might be the case.

    The Church’s position is that it is always wrong to make a direct attack on an innocent human life. You can remove a diseased organ; a fallopian tube with an ectopic pregnancy, or a cancerous uterus which is also pregnant. In that case the life saving effect is achieved by removing the organ and the death of the embryo is incidental. But the life saving effect can never be brought about directly by the death of the unborn human being, no matter at how early a stage of development. This can be illustrated by the fact that the new tube sparing procedure for ectopic pregnancy in which the tube is flushed with methotrexate, is illicit, because it brings about the desired effect directly by killing the embryo.

    So an abortion at 11 weeks is not permissible even if it means that both the mother and the unborn will die.

    Catholic moral theology is NOT outcome based. It is intention based. Acts are intrinsically moral or immoral, and one can not perform an immoral one to save any number of lives. Newman said, to make this utterly clear, that it is better for thousands to die in agony than for one single venial sin to be committed. Catholic moral theology is not a moral theology for life in this world only. Its aim in not primarily happiness in this life, but eternal happiness. Often the two coincide, but when they don’t, then the world cries out against the Church.

    This may be one of those situations. The bishop spoke precisely and correctly.
    Susan F. Peterson

  • When I commit a mortal sin, I have automaticaly excommunicated myself.

    I can cure the problem. I may repent, get to Confession, do penance, amend my life, do good works, glorify God, and there is again Hope.

    I hope Sister Margaret rectifies her situation.

  • Randy519,

    Church teaching, ie, Jesus, agrees with Mr. Petrik.

    As Susan says, it is intention based, not outcome based.

    Sister McBride made a gross error in judgement. I’m afraid of the previous errors that were not caught in time and the many innocent life that was murdered because she *thought* otherwise.

    Prayers indeed all around.

  • Can a catholic nun still be a nun if she has been excommunicated from the Catholic Church?

  • This decision was morally wrong even if due to a misplaced compassion. A life was taken. Not just some cell (what a ridiculous thing to say).

    Yes there are difficult situations and St. Gianna Molla had the same one where she postponed treatment to save the life of her child. That was heroic but her life had been one of great faith and she had the grace to make such a decision, leaving the care of her children to her husband and the Providence of a good God. Martyrs such as Felicity and Perpetua also had to leave their babies and young children as they gave their lives in witness to the Catholic Church.

    We are, as a society, so myoptic in our views. We see only this life and not eternity. We see only ‘situation ethics’ and not true moral ethics.

    The modern religious sister should have excused herself as someone said, at the very least. Better would be to uphold true moral ethics.

    I also have known Sisters of Mercy who are in favor of euthanasia and so forth when persons are judged to have ‘no quality of life’. A travesty when our religious have fallen so much into the relativist secular mindset. And then they lead others into it as well. A scandal.

  • Pingback: Between a Rock… « Lamb Power Weblog
  • Most often when abortionists claim they are killing the child for “the life of the mother”, they are rationalizing or outright lying. We don’t know the truth about this situation without evaluating the medical case – which will never be presented.

    The secular humanists in the church have done enough damage with the sliding scale moral principal and self restraint. The massive child sex abuse ring is all the evidence Catholics need to know in understanding what happens when these people are left to do their thing in the church without consequences.

  • Wonder if the woman in question already had, say, a couple of young children? So you don’t do the procedure, the fetus survives, the mother dies, and you end up with three orphans plus a widower.

    Trying squaring that one with her living children…and with God.

    O.K. then, how about the mother of three who died fighting off a cougar which attacked one of her children (her others were not there). This mother has been called courageous and a hero among other accolades (I agree). By your reasoning, though, she should have let the child get mauled to death by the cougar because you decry the fact that she left behind three orphans and a widow.

  • “widower”

  • @ Peter
    “O.K. then, how about the mother of three who died fighting off a cougar which attacked one of her children (her others were not there). This mother has been called courageous and a hero among other accolades (I agree). By your reasoning, though, she should have let the child get mauled to death by the cougar because you decry the fact that she left behind three orphans and a widow.”

    Sort of apples and oranges. In this case, sacrificing her life would not have saved the child. You seem to forget that the unborn child was only 11 weeks old. Even if the pregnancy wasn’t terminated, the chance of survival was pretty close to nil for both mother and child. The mother had pulmonary hypertension. Look it up, you’ll find that the fatality rate among pregnant women is quite high.

  • In this case, sacrificing her life would not have saved the child.

    Mortality rate for the mother is high but it is not a certainty. From what I understand, the risk is by far the greatest after C-section. This mortality rate (one study gives 50% another 30%)is probably better than than the mother’s chance of surviving a cougar attack.

    You seem to forget that the unborn child was only 11 weeks old.

    What does the child’s age have to do with it?

    I know of women who were given death sentences by their doctor if they continued their pregnancy. These women allowed the pregnancy to continue and had successful outcomes. All this being said, I understand the extremely difficult nature of this situation. I am not judging the decision. At this point I am only taking issue with the comment from one of the posters regarding leaving behind orphans and a widower. That poster was putting more value on the life of the post born children than that of preborn children.

  • Sister McBride (along with the rest of the ethics committee) had to consider the scientific evidence they had, which was that both fetus and mother “faced a nearly certain risk” of dying of pulmonary hypertension. It is nice to discuss the philosophical theories of double effect and the comparative hair lengths of different orders of nuns, but the urgent, tragic question for Sister McBride was whether the mother would be forced to die along with her 11 week unborn child. I cannot understand how anybody could fault her for letting this woman live.

  • Patrick,

    The bishop faulted her because the Catholic principle is that it is always wrong to take an innocent human life, even to save another life. Neither life is more valuable than the other. Did you read my comment above?
    Sin is the greatest evil, not death.

    If the woman involved did not accept this she has the choice to have herself transferred to another hospital.

  • @Peter:
    “Mortality rate for the mother is high but it is not a certainty. From what I understand, the risk is by far the greatest after C-section. This mortality rate (one study gives 50% another 30%)is probably better than than the mother’s chance of surviving a cougar attack.”

    We have sketchy details about the exact circumstances. The patient may have been going into or was in crisis. I am not a medical professional, however, I have been in critical condition in a hospital. Decisions are made on the best available information at the time. You and I can Monday Morning Quaterback to our heart’s content.

    “All this being said, I understand the extremely difficult nature of this situation. I am not judging the decision. At this point I am only taking issue with the comment from one of the posters regarding leaving behind orphans and a widower. That poster was putting more value on the life of the post born children than that of preborn children.”

    How each of us reacts at a time of emergency is different. I will still say that your comparison of the 2 women are apples and oranges. They both made decisions based on the situation that they were in. The woman in the hospital was a least 14 weeks away from any kind of viability for her child, It could be that the treatments that she was going to have to undergo would have harmed her child anyway.

  • Dr. Who – you misunderstand the role of the medical staff. Medical doctors have ZERO competence with the moral question involved. They are there only to provide medical advice – the options for treatment and the risks involved in each. The medical staff are no better equipped to answer the moral questions than the patient, and often less equipped.

  • I remember reading a moral philosopher who wrote that the foundational justice of society was that innocent life was not to be directly taken (thus distinctions about guilt and about direct taking in moral philosophy/theology.) Part of the problem is that once one accepts the direct taking of innocent life as a means to an end, then how do you determine what other innocent lives can be used to what particular ends? What sort of society will that leave us with?

  • Levi – I would think not. After all, you are excommunicated, so you are outside the Church, thus no longer Catholic. Seems that following that logic, you could no longer be a Catholic nun. That would appear to be the logical outcome, but don’t know for sure.

  • @c matt

    “Medical doctors have ZERO competence with the moral question involved. They are there only to provide medical advice – the options for treatment and the risks involved in each. The medical staff are no better equipped to answer the moral questions than the patient, and often less equipped.”

    There are a number of doctors who are qualified and competent to answer questions about medical ethics. The surgeon who operated on me had his post-doctoral work in Ethics. He was also Catholic. You might be very surprised at the level that medical professionals act when it comes to ethics committees. To say that they are not equipped simply isn’t true and is misleading. Often, there are several levels of personnel who sit on ethics boards to get as much insight as possible. Clergy are asked to offer expertise, not because medical professionals are ill-equipped to handle ethcial questions.

  • Basically, the same exact procedure can be called an abortion in one case and a life-saving procedure with the secondary affect of killing the infant in another, all because of that magical force called “intent”.

    Take an ectopic pregnancy. Same procedure, but in one case it’s an abortion, in another you’re removing the fallopian tube and oops, the baby dies. But it’s okay in the second case, because you didn’t intend to kill the baby, see! It’s just happened to unfortunately occur. Intent is magic.

  • The catholic church is eager to excommunicate when it comes to women’s reproductive choices and abortion. But where were all these bishops when children (who they cheer so much) were violated and raped by other priests? And why weren’t these priests excommunicated?????
    Talk about sexism and hypocrisy!!

  • Maxou,

    God is a very forgiving God.

    In the case of the priest homosexual pedophile scandals nearly all the priests (if not all) acknowledged their sins and asked for forgiveness and received it.

    In the case of Sister Margaret McBride she has yet to acknowledge she committed a sin against God and therefore she hasn’t been forgiven yet.

    The sin of pride, it sure is the toughest one to overcome and she isn’t any different.

  • Maxou,
    Hypocrisy is the tribute vice pays to virtue. People who espouse the right things frequently do wrong things. It is the nature is sin, and the reason for the Sacrament of Penance. But people who do wrong things believing them to be the right things, while doubly wrong, are immune from the charge of hypocrisy even if they are not immune from the charge of heresy.
    The bottom line is that the Church does not expect Her adherents to be without sin. But She does require us to accept Her teachings.

  • Sam,

    There is a difference between using methotrexate and removing the fallopian tube, and it’s not just “intent.” One might assume that, given advances in medical technology, someday we might be able to save the life of the embryo removed with the fallopian tube. Far fetched though it seems, if it were possible, in that case intent would not be “magic,” but a very real difference of life and death.

  • I am not Catholic. I, personally, do not believe in abortion. However, I do have to wonder if I had an 11 or 12 year old daughter who was raped, would I believe in it then? I don’t know. I don’t condemn people for getting an abortion. That is between them and our Savior.

    In this case, however, I absolutely do not believe a 3 month old baby would have survived (maybe it’s possible, but it would be extremely unlikely). So then we have a dead baby, and a dead woman. And that’s okay? If “Mom” would have been 7+ months along, or however many months the chances were good the baby would have survived, I’m sure that she, as would most mothers, give their life for their child.
    I don’t understand the logic that both of them dead is okay. I don’t think my Lord would want that.

    It’s so sad that a nun is ex-communicated for, what I believe, was doing the right thing at the right time.
    Fortunately, circumstances didn’t allow for a one (1) week debate for the church to make their decision. If they had, I would have immediately taken my daughter to another hospital.

    I’m sure this was a hard decision for all involved, and they’re all in my prayers.

  • “I don’t understand the logic that both of them dead is okay.”

    That’s because that’s not the logic at all. The idea is to try to save both lives if possible. I’m sure no one advocated inaction; the difference is between using methotrexate to directly abort, and recepting a part of the fallopian tube. I assume that most doctors opt to abort because (1) it is not as invasive as surgery, and (2) it leaves the fallopian tube intact.

    Whether you’re on board with the principle of double effect is another matter; but to say that someone was in favor of letting both of them die is inaccurate. I don’t know the facts of this case, but I can’t imagine anyone was arguing for that.


    according to that health journal…”We report a successful maternal-fetal outcome with epoprostenol therapy during pregnancy, cesarean section, and postpartum in a patient with PPH. Epoprostenol therapy did not produce any physical or developmental abnormalities in the fetus. A favorable maternal-fetal outcome may occur with a … See Moremultidisciplinary approach. ”

    If you read the rest of the article, there is a treatment/therapy for this condition that would result in both the mother and child surviving. (Article in 3/2001 meaning this isn’t a new experimental therapy because it’s been in use for a couple of years now if now the full 9 years)

    Of course there’s always a chance for it not being successful but that’s in every part of life…if you can’t accept that, than I don’t know what to say..

    There were other options…but they chose the abortion path without considering this other options..

  • Theo, While I think it most likely that there were therapeutic possibilities, it is always possible that the mother had already failed all of them. (I mean, all of them had failed to help her, but what I wrote is how doctors write it in their notes. ) So it is worth considering the moral issues with the case which the hospital says it had.
    Susan Peterson

  • Could the bishop be asked if the Archbishops of Boston and Washington are also automatically excommunicated.

    The pro abortion politicians are in mortal sin says the American Archbishop who is the Prefect of the Supreme tribunal in Rome. If they are in mortal sin then are not the bishops and priests also in mortal sin who give them the Eucharist in that condition.

    Archbishop Burke does not offend his ‘brother bishops’
    Howver the question still stands: are those who particpate in a sacrilege automatically excommunicated?


  • @ sjdawson

    And if you look up the stats, for severe cases, even women who have had abortions had the same mortality rate.

    That at this point, the abortion is also a risk, or that the pregnancy is quite a huge risk.

  • @ Cathy from Oregon

    The nun excommunicated herself with her actions.

  • What the Bishop of Phoenix does not understand is that Sister Margaret saved a life instead of losing two lives. If the mother had continued to carry her pregnancy, she and the baby inside her would have both died. The patient has a complex medical condition that would have made it fatal for her to carry the pregnancy forward. The baby would have died with or without the actions of Sister Margaret.

    Why is saving the life of the mother not a pro-life decision? women are made in the image of God and are not just incubators.

  • Lisa,

    Is the child not, too, made in the image of God? Then directly murdering her to save her mother (which, btw, we have no certainty of) is as far from pro-life as nuking a city of civilians to win a war.

    Learn what the Catholic faith teaches about intrinsic evil and the principle of double effect. I’m pretty certain the Bishop of Phoenix already understands this.

  • Cathy,

    Unfortunately, the one person who was involved but not consulted in the decision making process is the one who wound up dead.

  • Of course the child is made in the image of God. And yes there was certainity that the mother would have died (because of the nature of her medical condition)if the abortion ahd not been performed. If the abortion ahd not been performed two lives would have been lost. Saving the mother’s life was the moral and right thing to do. Why is having two lives lost preferable to saving one? If you do not see this then you have become lost in the morass of theology that does not see women as wholly human and made in the image of God.

  • Though as I noted above, once you accept that you can kill an innocent person for the sake of another, even in the womb, what other situations can we kill an innocent for the sake of another?

  • Lisa,
    I think it is you who is failing to see the child as wholly human. It is an innocent that cannot be directly killed, even to save multiple lives. The commandment against murder is not subject to an outcomes analysis.
    If a murderer came to your home and said to you that you could either kill your child or he will kill both her and your husband, you would not be permitted to kill your daughter notwithstanding your knowledge that it would preserve the life of your husband and your daughter will die anyway.

  • This was medical situation in which both mother and child would have died as a result of the mother’s medical condition. So Mike and Phillip, its better for both to die than for one to live? Its particularly better that the woman should have died (and her 11 week-old fetus) along with her rather than to intervent to save the woman. I think its interesting that men take this stance. If men could get pregnant, I don’t think men would be saying these things or that the all male hieracrch of the Church would take the position that it does. do you not see thatyour stance totally disregards the life of the woman?

  • If women could be fathers they would feel a man’s pain in this situation. Having taken care of that issue, there is also a good chance that the unborn child was a female, I’m not sure why you’re disregarding this violence against an unborn woman.
    Beyond that, do you think it okay to drop the bomb on a city to preserve the life of soldiers who would be called to attack that city? It would in fact save lives.

  • Phillip, I worked at the hospital in question, I know the nun in question–who is also an experienced registered nurse. So I am most confident that Sr. Margaret and the St. Joseph’s ethics committee made a determination that the patient’s life was in immediate danger. Real-time medical situations do not alwasy allow for ideal outcomes. Was the outcome ideal here? No. Were two lives lost? No. I do not disregard the life of the child lost. And I do not disregard any husband’s pain in the situation. However, he does not expereince pregnancy and his life is never in danger when a pregnancy becomes medically dangerous and poses a risk to the life of the mother. But why are rooting for two people to die–which what eould have happened given the mother’s condition ofwpulmonary hypertenison. You were not there and unless you were the patient or medical professional invovled in the situation, you have logical or moral basis to decide that the actions taken were wrong.

    In your hypothetical above–this was the decision Harry Truman made in dropping the A-bomb on Japan in 1945. Was it ideal? No. Did it save more live than it took–most assuredly. Would it have been better for the war in the Pacific to have gone on for at least a year or more longer–witht he loss of more life?

  • Excuse my typo in the previous statement. Let me restate: Unless you were the patient or a medical professional involved in the situation at the time, you have NO logical or moral basis to decide that the actions taken were wrong.

  • Since this is basic Catholic moral theology, and since that states that one may not directly take the life of an innocent, and since this was done, one can logically say it was wrong. The bishop also has a moral basis, based upon the above, to decide the sister’s decision as well as that of the ethics committe, was wrong.

  • I am AGAINST abortion. If Sister Margaret deemed it necessary, I would trust her opinion and the opinion of the others on the ethics committe to make the right decision. I would place my life in their hands.
    The Bishop can allow a priest that runs someone down with his can and goes home to hide his car in his garage to remain a priest but wants to judge Sister Margaret?

  • Lisa,
    The moral rule has nothing whatsoever to do with the sex of the parties. It obtains regardless, as my earlier example makes clear. I suppose you might feel it is ok to kill your daughter so that your husband can live since the outcome is better than both dying, but that is simply not morally acceptable.

  • Milan,

    You’re note AGAINST abortion if your trust some people to decide or abortion in certain cases. But you may have to place your life in an ethics committe’s hands some day if you do adopt such a stance and you might not be pleased with their decision.

  • Lisa, the question isn’t just whether one person or two person lives. It is whether anyone TOOK their lives. If they both die, this is the action of a natural condition. If an abortion is performed, a great sin has been committed. A human being took an innocent life.

    In the one case, no sin is involved. In the second case, human beings took an innocent human life, which is a mortal sin. It is a mortal sin because God has forbidden it, in one of His commandments!

    Death is the lot of all of us! It is not the death of the body but of the soul that we need to be most concerned about. And that is the ultimate consideration in the Church’s moral theology. I really don’t think you are considering this.

    A theology which was primarily this world based, even one which acknowledges God, might be willing to make a moral calculation that in this case in which, we are told, the mother’s life was seriously threatened, the mother’s life should be preferred. I believe Orthodox Jewish moral theology does this, even though it is against abortion in every other case.

    However Catholic moral theology exists against a backdrop of the awareness that this life is not all we have, in fact, it is brief compared to eternity. The eternal good of souls is always what is considered first. Sin is the greatest evil, not death.

    Susan Peterson

  • Milan, that bishop resigned as bishop. He, of course, remains a priest forever no matter what the church does, as that is indelible. (Ordination imparts a character to the soul.) The Church could forbid him to function as a priest. But if he has repented, if he has been tried and punished by the civil law, why shouldn’t he function as a priest in certain situations?

    I think you are thinking that excommunication is what should happen for a really bad act. This is not the case. People are seldom excommunicated for sins, strictly speaking. Sin is to be repented of and is forgiven in the confessional. God, and the church, is very gentle to sinners once they have repented. Excommunication is for acts of disobedience to the Church, for acts that show that the person is in rebellion against the Church and does not acknowledge her authority.
    The nun, by her action here, said very publicly that she does not accept the Church’s moral teaching. If she had any kind of an education in Catholic moral theology she had to know that it is not permitted to take one human life to save another one. She chose to disregard this. Whether she did this out of compassion for the patient she could see (while ignoring the one she couldn’t) , or whether she did this because she was in a hard place in terms of legal liability, I don’t know. But she publicly defied the church’s teaching and excommunication is the appropriate result. When this involves abortion, it is automatic.

    She WAS in a hard place legally, because an unstable pregnant woman cannot be transferred to another hospital according to COBRA laws, unless the receiving hospital has facilities to treat the patient which the transferring hospital does not have, and this outweighs the risk of transport. She couldn’t say her hospital didn’t have the facilities to treat this patient. And if she refused to do an abortion, she would be subject to a lawsuit which the hospital might well lose, if, as I suspect, terminating the pregnancy is the standard of care in this situation. (despite what some people have said that the termination doesn’t immediately solve the problem.)

    So obeying the Church’s teaching in this situation might well have been very costly. I am not saying sympathy for the woman didn’t enter into it. but I wouldn’t make her a martyr to “compassion” without considering the rest of the situation.

    Susan Peterson

  • Let’s not forget that there is a difference — a big difference — between saying that the degree of sinfulness of an action may be mitigated by circumstances such as extreme duress, ignorance, emotional or psychological disturbance, etc., and saying that said action is “ok” or morally justified.

    In a case like Philip’s crazed murderer or a “Sophie’s Choice” scenario, I would argue that the degree of culpability incurred by an innocent person forced to make such a devastating and desperate choice with no time to think about it would be far less than that incurred by a premeditated, unprovoked act of murder. In other words they are not necessarily going to be subjectively guilty of mortal sin or subject to eternal damnation for what they did.

    However, that does NOT mean that what they did was justified or that it was the “right thing to do” — merely less evil and malicious than it might otherwise have been. They still need to ask God’s mercy for what they have done — and it seems to me that most good Christian people forced to make such choices in situations of war, abuse, extreme poverty, etc., spend many years, perhaps the rest of their lives, doing just that.

    I may be going out on a limb here, but the mere fact that Bp. Olmsted has had to confirm Sister McBride’s excommunication and make it public suggests to me that she may not have taken the necessary action to have it lifted, i.e., expressing some kind of contrition or repentance. If she had, I suspect no one outside of her order or the diocesan chancery would ever have known she was excommunicated.

  • What Elaine said. So well.

  • And Susan too.

  • I am not Catholic. I, personally do not believe in abortion. However, I do have to wonder if I had an 11 or 12 year old daughter who was raped, would I believe in it then? I don’t know.-Cathy from Oregon

    I understand your feeling of weakness, Cathy, that you might fall if faced with such a great temptation. Surely our Lord Jesus does also for in the prayer He taught us we ask our Eternal Father that we not be put to the test.

    We are baptised into the one mystical body of Christ our Savior. Those who show strength in the face of temptation strengthen the whole of that body; those who are weak weaken the whole of it. Thus, no ones good or bad choice is purely “between them and our Savior.” Though God alone judges the everlasting fate of our souls, we each participate in building up or tearing down the moral courage of one another.

  • Peopleget off your high horses and your soap boxes. These nuns deal with life and death everyday. We are not the judge of this world. God is. Yes there. Are rules, moral laws, ethics, traditions but life and death and the struggles with both are not simple they are complex and reach onto every facet of our lives. We as mere people cannot place ourselves as judge.
    Everyone sins and we’ve all fallen and it is only through God’s grace that we can still cone to Him. He is our judge.
    As a mother of two I can only say that dying while pregnant or while my kids are young is my greatest fear and I don’t know the decision I’d make in a case like this. Only God knows the heart.
    Judge not lest you be judged.

  • Roxanne,

    No one’s judging, we’re all commenting on the fact that this nun excommunicated herself.

  • You all seem to be fundamentally confused. Is this really the lesson that you have taken from the bible? That it is a good thing to let both a mother and fetus perish, for the greater sin would be to save the mother?
    If you have forgotten, there are many passages where God finds it just to for a child to be killed by a parent (Abraham and Isaac, Jeroboam, David). If that is required just to prove devotion to Him, then an unborn, unviable fetus could not be worth the life of the mother.
    And if this is a sin, so be it. We are not but sinners, so who are you to judge one as worse than another? Are they not all equal in the eyes of our Lord? If we repent, are they not all forgiven?

  • I am so happy that I left the Catholic Church!

  • Deb,
    Don’t be so glad. Since outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation.


  • An aspect of this situation which is not being discussed is the legal aspect. No matter what the Bishop says, medical staff cannot deliberately let a patient die by inaction. This is homicide. If the medical staff had not medically intervened to treat the woman, to try to save her life, a crime would have been committed. So Bishop Olmsted would be willing to serve the jail sentence in lieu of the medical personnel? And of course the hospital, physicians and nurses could be sued for medical malpractice. The bishop would pay these judgments?

    Hospitals, Catholic ones included, are answerable to all civil laws–a lesson the Church should have learned in the pedophile scandal. Catholic hospitals are not exempt from federal and state laws.

  • Lisa K.,

    There is this thing called “Freedom of Religion”.

    I know liberals loathe this thing and wish they could gather all religious together and gas them, but your socialist utopia has been an abject failure with the fall of the Soviet Union.

  • I was born and raised a catholic. I was baptised, recieved confirmation, communion, and served as an alter boy. This very situation is why myself and millions, let me repeat, MILLIONS of catholics have left the church. Better to let a woman die in child birth, along with the child, then to ensure one life. Not even if a person’s life is endangered, according to the best medical advice on the case.

    It is decisions like these, along with the new pope’s involvement in not prosecuting child sex fiends within the church, that leaves you all with no creditibility to even tell us what color the sky is.

    The Catholic church is an ancient relic of our past that would be best abandoned and ignored. Getting excommunicated was the best thing to happen to that nun.

  • “The Catholic church is an ancient relic of our past that would be best abandoned and ignored.”

    Your playing troll on a Catholic website refutes the argument that you are attempting to make. The Church will be around long after you are dust and whatever passing fads you have embraced as a substitute for the Church are dust.

  • Pingback: Booming Traditional Relgious Orders! « The American Catholic
  • I gotta admit that up to a point, I understand where the people who are disgusted with the Church’s stand in this case and say they left the church over stuff like this are coming from.

    After reflecting on this case for several days — assuming that the facts as stated are true, and that the morally correct course of action would have resulted in BOTH mother and child dying instead of the mother at least being saved — this is without question THE most difficult Catholic teaching I have ever encountered. (For the sake of argument, let’s leave aside the possibility that the doctors were wrong or that alternative treatments were available that could have saved both.)

    Try as I might, I have a really, REALLY, hard time believing that the “pro life” thing to do would have been to let two people die instead of one. And yes, it’s enough to make me think — albeit just for a moment or two — “how can you possibly embrace a faith that makes such a cruel and illogical demand of this poor woman? Could you honestly say you wouldn’t have chosen the same course of action? If you can’t, then what business do you have continuing to call yourself a Catholic?”

    However… I also have to ask myself what good would it do to abandon the Church whose teachings I agree with 99.9 percent of the time, over the 0.1 percent that I have a problem with, and over a situation that I and most women probably will never face? It’s easy to lose perspective over these horrendously hard cases, and forget that the Church’s stand against direct abortion has saved millions more lives than it has cost. “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.”

    We do not and probably will never know all the details of this case. All involved should be prayed for and commended to God’s mercy. In the meantime, let’s not let the rare hard case distract us from the nine times out of 10 when the right thing to do is pretty obvious!

  • Too bad Dr. Dianne Zwicke wasn’t consulted:

  • I read the article Mr.McClarey linked to. Aside from the egregious mistake of using “illict” for “elicit” in the first paragraph, it was a good article.

    And what it shows me is that if the Church insists that doctors try to save both the mother and the baby, they will figure out a way to do it. They have done it for just about every other mother or baby situation which used to exist, and they will do it for this one.

    This article also showed that it is likely that the mother wasn’t in imminent danger, but in danger of dying AFTER delivery. So the baby might well have survived.

    Lisa, civil laws can be wrong. No Catholic institution can obey them when they contradict the law of God! Suppose there were laws requiring Catholic hospitals to do abortions or give out contraceptives or tie tubes or do vasectomies? Suppose there were laws requiring hospitals to euthanize patients in certain circumstances? We are very close in this country to where this might be the case. A hospital can’t do any of these things and stay Catholic. The law of God-as interpreted by Christ’s Church, is always above the civil law!
    You have to lose your job, get dragged into court, go to jail, whatever, before you disobey God’s law.
    Susan Peterson

  • Randy519:
    U asked:
    Dr. Who: Do you know facts that we don’t know? Did I miss something

    All I can say is yes, I do. & I can assure u that what I said was accurate–the only reason that woman is alive today is because of the decision that was made.
    I really do not understand this. A priest abuses deaf boys & dies a priest. Others have done similarly & were never sanctioned. A nun (with medical training, btw) makes a decision, along with other individuals on an ethics committee, that results in a life being saved, & she’s excommunicated. Would some1, as I believe Tom Hanks said in “Philadelphia”, explain that to me in terms a 2-year-old can understand? Please? Cuz I really don’t. & frankly, I doubt I ever will.

  • Dr. Who,

    What does your hatred for the Church have to do with this story of an excommunicated nun?

  • Dr. Who,

    How about: “murdering a baby is always wrong”. I think a 2 year old can understand that concept.

    Your non-sequitur about gay cleric predators is irrelevant to the topic.

  • Elaine,
    I agree that this particular circumstance is tough, assuming one takes at face value that the only options available would result in either the death of the child or the death of both the child and mother. But I think the following example, which I provided above, may help crystalize one’s moral thinking:

    Assume a murderer enters your home and says that you have a choice: you can either kill your daughter or he will kill both your daughter and your husband. You would be morally prohibited from killing your daughter even though you know that this decision will not save her life and will also result in taking the life of your husband.

  • Mike Petrik:

    Your example is not relevant to the situation being discussed. This was a real-world medical emergency not some ivory tower hypothetical. To not treat the patient in this real-world situation would mean:

    1. both mother and baby would die
    2. Baby at 11 weeks was not viable, so there was option of a C-section or any other procedure to save the baby
    3. Women’s live matter and are not subordinate to the a nonviable fetus.
    Not trating the patient would have been a avioaltion of Arizona’s criminal homicide statutes. yes, sometimes it is right to vilate secular statutes. but not in this case–not when the patient would die without medical treatment. It would be crime and morally and ethically wrong for hosptial staff in an ER to stand by and delibierately let a patient die.

    I have worked at the hopsital in question and know Sr. margaret. She, the ethics committeee, the physicians invovled and the patient correcdtly interpreted the directive invovled. The Bishop has incorrectly interpreted the directive (this is not just my opinion, by the opinion of canon lawyers as well).

  • Do you have a link to those canon lawyers? Do they also know the procedure performed?

  • According to reports in various Catholic and non-Catholic press outlets, the canon lawyers know the procedure performed and the directive that Sr. Margaret, the ethics committe, the physicans correctly interpreted.

    No moral or sane person thinks its “pro-life” to let a woman die when her life can be saved. To say otherwise is to descend to Orwellian double speak.

    Bishop Olmsted was wrong in this situation and wielded his crosier like a club.

  • Lisa,
    The fact that my hypothetical was not a real situation is irrelevant, as are the facts that you may know Sister Margaret and that the fetus was not viable. I have looked for the reports you cite and cannot find them. Please provide links if you want your claims to be taken seriously.

  • Mike,

    You are not looking hard enough. Take a look at Faith and Reason, take a look at NPR, take a look at National Catholic Reporter.

    And Mike, you are not a medical professional, Sr. Margaret is. You were not at St. joseph’s at the time the decision was made, Sr. Margaret was. You are not an administrator in a Catholic hopsital. Sr. Margaret has long experience as such. Neither you nor anyone else who was not there, have no credible basis on which to second guess the decision of the ethics committee and physicians involved.

    Sorry: allowing a death to occur when it can be avoided is not pro-life, no matter how much the Bishops want to spin it that way. Women are made in the image of God and their live are not expendable. And yes, it matters that the fetus was not viable.

    Accept it: You are wrong on this.

  • What does “nonviable” mean, Lisa? A fetus is as viable as it should be at that stage of development. Should we expect something else from persons not at the same stage of development? I have a 9 month old baby; if I were to leave her in the woods somewhere, is it her fault that she is not “viable” on her own? Isn’t ripping a fetus from the womb at 11 weeks and expecting it to be viable an analogous situation?

  • Mike,

    Actually, I think your hypothetical is germane, despite what Lisa thinks. It would be interesting to hear her answer to it. Of course, the 500 lb. gorilla in the room is that Lisa (like most of us who are fallen) find it much easier to sympathize with your hypothetical daughter than the daughter-as-zygote. Our moral thinking is often clouded by sympathies toward the proximate.

  • J Christian: I think you may have misunderstood my point. My point is that if St. Joseph’s Hopsital had not taken action to save the mother, two lives would have been lost. The fetus was 11 weeks old. There was not the option of having the mother die and the fetus survive. He/she was not at that point of development. In other words, this was not a choice between mother surviving or baby surviving. The fetus was going to die if the mother died. This was not a situation where the fetus could have survived outside the womb if the mother died.

  • Lisa,
    I may be wrong; I often am. I know this because I’ve been married for over 30 years. But please understand that one does not need to be a medical professional to understand Catholic moral teaching. Anyone can question the moral decision-making of another assuming possession of the facts. I am taking the facts as presented by the hosptital’s defenders — i.e., that there was no realistic possiblity of saving either the baby or both the baby and mother, and that the only way to save the life of the mother involved the direct killing of the baby (i.e. the termination of the pregnancy). If these facts are not correct I would be pleased to be corrected. If these facts are correct then one must apply moral rules to them in order to determine moral options. According to Arizona Republic these options were appropiately described in the hospital’s two directives relating to abortion:

    The first says that physicians cannot perform direct abortions under any circumstances, including for such reasons as to save the life of the mother.

    The second states that “operations, treatments and medications that have as their direct purpose the cure of a proportionately serious pathological condition of a pregnant woman are permitted … even if they will result in the death of the unborn child.” This directive is based on the Catholic philosophical principle of double effect, which says that if the treatment sought addresses the direct causes of the woman’s health condition (such as radiation treatment for cancer), but never intends to kill the unborn child (even though that may happen as a secondary, but unintended, effect of the lifesaving treatment), then it is morally licit.

    According to the Arizona Republic, hospital officials claimed that they were following the second directive by aborting the baby. This is a critical claim and one must investigate the facts to know if true. I have no idea, but the claim is not consistent with the following report from the National Catholic Reporter:

    “In a statement, Suzanne Pfister, a hospital vice president, said that the facility adheres to the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services. But, she argued, the directives leave some gray areas. ‘In those instances where the Directives do not explicitly address a clinical situation — such as when a pregnancy threatens a woman’s life — an Ethics Committee is convened to help our caregivers and their patients make the most life-affirming decision,’ she said. ‘In this tragic case, the treatment necessary to save the mother’s life required the termination of an 11-week pregnancy.'”

    Unless Ms, Pfister’s statement is erroneous, then the hospital’s action was not an application of its own second directive but appeared to violate the first directive.

  • J Christian: Let me repeat: The real world situation where two lives would have been lost without medical treatment of the mother, the decision that was made was a pro-life decision. Sorry, but letting two lives die via inaction is not pro-life. It is Orwellian, immoral, unethical and totally disregards the lives of women as human beings.

    Sorry you all are just wrong on this. Sr. Margaret as the experienced medical professional, as the experienced Catholic hospital administrator, as the person who was there consulting with the ethics committee and physcians invovled with the patient, made the right and the pro-life decision.

    You all can Monday morning quarterback all you want. but you were not there and you have no credible reason to second-guess the decision.

    The Church through its history has been wrong many many times on many many issues. The Church has not been a pro-life institution–in the Inquisition and in other situations caused amny many needless deaths. This is one more situation where the Church is wrong. And if the Bishop cannot admit that–then he displays the historical and ongoing arrogance of a hierarchy that does not recognize it is accountable to God and to the people of God.

  • “… if the Bishop cannot admit that – then he displays the historical and ongoing arrogance of a hierarchy …”

    Arrogance is an interesting choice of words coming from someone who believes herself to be in a position to authoritatively and definitively state that the magisterial wisdom of a 2000+ year old institution, instituted by God Himself and embued with His authority to bind and loose, is “wrong”.

  • Sorry you all are just wrong on this.

    Arrogance, Jay, what arrogance? With such a fine example of indisputable logic and reasoning, who can possibly question Pope Lisa?

  • Jay, I am not being arrogant. I am stating the facts. The history of the Church is full of examples of its errors, its sins, and yes, its arrogance. Sorry, the Church is not and has never been an infallible institution. Read any Catholic or non-Catholic history/historian of the Church. The history of the Church is res ipsa loquitar (it speaks for itself).

  • Paul, you mean as opposed to Pope Paul Zummo?Are you saying that the Church has never made mistakes or that its Popes, Cardinals and Bishops have nvever been wrong and/or abused their authority? Have you read any history of the Church? have your ead any of the Church’s own documents? And to state an obvious example of the Church’s errors and arrogance, have you heard of Galileo?

  • Argumentum ad Galileo? I expect a violation of Jay Anderson’s Law in 3, 2, 1…

  • Lisa,
    You are out of your league here. After reading, you should research the difference between papal impeccability and papal infallibility. You have a lot to learn. Good luck.

  • Mike,

    I do know the difference. You miss my point. To clear it up for you–I am just saying that there is no reason to believe that the Church and Bishop Olmsted are correct in their handling of this situation. The Church and its hierarchy have been and are a group of men who over the course of 2,000 plus years have made many errors and have committed many sins. The Church is not institution free from error and sin.

  • Lisa,
    It is true that the Church and Her lay and clergy members commit all manner of error, but She does not teach error. This does not mean that every bishop handles every situation perfectly or even correctly. But you seem to think that it is permissible to directly terminate the life of an unborn child in order to save the life of the mother if that child would die anyway. I do not think that such a belief is not compatible with Catholic moral teaching. If you think that it is then you need to explain your reasoning by reference to Catholic moral theology, not just feckless assertions about the competency of physicians.

  • Mike, again you have not read your Church hsitory. The Church has most certainly taught error–again Galileo and the Church’s mistaken teaching re astronomy. The Church’s teaching re Jews and its execution and forced conversion of Jews, Native Americans and others. Its Crusades to retake Jerusalem from from “infidels”. The Inquistion and all its associated activities. The schism that led to simulaneous popes in Rome and Avignon. The schism that led to a Catholic Church in Rome and the Orthodox Catholic Churches (either Rome is wrong or the Orthodx are wrong–but somebody is wrong in their Catholic teachings)

    My assertaions are not feckless. Sr. Margaret and the hopsital’s ethics committee took a hard look at the directives and made the right interpretation.

    And again, any decision that leads to needless death, as Bishop Olmsted advocates in this situation, is not a pro-life position. It is by its nature a pro-death psoition. That is the Bishop is saying that the Church advocates death for both mother and child in a situation where the child cannot be daved. That is pro death.

  • Lisa,
    Leaving aside your twisted understanding of Church history, the Galileo episode, and the interplay with moral theology, what exactly do you mean by “hard look”? Did she take a hard look and ignore them, or take a hard look and apply them? If the former, then it is hardly surprising that she would be repremanded for knowingly disregarding Catholic moral teaching. If the latter, then her position must be that the hospital did not directly terminate a pregnancy in order to save the mother’s life but instead undertook medical treatments necessary to save the mother’s life which indirectly (though inevitably) resulted in the termination of the pregnancy. This is an important distinction. The hospital’s statement, however, does not seem to support this position. Instead, the hospital’s position *seems* to be that they are permitted to ignore the directives in “close cases” and replace them with whatever “life-affirming” moral rules they choose. Fine, but don’t pretend to be a Catholic hospital and don’t expect agreement from your Catholic bishop.

  • “Any position that leads to needless death is not a pro-life decision.”

    Lisa, you really must study up on the error of consequentialism, because that is exactly what you are advocating.

  • Lisa,

    You’re really missing the boat here. Aside from your misunderstanding of historical events, you need to differentiate between what Church teachings are matters of faith and morals and which aren’t.

    You obviously have your own sense of morality that is informed independently of the Church’s moral teaching. That’s your perogative, but Catholics believe that the Church is the pillar and bulwark of Truth – and that when She teaches on faith and morals She cannot err. Every single member of the Church could be an adulter, but that would not negate the objective Truth of the Church’s teaching that adultery is immoral.

    Likewise, the Church teaches it is never okay to intentionally kill an innocent person even if you perceive some greater good from it. If you don’t believe a baby in the womb is an innocent person, fine, but the context here is within the Catholic understanding of life.

  • Mike, my understanding of Church history is not twisted. Just stating the facts–ie the Church can be wrong in how it approaches morality. It teaching on morality are what led to the Inquisition to the Crudades, to executions and forced conversion of Jews, native American, and others. A recent example of error on the part of the Church is the Church’s position on grace. In a recent agreement with the Lutheran Church, the Roman Catholic Church has backed off the Council of Trent position that salvation is the result of grace and good works. Now the Roman Catholic Church has formally agreed (in writing) with the Lutheran Church that it is by grace alone that God offers us salvation.

    So either the teaching of the Council of Trent was in error or the current teaching of the Catholic Church is in error. Either way, someone was wrong.

    By ‘hard look”, I obviously mean that the Sr. Margaret and the ethics committee looked at the directives governing th situation in a Catholic hopsital. They intepreted the directives correctly in and made the correct pro-life decision in light of the directives.

    Just because the Bishop, who is another Mondy morning quarterback and not a medical professional, disagrees, does not mean he is right. He is wrong, has abused his authority, and his used his crosier like a club.

    St. Joseph’s remains a Catholic hospital. It is pro-life, not pro-death (as the Bishop would advocate)

    Sorry Mike, any way you want to spin this, the Bishop by his own statements, advocates death in a situation like that seen at St. Joseph’s. He can call himself pro-life all he wants, but when he says let a woman die needlessly, do not provide her witht he the medical care that will save her life–then the Bishop is a pro-death advocate.

  • Wow RL, you have a grave misunderstanding of the Church. It has made errors in its teaching of morality. And if you don’t believe that then you have not looked at the Church with any kind of analytical thinking. Sorry, the Church is not a bulwark of Truth. It has made errors in it teaching of morality. If you do not beleive that, then you have no unerstanding of the history of the Church.

    But my main point is that, the Bishop has incorrectly interpreted the directive that governed St. Joseph’s response in the situation we are talking about. Sr. Margaret and the St. Joseph’s ethics committee correctly interpreted it. Yes, Bishops can be wrong.
    The Bishop is pro death advcate. Sr. Margaret is a pro-life advocate.

  • Mike,

    How can Church and it Bishop call themselves pro-life and advocate death? I am not advocating consequentualism. I am advocating life. you are advocation death to hopelessly try to support the twisted logic of some Bishop who thinks its moral to allow someone to die when her life can be saved. Sorry, women are not subordinate to their biology. Women’s lives are lives. It is pro life to save the life of a woman.

  • you are advocation death to hopelessly try to support the twisted logic of some Bishop who thinks its moral to allow someone to die when her life can be saved.

    Babelfish must really be on the fritz.

  • Yes, Paul it trying still to invince ignorance.

  • Pope Lisa

    Please no name calling.

    Let the discussion continue as long as everyone is respectful of each other.


    P.S. Work on those gravatars if you have time.

  • “It has made errors in its teaching of morality”

    According to whom? Your personal magisterium? Excuse me if I’m unimpressed by your argument.

  • Lisa K,

    “It teaching on morality are what led to the Inquisition to the Crudades”

    Yeah. So?

    The Crusades were just wars. It was right and good that they happened. I don’t apologize for them, I celebrate them.

    As for the Inquisition, it is simply a historical fact that physical punishments and executions for heresy were ordered by the secular rulers of society, not by the Church. In fact, most suspected heretics welcomed a chance to appear before the Church as opposed to the secular courts, precisely because the latter almost never shed blood.

    Don’t confuse what the Spanish crown did with what the Church did.

  • And as for this:

    ” The Church has most certainly taught error–again Galileo and the Church’s mistaken teaching re astronomy.”

    You have no conception of what the debate was about. Did you read that silly play by Brecht or something?

    The Church did not “teach error” – the Church simply insisted that Galileo a) not make claims about the relevance of his findings for theology (which he did, loudly and obnoxiously), and b) that he present his theory as a hypothesis, not a proven fact (which he refused to do). In other words, the Church wanted Galileo to act like a real scientist and not a prophet.

    You really just know nothing about the Church’s role in science, the fact that it encouraged and promoted the sciences and even debate therein, the fact that the Pope during the Galileo affair was initially very sympathetic with him and only took umbrage after he publicly insulted him.

    Read a book before you say such things.

  • Sorry guys–the Church did teach error. Again do your reading. And for a recent example look at the Church’s backing off the teaching of the Council of Trent re grace. The Council said that slavation is accomplished via grace and good works. Most recently, the Church ahs agreed with the Lutherans–that salvation is accomplished via grace alone. So either the Council of Trent was wrong or the recent aggreement with the Lutheran Church is wrong.

    And Joe, the fact that you are proud of the Crusdades–the murder of Jews, Muslims, other Christians just speaks volumes about how you view life and how you support the arrogance of the Church. The Crusades were not noble–just a medieval Christian version of jihad that wasted lives and accomplished nothing.

    And yes, the Inquisition was an activity of the Church. Forced conversions and the murder of Jews, Native Americans and others were committed by and approved by the Church.

    And J. Christian, you do not need to be impressed by my arguements–I don’t care if you are or are not. just read your Church history.

    Tito Edwards, I engaged in no name calling.

    You guys can sit in your ivory towers and count how many angels dance on the head of a pin, but the rest of us moral and sane people will work actively to save the lives women, children, and men wherever and whenever possible. That’s what it means to be pro life.

  • …And you “sane people” will continue to murder others by the millions at the same time. This isn’t an ivory tower, Lisa: It’s a guard tower, and we’re trying to keep

  • I don’t advocate the murder of others. The pro death message is coming from Bishop Olmsted and those who agree with him.

    The Church is not a guard tower. Remember Pope John XXIII? He convened Vatican II to throw open the windows of the Church and to let fresh air in.

    A mind and, I would argue, the Church, are like a parachute–it only works when it is open.

  • Ivory towers?

    No one despises academia more than myself.

    The Crusades were noble. Do you know anything about them? Do you know anything about the 400 years of Islamic and Turkish aggression that preceded them? About the desperate plea of the Eastern Greek Christians to Latin Christendom for military aid? About the murder of Christian pilgrims in the Holy Land by the Turks?

    The Crusades were not a “jihad.” They were not waged to convert Muslims to Christianity. That’s the biggest lie. Only a few sporadic and unsuccessful attempts at conversion were ever made. The object of the Crusades was to reclaim the Holy Land for Christianity and to protect the Eastern frontier for Christian society from a ruthless and aggressive foe.

    Unfortunately they failed and Southeastern Europe fell entirely to the Turks for the next 7 centuries or so. My ancestors, the Maronite Christians of Lebanon, were nearly genocided by them.

    “And yes, the Inquisition was an activity of the Church. Forced conversions and the murder of Jews, Native Americans and others were committed by and approved by the Church.”

    The Church reigned in the Spanish Inquisition, first of all. In the second place, you are absolutely wrong – in the 13th century the Papacy formally proclaimed that forced conversions of Jews were not acceptable, and denounced the blood libels against them. Christians were not to persecute Jews on pain of excommunication. You know nothing of Church history. You’ve been taught lies, and you are repeating lies.

    Read something for once:

  • Remeber J Christian, that women are created in the image of God. Women’s live are as holy, sacred, precious, and worth protecting as is any unborn child’s.

  • So I guess I go back to the beginning. It was not possible to save both live in the situation at St. Joseph’s. That does not mean it is OK to to withhold medical treatment so that both lives are lost. That is a pro death, immoral, criminal and unethical position. .

  • Lisa, a good short item to read to help cure your obvious bone ignorance regarding the Crusades:

  • Remember Lisa, the unborn baby is created in the image of God, and her life is just as sacred. We human beings do not have the right to take a human life even to save another human life. That the baby was not viable is what makes this situation difficult. It isn’t something that makes it right to kill the baby.
    If both die because medical knowledge is not advanced enough to save them, no sin has been committed. Something very sad has happened, which is part of human life. People get sick and die and sometimes there is nothing we can do about it. In this case, there apparently , if what you say is correct, nothing which could be done about it except kill the unborn child, and that is something no Catholic should even consider. Nor is there ANY double effect situation here. This is just plain, kill the baby to save the mother, which has always been forbidden.
    Face it, you are wrong here. The bishop is correct and he is doing his job.
    Susan Peterson

  • And Lisa, people have mentioned that you are ignorant about the Crusades and the Inquisition. I don’t think anyone called you on the Trent thing. I have read Trent on Justification and I have read the Joint Declaration. And I can tell you that the Joint Declaration only tries to explain the Catholic position on Justification in terms more understandable to Protestants. Some Protestants do say, “Oh, then, if that’s what you meant…” But the Protestants who are most serious about Sola Fide don’t buy it at all. They say, “You have just tried to make this sound good to us by using some of our terminology, but underneath it is Trent all over again. ”
    The Church has not changed its position. It still believes in infused grace by which we are enabled to do truly meritorious works, although of course it is Christ working in us and all the merit is His.
    Susan Peterson

  • Donald, so you think the Crudades accomplished something? You think ti was a good thing to try to retake Jerusalem by killing Jews, Muslims, and other Christians? Talk about a pro death position.

    As much fun as I have in these exchanges, I see that most of you have had too much of the pro death anti woman Catholic hierarchy kool-aid.

    Hve fun out there with that.

  • “Donald, so you think the Crudades accomplished something? You think ti was a good thing to try to retake Jerusalem by killing Jews, Muslims, and other Christians? Talk about a pro death position.”

    If you weren’t so abysmally ignorant on the Crusades Lisa, I doubt you would ask such a foolish question. By bringing Western military power against Islam the fall of Constantinople to the Turks was delayed until 1453. The Byzantine Empire had suffered a severe defeat at the battle of Manzikert at the hands of the Turks in 1071. They were no longer able to hold the line in the East against Islam and were desperate for military aid from the West. Absent the Crusades I doubt if Constantinople would have survived much beyond 1150. This would have led to Islam taking over the Balkans three centuries before it did historically. These three centuries were crucial in that by the time the Turks marched against Vienna in 1529 the West was already beginning to surpass Islam technologically. Vienna besieged in 1229 might have been the beginning of a process that would have seen the conquest of Europe by Islam. The fact that you are not forced to wear a burka, and are free to leave snotty posts on a Catholic web site, you probably owe to the Crusades you deride.

  • In this case “abysmally ignorant” may be awfully close to “invincibly ignorant,” I’m afraid.

  • Lisa, I admire your tenacity on this. I confess I would have declared myself the winner and moved on to the next thread long ago.

    That said, I’d say that this whole misadventure in Arizona points out the lack of consistency in the Church’s approach here. A person decides on separating the embryo from the mother so the mother may live: excommunication. Not so for a man who rapes a pregnant woman and kills both, or for an unwanted baby born alive who is murdered after premature delivery.

    Five months after the fact, do we know Bishop Olmsted was really working with all the facts? He seems pretty okay with forgiving a hit-and-run driver who killed a pedestrian. The man doesn’t exactly exude credibility. Lots of confusion to go around, it would seem, and really, what was the point with this excommunication anyway? It has the whiff of republicanism–these guys have been hanging around too many Karl Rove disciples.

    For the record, a better approach to excommunciation would be to include a repersentative group from a community of confessors, people in religious life, and those with a spiritual gift for reconciliation and discernment. Lets assess something is really appropriate matter for separation from the Christian community and not an excuse for hierarchy vendettas.

  • You would have declared yourself the winner, huh?

    And by doing so, you would have been just as wrong as you are on virtually every other topic on which you take a position.

  • Todd,

    That various other serious sins do not incur automatic excommunication does not in any sense mean that they are not mortal sins would could, if unreprended, cause the sinner to suffer eternally in hell. How much more serious than that do you really think the Church needs to be?

    I would imagine that the reason that there is penalty of excommunication placed on abortion but not on rape and murder is that there is no dispute as to whether rape and murder are wrong. Excommunication is, after all, not a statement as to the gravity of sin, but rather a means of teaching and correction.

  • Jay, I did not say I would have declared myself the winner. See Todd’s post above–dated May 26

    I think there are no winners here. A lot of heat and no light was generated in these discussions re Sr. Margaret.

  • I find it hideously ironic, but not at all surprising that this statement:

    “A lot of heat and no light was generated in these discussions re Sr. Margaret.”

    followed this statement:

    “I see that most of you have had too much of the pro death anti woman Catholic hierarchy kool-aid.”

    (not to mention the irony of someone who thinks murdering a helpless child can be a pro-life solution to a problem)

  • Lisa,
    There was plenty of light generated. Sorry you didn’t notice.

    You are correct, of course, and Todd is well aware of it, which makes his comment all the more disingenuous.

  • So when the going gets tough, the tough toss away moral principles? Life is difficult, that is precisely why we have moral principles to guide us with difficult decisions.

    As for ethics panels, I have come across a few in my hospital dealings. Most are concerned about and focus on medical-legal issues, not moral issues. Most medical ethics education is likewise focused on what is legal rather than what is moral.

    Additionally, pulmonary hypertension can be treated through various nonsurgical modalities up to 20 or so weeks without significant increase in risk to the mother, but with higher likelihood of viablity for the fetus. It is the demands of later pregnancy and labor itself that put the heaviest burdens on the circulatory and pulmonary systems (most studies with high maternal mortality rates involved term fetuses). So I am suspect that termination was necessary at 11 weeks.

    Putting all that aside, even assuming termination at 11 weeks was necessary to save the mother, the moral question based upon Catholic teaching is rather straightforward – is the taking of one innocent life justified to save the life of another? Or, can a good end justify using evil means? The answer is clearly “no.”

    But having a clear answer does not make the decision to follow it any easier. I do not doubt it was a difficult decision for all involved, including the Sister. Unfortunately, her sympathies seem to have clouded her judgment (understandable in these circumstances). The purpose of having clear teachings is to give us the right path to take precisely when our judgment is clouded by sympathy, feelings, difficult circumstances, etc.

  • Matt C: I will say again what I have been saying: its easy to be the Monday morning quarterback. You were not at St. Joseph’s when this patient came in, you did not see what Sr. Margaret, the ethics committee and the physicians were seeing. You cannot judge or condemn the actions taken bbecause you do not know the facts.

    Knowing Sr. Margaret and knowing St. Joseph’s–here is what I know: this decision would not have been and was not made without serious thought about what the Catholic healthcare directive say re abortion.

    For all you folks you are so certain that it would be OK to let let the mother die with her baby rather than save her life: I want you to go an ER in any hospital in your city, to see what goes on there and then tell medical staff that they have to let a young woman die because dying is a pro life thing to do. Put your money where your mouth is, so to speak. If you have never been in the ER to see how this works in large urban hospital, then you are in no position to judge Sr. Margaret.

  • Mike, working both within and outside of the Church, I’m aware of the reasons why excommuncation is applied, but also how it is perceived by both non-Catholics and ordinary believers. I reject your suggestion of my being disingenuous. We Catholics always have to be on the lookout for scandal–in this instance the perception of harshness and the disconnect between the gravity of sin and the Church’s use of excommunication.

    I’ve not seen anything publicized about the medical situation, so while some of us have some background in general medical care of pregnant women, it doesn’t appear any of us have the full story.

    We might conclude that if a medical decision suddenly became necessary at 11 weeks, this case was probably outside the norm, and as such, resulted in a higher level of difficulty for those involved.

    Still, the whole episode is curious. I have to point out the general level of distrust among pro-life Catholics.

    And a final poke at this quote:

    “Basically Sister Judith Carle could have cared less …”

    Leaving aside the lack of charity in presuming any of us can discern another’s compassion from a second-hand quote addressing another issue entirely, the quote as taken literally is probably correct. If you want to insult someone, write, “she couldn’t have cared less.” The way this statement was typed literally means Sister Carle had a significant level of compassion, therefore she *could* have cared less.

  • Matt C: there are 4 other things you should know about the situation at St. Joseph’s

    1. St. joseph’s has been a Catholic hospital in Phoenix since 1895 and takes it identity as aCatholic hospital very seriously.

    2. There are 2 healthcare directives in place in Catholic hospitals that concern abortion. under one of those directives abortions are permitted to performed in Catholic hospitals under certain conditions. That is why this is not a black and white/straight forward situation. That is why there are 2 directives on this issue in place in Catholic hopsitals. This why Sr. Margaret and the ethics committee ahd to look at that directive and interpret it.

    3. The ethics committee at St. Joseph’s is concerned with following Catholic teaching–see #1 above. It is not all about medical-legal issues. At St. Joseph’s it is about fidelity to being a Catholic hospital.

    4. Sr. Margaret did not make the decision alone–she is just the public face of the decision. The decision was made by the ethics committee, Sr. Margaret, the physicians caring for the patient and the patient herself.

  • Canon lawyer Fr Thomas Doyle has a written an article that sets out the moral complexities faced by Sr. Margaret and St. Joseph’s Hopsital. It can be found on the online verion of National Catholic Reporter.

    It is called Shades of Gray in a World of Apparent Absolutes. It discussed the Catholic health service directives regarding abrotion in Catholic hospitals and other issues.

    Before you condemn Sr. Margaret read it.

  • “And by doing so, you would have been just as wrong as you are on virtually every other topic on which you take a position.”


    Point to Jay.

  • Todd,

    You are still being disingenous. Aside from presuming, without any evidence whatsoever, that the Bishop may have been cavalier about the facts, you knowingly tender inapt comparisons and now try to justify them by suggesting you were only pointing out how it all might *seem* hypocritical to the uninformed. Your passive-agressive dissembling is embarrassingly ineffective.

    That said, I do agree that any statement that presumes to judge Sister Judith’s level of compassion is out of line (notwithstanding your insufferable pedanticism). Moreover, as I and other comment contributors have already noted, Sister Margaret was in a very difficult situation and good people often do bad things in such situations. But your assertion that we don’t know all the facts, while not entirely unture, is exaggerated. The problem with this assertion is that the Hospital’s own statement admits that a pregnancy was terminated in order to save the mother’s life. An honest person would take the time to look it up before speculating otherwise. Admittedly, it is possible that the Hospital’s statement was inaccurately crafted, but in such a case a clarification would certainly have been subsequently offered. Indeed, I am unaware of any knowledgable party claiming that the Hospital did not directly kill the child. Instead, the claim is simply that such killing should be considered justified relying on the reasoning set forth by Sister Judith.

    I am sympathetic with Sister Margaret, I truly am. And I acknowledge that I do not know what I would have done under such circumstances. We often choose to do the wrong thing when the temptation is great. But Sister Margaret’s precise job was to ensure that the right thing is done in hard cases, and she failed. And this failure was not small matter. While to my knowledge she has not commented on this episode, the Hospital’s statement suggests that the direct termination of a pregnancy can be morally justified if it is sufficiently “life-affirming” or some such thing. That is not Catholic teaching. Period. Full stop. I have no doubt that the excommunication will be promptly lifted the moment Sister Margaret admits her error and expresses remorse; indeed, I speculate that the excommunication’s public declaration would never had occured if Sister Margaret had done so at any time during the intervening months.

  • Mike, for a viewpoint from a canon lawyer take a look at the artcle found on the online edition of National Catholic Reporter.

  • Lisa,
    You seem to have no idea what the two directives you reference actually say. They are two perfectly compatible rules. The first makes it clear that an unborn child, as an innocent, cannot be *directly* killed. Ever. The second clarifies that the death of an unborn child as the *indirect* result of the medical treatment of the mother (i.e., not an abortion) can be justified under the described circumstances even if such death is understood as inevitable or predictible. A termination of a pregnancy (i.e. an abortion) is never permitted under that second directive. None of the statements issued by the Hospital or its board members attempt to argue that a direct abortion was not approved. Instead they argue that the approval of the direct termination was morally licit because the baby was going to die anyway. This explanation cannot be squared with either directive and cannot be squared with Catholic moral teaching.

    It is, I suppose, conceivable that Sister Margaret simply did not have a proper understanding of Catholic teaching and the related moral directives. Such a possiblity is hard to believe given her specific duties at the Hospital, but it more or less is the point being made by Fr. Doyle. Doyle does not really try to defend her action as such, but goes on and on about how excommunication (or at least its public declaration) may have been inappropriate given the extreme pressures she was under, which pressures may have reduced her culpablity to the point where excommunication was inapt. Perhaps, though such an argument would be more convincing if was corroborated by Sister Margaret by word or action. Simply playing the part of the silent victim securing all manner of perverse accolades from the secular (and dissenting Catholic) media is hardly consistent with Fr. Doyle’s theory.

  • Mike, yes I do know what the directives say. I have read them

    As for Sr. Margaret “playing the silent victim”–that is an assumption n your part. I think it is more rreasonable to beleive that the hospital, the Sisters of Mercy, and Catholic Healthcare West have asked, perhpas ordered Sr. Margaret to remain silent until a resoultion can be worked out with the Bisohop and/or until the Sister of Mercy decide on whether Sr. Margaret remains in the order or not.

    You misread Fr. Dayle in respects and merely dismiss the canon lawer as ‘dissenting” how convenient, since his explanation does not fit into your world of absoultes. It si clear from the Fr. Doyle’s article that the situation is not a matter of absolutes.

  • I have to agree with Mike. Nowhere does Fr. Doyle argue that an abortion was not performed – that is, that there was not the direct taking of an unborn life. This is further supported by the quote Fr. Doyle notes:

    “What she did was something very few are asked to do, namely, to make a life-and-death decision with the full recognition that in order to save one life, another life must be sacrificed,” Garvie said. “People not involved in these situations should reflect and not criticize.”

    Clearly, what was done was directly taking one life to save another. That is clearly contrary to the Ethical and Religious Directives for Health Care Services of the USCCB.

    This is distinct from a situation where a drug was given to the other to reduce pulmonary hypertension but, as a foreseeable but unintended consequence, resulted in the death of the unborn child. But again, you can’t say that from the available information, that Sister McBride and St. Joseph’s acted in accord with Catholic directives.

  • But I believe Lisa accepts that one can take a life to save anther. She seems to accept the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. She should also accept the Bush Administration’s enhanced interrogation techniques.

  • Lisa:
    The fact that you read the directives does not convince me you understand them. After all, you presumably read my comment somehow accuse me of dismissing him as “dissenting.”
    That said, I agree that it is possible that Sister Margaret’s silence is imposed. Are you suggesting that if it were not imposed she would be claiming that while her decision was morally wrong it should be understood to have been understandable given the pressures she was under?

    In the end I’m not all that interested in Sister Margaret, or her excommunication. What I am interested in is upholding Catholic moral teaching. And that teaching does not allow for the intentional direct taking of a human life, and the directives you claim to have read make that clear. Whether excommunication occured latae sententiae is a matter of canon law (not moral teaching as such) and whether it should be declared publically is a matter of the Bishop’s prudential judgment. What is not debatable, however, is the principle that a direct killing of an innocent homan life is never permissible. Ever. The Hospital’s statement suggests it believes otherwise, as does Sister Judith’s letter. And apparently you believe so too. We are all entitled to our beliefs, but the belief that an innocent life can be directly and deliberately killed in order to save the life of another is simply not compatable with Catholic moral teaching. That is true even if that life is going to die anyway, though I certainly concede that the outcome is tragic. But Catholic moral teaching is not simply outcome driven. This is why Catholic theologians generally agree that the Hiroshima bombing was morally impermissible even though it is generally accepted to have saved many more lives than it took.

  • Nobody is saying that an abortion was not performed. If read the article from the canon laywer he says that the situation placed Sr. Margaret in a position of “moral powerlessness” and “that Norm 47 interjects a shade of grey that pits the absolute up against the often painful, uncontrollable and unpredictable circumstances of life. The canonical criminality of the choice made by the sister and the others is by no means as cut and dried as it may have seemed to the bishop and his advisors. The canon law on abortion is quite clear. What is also clear is that the same canon law recognizes that real-life situations can be agonizingly complex. In this case the full recitation of the facts (to use the stark canonical terminology) seem to argue for the protection of the sister, the mother and all others involved from the harshness of excommunication rather than for their condemnation.

    He says, “The canonical criminality of the choice made by the sister and the others is by no means as cut and dried as it may have seemed to the bishop and his advisors.”

    If you guys are canon lawyers then you may credibly dispute this. Otherwise you have no credibility in disputing this conclusion. Even the Church’s canon lawyers see this as situation that is not absolute.

    Or as a friend of mine once said: Jesus died to take away or sins, not our brinas.”

  • Sorry about thetypo in the last sentence ther. Let me restate” Or as a friend of mine once said, “jesus died to take away our sins, not our brains.”

  • Sorry guys, you still lack credibility to dispute what the canon lawyer has said.

    Other than that your comments do not warrant my taking time to respond to your silliness.

  • The Fr. Doyle piece I found at NCR does not reference any Canon Law exemptions to abortion. Perhaps you can link your source.

  • Lisa,
    You can appeal to authority till the cows come home, but then you have to acknowledge that a Bishop trumps a canon lawyer, especially one who knows less facts than the bishop. Moreover, you continue to misread Doyle. Doyle is not suggesting that the decision is morally defensible — he’s too careful to do that. He’s making the case that the situation was so difficult and agonizing that she is not sufficiently morally culpable for excommunication to be proper. Read it carefully.

  • I can’t believe that anyone is taking anything Father Doyle says with any seriousness.

    Here is a recent quote from him:

    “FATHER TOM DOYLE: It’s unfortunate that it takes this type of destruction to move it towards change, but that’s what has to happen, I believe. I’m not one anymore to mince words and be diplomatic and fart around with this. I mean, this is it. I’ve spent 25 years talking to people who’ve been ruined because of this stuff, and you know, the whole damn thing, they ought to sell the Vatican to the Mormons or to Disney or something and go out and start all over again.”

    Then there was the time back in 2004 when he lost his job as an Air Force Chaplain because he didn’t much like saying Mass:

    Doyle has become a joke.

  • Donald, there are two sides to every story. that being said, Fr. Doyle is a canon lawyer and you are not. He his education and experience as such give him the credibility to say what he says on the subject of Sr. Margaret. You on the other hand, do not have such education, experience or credibility.

  • It seems Mike is correct again. Fr. Doyle in no way is saying an abortion was not performed. Rather. his complaint is that Sr. McBride was excommunicated. Of course his ire is raised by the clergy sex abuse scandal. This from an NPR interview:

    “But according to the Rev. Thomas Doyle, a canon lawyer, the bishop “clearly had other alternatives than to declare her excommunicated.” Doyle says Olmsted could have looked at the situation, realized that the nun faced an agonizing choice and shown her some mercy. He adds that this case highlights a “gross inequity” in how the church chooses to handle scandal.

    “In the case of priests who are credibly accused and known to be guilty of sexually abusing children, they are in a sense let off the hook,” Doyle says.”

    Note again, he does not say that an abortion was not performed (and which is contrary to the Ethical and Religious Directives which St. Joseph’s was obliged to follow.) And he does not say that abortion in this situation is right. In fact his juxtaposing the abortion and clergy abuse points out that he thinks both are wrong. Fr. Doyles point is that he believes the penalty of excommunication was not warranted.

  • Phillip, everyone agrees that an abortion was performed. There is no dispute about that. The issue is that excommunication should not be the penalty for saving a life when losing two lives would have been the result if the mother had not received medical treatment as it was dtermined that she was in imminent danger of death.

  • Lisa,

    That excommunication IS the penalty for direct abortion (aka willful murder) should not be in question (and is not, in the case of faithful Catholics). What should be in question is “what were the licit alternatives for the health care providers that were not taken, and why?”

  • “agonizingly complex”

    I agree it was an agonizing and emotionally difficult decision. But it really was not that complex. The options were rather straightforward: kill one to increase the chances of survival for the other, or kill neither and treat both as best you can.

  • Chris: the canon lawyer Fr Doyle says that the Church’s own laws do not call for excommunication in this situation. Please read his article posted on the online edition of the National Catholic Reporter.

    Also, Chris, there wer no other options, licit alternatives. The physicians determined that the patient who came into the hopsital was in imminent danger of death due to the her medical condition, and that immediately terminating the pregnancy (the fetus was 11 weeks old and would not have survived outside the womb and would not have survived the mother’s death) was the only option. Without immediate medical intervention, both mother and fetus would have died. So the choice was lose two lives or perform an abortion and save one life.

  • Lisa

    The way you were presenting it was that St.Joseph’s was following the Ethical and Religious Directives for a Catholic Hospital. Those state that abortions may not be done under any circumstances. But since you agree that an abortion was done, St. Joseph’s wasn’t acting in accord with the Directives.

  • Matt, the choice was complex. The physicians determined that the patient was in immineent danger of death when she came to the hospital Ther was no option to “treat both as best you can”. The only options were to let the woman and her 11 week old fetus both die (at 11 weeks the fetus could not have survived outside the womb and would not have survived the death of the mother). Or save the patient’s life by performing an abortion. If there were options to treat both, this situation would not have arisen.

  • Exactly, Phillip. Doyle never even suggests that an abortion did not occur or that such abortion was not morally wrong. He instead argues that the situation was so difficult that the penalty of excommunication may not have applied given that Sister Margaret may have subjectively viewed her options as impaired. This requires a level of subjective analysis that frankly does not interest me, even though I concede it may be warranted. Sister Margaret deserves to be treated fairly, of course. And that means that the real world pressure she was under must be taken into account. But what cannot be accepted is any disagreement as to the validity of Catholic teaching, which plainly does not permit the direct termination of a pregnancy even to preserve the life of the mother and even if the unborn child would die without the mother. People sin. In many cases in very understandable ways. It seems reasonably clear to me (any lack of certainty has to do with facts I have not bothered to study) that the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were morally wrong even though they saved lives. That said, I can’t say that I believe that makes Truman a bad person. The choice he made was quite understandable, and presumably quite forgivable, given the terrible circumstances and options. The same is almost certainly the case here. And in all honesty I cannot say with certainty that I would not have made the same decisions as President Truman and Sister Margaret. It is the nature of being a sinner. But while Sister Margaret’s personal and subjective moral culpability can be understood to be both uncertain and diminished by circumstances, the objective moral nature of the act is not. The Bishop has an obligation to teach clearly and he has satisfied that obligation. Whether such obligation could have been better satisfied without declaring the excommunication is likely a prudential question on which reasonable people may differ. But Sister Margaret did not live up to her obligation to apply Catholic moral teaching with integrity. While the failure was certainly understandable given the circumstances, her defenders would do better to concentrate on why those circumstances suggest mercy and understanding are in order rather than try to justify a killing that cannot be justified.

  • Mike, you are way off base about Sr. margaret. She has always served God, the Sisters of Mercy, St. Joseph’s Hospital and Catholic Healthcare West with integrity. I know her. You do not.

    She and the ethics committee interpreted the Catholic healthcare directives correctly, as permitting an abortion in the situation that they were presented with. This was done with integrity. Saving a life is a pro life position. Allowing both to die would have abeen a pro-death, immoral, unethical and criminal act.

  • Lisa,
    I think the issue is about more than just the excommunication. I’ll let the bishop sort that out with canon lawyers, especially since applicable rules require some analysis of subjective intent, etc. The real issue is whether the abortion in question is morally justified. Fr. Doyle carefully avoids even suggesting it was. The reason for that is simply that it cannot be justified under Catholic moral teaching. Your posts suggest that you believe that the abortion was morally acceptable given the choice of outcomes. Fr. Doyle never said that, and I suspect he never would, for the simple reason that he does not dissent from this teaching. He simply believes that excommunication may be the wrong penalty under the circumstances.

  • Lisa,
    Those directives do not permit an abortion. Period. If you think they do then you simply cannot read.

  • Lisa,

    Mike is correct again. Go to page 26 of the Directives item # 45. Abortion is never permitted.

  • Mike and Phillip, its you all who cannot read. You cannot stop at Directive 45. Directive 47 says this ( a direct quote for USCCB Ehtical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services):

    “Operations, treatments, and medications that have as their direct purpose the cure of a proportionately serious pathological condition of a pregnant woman are permitted when they cannot be safely postponed until the unborn child is viable, even if they will result in the death of the unborn child.”

    This is the directive that used at St. Joseph’s in November 2009 to decide the situation we are discussion.

  • Lisa, to quote you:

    “So the choice was lose two lives or perform an abortion and save one life.”

    Putting aside the accuracy of that statement in presenting the viable choices, that is not a complex decision – kill one to save the other, or don’t kill one and do the best you can. That is not complex – it may be emotionally difficult and agonizing, but we are talking about a rather clear application of moral decision making. Its not like you are trying to evaluate seven different courses of interlocking decisions – it’s kill one to save the other, or don’t.

  • Lisa,
    You need to read more carefully. Directive 47 is perfectly consistent with Directive 45, which obviously it has to be. While Directive 45 states that the direct killing of a fetus (abortion) is always morally prohibited, Directive 47 explains that other medical procedures (i.e., non-abortions) can be used to treat a pregnant mother even if they cause *indirectly* (as a double effect) the death of the unborn child. For example radiation used to cure a pregnant mother’s cancer may be permissible even if it is understood that such radiation will be lethal to the child. Directive 47 is merely an expression of the doctrine of double effect which has been an element of Catholic moral theology since first expressed by St. Thomas Aquinas. It is well established that Directive 47 does not permit a direct termination of a pregnancy. I do not dispute that the Hospital has claimed to rely on Directive 47, but such reliance is misplaced if used to justify a direct abortion as any Catholic ethicist can tell you. While I can fully appreciate the pressures felt by Sister Margaret when confronted with such horribly difficult circumstances, her decision simply cannot be justified by reliance on Directive 47 assuming that decision was to permit the direct taking of the life of the baby. Further, it strains credibility to believe that she could actually think so, given her resonsibilities regarding Hospital ethical matters.

  • Matt,

    In his article on the subject, Fr. Daoyle called the decision “agonizingly complex”. It his, as a canon lawyer, characterization of the situation

  • I am beginning to wonder if English may not be Lisa’s first language, and therefore she is having difficulty applying the two directives in conjunction with each other. Dir 45 is an overriding statement of clear position that abortion cannot be done regardless of circumstance. 45 therefore sets the limits on consideration of what operations, treatments and medications can be allowed that may result unintentionally in the death of the fetus, which is directive 47. She is reading things backwards in a sense – she interprets 47 as abrogating the restriction of 45, when the opposite is true – 45 is a limitation on 47 (you can do the other operations, treatements and medications as long as they are not abortions, ie., the intentional direct killing of the fetus). In other words, you could use chemotherapy directed at attacking cncerous cells in the body, which foreseeably but unintentionally, also kill the fetus. But you could not do a chemical abortion, which its only object is to kill the fetus, not other tissue.

  • c matt,
    You are right, of course. What makes this case more difficult (though not more complex) is the apparent claim that “doing the best you can” would have lead to two deaths rather than one, as opposed to more typical cases which involve only one death or perhaps more uncertain outcomes. But while agonizing and difficult, the morally correct answer is perfectly clear.
    As I explained above, a person is not morally permitted to shoot an innocent person in order to save two lives, even of one of those lives is the innocent he would shoot. This is not to suggest that the decision to not sin in this case is easy. To the contrary it would be exceedingly difficult, but the moral calculus is easy.
    Good people can choose to sin for good reasons. But sin it still is. I am not morally permitted to shoot a dying comrade on the battle field, even if he cannot be saved and is in horrible agony. Knowing that, I still might do it. I’m fallen and weak, which is why I need God’s mercy. But I would never doubt the sinfulness of my act.

  • As a canon lawyer, his characterization of the moral complexity of the situation is not much better than anyone else’s, except perhaps with the canon law issues presented (and the only cannon law issue presented, as far as I can tell, is whether Sr. incurred LS Excommunication). If he was referring to “agonizingly complex” with respect to the canon law issue, he may well be correct, but I am not as interested in that aspect.

  • Lisa,
    A canon lawyer has no special charism in the area of Catholic moral teaching. Rather, he or she deals with the Catholic legal system, which is why Fr. Doyle addressed the legal issue of excommunication rather than the morality of the abortion.

  • I don’t want to get too hung up on the concept of “complex.” My only beef with using the term “complex” is that, as Mike states, the correct moral position is clear, and using “complex” implies that it isn’t. It may be difficult and challenging to accept or follow, there may be legitimate doubts about the extent of culpability, but it is clear.

  • Yes, Englsih is my first language. The issue here is that Directive 47 allows oeprations or treatment that may result in the death of afetus. In the situation at St. Joseh’s ther was only one oepration/treatment available to save at least one life–that was to terminate the pregnancy. That is why it was interpreted that way it was at St. Joseph’s in November 2009. You guys are looking at thing too simplistically. And no canon lawywers have no special charism in the area of moral teaching. But they know more about it than you do, Mike.

    And once more, I will say that allowing two lives to die is a pro-death position. To save the life of the mother in this situation was a pro-life, moral (because saving a woman’s life has moral value), ethical, Christ-like decision. And like Christ, Sr. Margaret is being crucified by a heartless, out-of-touch, immoral, imperial, imperious hierarchy.

    As one commentator has stated, Sr. Margaret’s biography more closely resembles that of Jesus than does Bishop Olmsted’s.

  • Invincible ignorance.

  • “In the situation at St. Joseh’s ther was only one oepration/treatment available to save at least one life–that was to terminate the pregnancy.”

    Quite untrue:

  • Lisa,

    Let’s say directive 45 said that murder is never permitted. Let’s say directive 47 said that one can use sufficient force to stop an attacker and that, if in the course of the use of that force, one killed the attacker, then that would not be murder. One cannot then say that if one murders that article 47 clears the way for that.

    Murder in this case is directly taking an innocent life. Self-defence is protecting one’s life with appropriate use of force. What is directly intended is using force necessary for stopping the unjust attack. If in the course of the use of that force, one kills one’s attacker, that was not directly intended and is licit.

    In abortion, all abortions, one is directly taking the life of an unborn child. When one uses medications or surgeries that treat an illness, such as using chemo or hysterectomy for a cancerous uterous, one in the former may and definitely in the latter will cause the death of the unborn child. But in those cases it is not directly intended. The intention is to treat a disease with the medical means necessary that secondarily results in death.

    Thus 45 prohibits all direct forms of taking the life of an unborn. 47 allows medical procedures that do not do so directly and are licit treatments for the disease in question.

  • “Sr. Margaret’s biography more closely resembles that of Jesus…”

    Oh for goodness sake. None of us are the second person of the Holy Trinity! Furthermore, this isn’t a holiness contest. And if it were, neither you nor I would be the judge.

    I don’t have a problem with the idea that you personally feel that Sr. Margaret’s decision was the morally correct one. I think, for instance, that Orthodox Jewish moral teaching would agree with you, and that is a body of moral teaching which I respect.

    What I do have a problem with is that you don’t see, or seemingly won’t even try to consider, that according to the standard Catholic moral teaching this was not the correct decision.

    I think you are thinking of “pro-life” as meaning that we have to do what brings about the most life for the most people, with life being an absolute good. But that is not quite right. Being “pro-life” means that we are against the unjust killing of human beings by other human beings. The most important thing is not that no one should die, but that no one should kill. The question moral theology asks is not “Did anyone die?” but “Did anyone sin?”

    Behind this is clearly the understanding that are lives in this world are brief in any case, but our souls are immortal. Catholic moral theology does not make a calculus of the relative amount of suffering to be caused by one decision or another, or at least it does not do that until way down on the ladder of criteria; the first criteria is whether the act considered is in itself objectively allowed or forbidden by God. God forbids us deliberately to kill the innocent. What was being contemplated was a deliberate, direct act, of killing an innocent human being. NO intention can make this licit. And the moral calculus stops right there. The outcome may be sad; it may cause suffering in this life, but we aren’t entitled to decide that this overrules God’s command.

    I think I see how you are reading the two directives. You are taking them as 1. a general principle, and 2. an allowable exception.
    That is not how they were intended. They are 1. an absolute principle, and 2. other situations -not exceptions to the principle, to which there are none- but different kinds of situations which do not fall under the principle. Number two is there for the situation in which you start chemotherapy to cure a woman’s cancer even though this will incidentally kill her developing baby. The ACT of starting chemotherapy is not intrinsically immoral. The saving of the mother’s life is brought about by the action of the chemotherapy against the cancer NOT by the death of the unborn child.

    I can see how reading these two directives, just as words not written in the context of a tradition of moral theology, could be taken the way Sr. Margaret says she took them. But for her to have done that in good faith she would have to have been ignorant of their context in Catholic moral theology. She would have had to be ignorant that the second directive was invoking double effect, and that double effect clearly states you cannot bring about a good end by an intrinsically evil act, and specifically, in mother/baby situations, that you cannot save a mother’s life by directly taking the life of the unborn child. It is difficult to believe that she could be ignorant that this is what traditional Catholic moral theology teaches. However, perhaps she was ignorant. Perhaps she really did not grasp the concept of an intrinsically evil act which cannot be redeemed by ANY intention or by ANY set of painful circumstances. Your reaction shows that this is a foreign idea to some people in these times. If she acted in good faith, although wrongly, she would not be morally culpable for her decision. Perhaps in that situation the latae sententia excommunication would not apply. But when her bishop advises her that it was the wrong decision, explains what the Catholic moral teaching is, and she refuses to say, “Oh, well, then, I was mistaken, then she becomes culpable. In which case perhaps a direct excommunication at that point would be more appropriate. That we will leave to the canon lawyers.

    I’d just like to get you to see that there is more than one set of moral paradigms which can be applied in a situation, and that the one you are using, and that I suspect Sr. Margaret was using, involving letting the most people live, and bringing about the least suffering in this life, is not the one that the Church uses. The Church asks if an act is sin and she is first of all concerned with the eternal destiny of the soul. I’d really like to get you to see this point, even if you disagree violently!

    Susan Peterson

  • ” OUR lives in this world” My brain incresingly is doing this to my with homonymns.

    Susan Peterson

  • increasingly!

  • Well said, Susan. Very well said.

  • The problem is “allowing the death of a fetus” is a completely different moral act than “killing the fetus”. 45 prohibits the killing of a fetus; 47 does not allow the killing of a fetus.

    Perhaps this is the issue you (and others) seem to have – you are unable to distinguish between the moral significance of “allowing the death of” and “directly killing”.

    Actually, there are probably many moral first principles upon which we do not agree, and therefore further attempts to discuss the matter are likely to be fruitless. Such as

    1. one may not do an evil act to bring about a good end

    2. some acts are always and everywhere evil, regardless of why you do them.

  • Yes, Susan, very well said.

    And on top of all of this, there is the difficulty of distinguishing between knowing what one should do in these situations, and the obvious sympathy one has for what someone would do in these situations.

  • Yes, English is my first language.

    I hope you did not take offense to my asking, I was sincerely inquiring as you never know from where commenters hail.

  • Again you all espouse a pro-death position. Wishing that the patient involved had died–because this would be “good” and not recognizing the moral value of avinga woman’s life.

    A double standard is applied by the hierarchy to women and this is a case in paoint–in regard to Sr. Margaret, the decision at St. Joseph’s, and the patient.

    The old Lord Acton truism, “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely” applies in spades to the Catholic hierarchy. You all are drinking the kool-aid from an absolutely corrupt pool. The hierarchy has not moral credibility.

    Donald McClarey: You were not at the hospital when the patient came in. Her physicians who were present determined that she was in danger of imminent death and that the only way to save her was via termination of the pregnancy. You have no right or credibility to second guess the diagnosis or the judgment of the medical professionals involved.

  • Actually I would say vincible ignorance, as she clearly has the opportunity to learn. Just that the current culture has numbed her conscience.

  • I think until we have more facts we have to leave aside the possibility that the doctors were wrong about the medical situation, and consider the moral situation if they were right.

    Lisa, did you even TRY to think about what I wrote?

    I think you should stop saying “The hierarchy” and start saying “The Church.” This is not a position of particular bishops as individuals, but a position developed by moral theologians in the church over a long period of time. In fact…can you even begin to imagine that any of the fathers of the church would have approved a direct abortion for any reason?

    No one said it would be “good” that the woman died. We are saying that it would be worse for someone to commit the sin of killing the unborn child.

    Why do you keep bringing in the ‘women’ thing? Do you imagine that this principle would be applied differently to men? Men don’t get pregnant but there are lifeboat situations …which are not just hypotheticals; people have experienced them. For instance; there are too many people for the supplies in the lifeboat and if all stay in the lifeboat, there is no hope it will get to land before all the men in it die of thirst. If two are chosen by lot to be thrown overboard, the remaining six will live, otherwise all will die.
    It isn’t permitted to kill those two men to save the lives of the other six. And the result is 8 dead rather than six alive, two dead. Would you call this a “pro-death” position? Would you say that throwing two men overboard was a prolife action? With modern search and rescue by air this sort of thing is less common just as mother vs baby situations are less common, but they have occurred and could still occur. I really think you need to drop the hermaneutic of feminist outrage!

    Susan Peterson

  • To answer the moral question, we do not need to second guess the medical judgments, we can take them at face value (although in our legal system we ask jurors of 12 complete laymen with no medical experience to second guess medical judgments of doctors all the time).

    And medical judgments are just that, judgments. Even within the medical community, they disagree all the time. It would not be surprising that considerations of legal fallout (particularly for the physicians) played a not inconsiderable role in making the determination.

  • “Donald McClarey: You were not at the hospital when the patient came in. Her physicians who were present determined that she was in danger of imminent death and that the only way to save her was via termination of the pregnancy. You have no right or credibility to second guess the diagnosis or the judgment of the medical professionals involved.”

    Baloney. 28 years practicing law has taught me that neither attorneys nor doctors are God. Both attorneys and doctors make plenty of mistakes and keep the courts busy as a result.

    There is evidence here that alternative treatment existed by which both the child and the mother might have lived. Those who support the killing of the child have a burden to establish that there was no alternative to save both mother and child, before they make the argument that it was either the life of the mother or the life of the child and that it was not possible to save both. No evidence has thus far been brought forward to indicate that any treatment was even considered before the hospital’s “ethics” committee approved the slaying of the unborn child.

  • c. Matt: re the physicians: If they ahd let the patient die, that would have beena criminal act under AZ homicide statutes and it would have been medical malpractice–and of course it would have been immoral.

    In medical malpractice trials, jurors weigh evidence based upon testimony from expert witnesses. since we are delaing with a trial, we have to beleive that physicians involved could recognize that the patient was in imminent danger of death.

    Donald, I am also an attorney and of course MDs make mistakes. But you have no basis on which to assume that one was made in the situation we are discussing.

    Susan, I say hierarchy because it is the hierarchy that makes decision re Church teaching. It is not the Church as a whole. And as for “woman thing” or the hermaneutic of feminist outrage”: Sorry you are uncomfortable with the truth. What was done to Sr. Margaret is grossly unjust. Have you not been paying attention to how the hierarchy operates? Women are second class citizens in the Church. Double standards are always applied to Catholic women by the hierarchy. Shutting women out of the Vatican has resulted in a corrupt hierarchy, unhealthy/immature attitudes re sexuality, a foucs on retaining feudal/medieval privelege. The hierarchy does not value women. That is why it has an obsessive focus on how on pregnant women should behave. If men got pregnant, we would see the hierarchy singing a different tune–becaue that is the pattern.
    When the hierarchy spends as much time and energy on making certain no child in the world does go to bed hungry as it does on on oppressing women and sexullay abusing children, hiding it, lying about it, refusing to be accountable for it, then I will believe the they have some moral credibility. Until then, the idea that it is “good’ and “moral” for a woman to die along with her unviable fetus is just wrong, wrong, wrong and pro-death.

  • Lisa, you have jumped the shark.

  • C Matt: nope, just stating the obvious facts.

  • Ok, I tried to reason with Lisa, I tried to get her to see that there is more than one moral framework which can be applied here, and the Church’s is different from the one she is using.

    She has never once shown that she has apprehended a single thing anyone here has said to her. She hasn’t shown that she has tried.
    I just hope that she is not typical of the type of moral reasoning which is practiced by the ethics committee at this hospital.

    My conclusion is “not amenable to reason.”

    Susan Peterson

  • Afraid you hit the nail on the head, Susan. “Just stating the obvious facts,” it’s clear that Lisa is not amenable to reason. That she thinks spouting anti-Catholic platitudes unworthy of Rosie O’Donnell is somehow profound and will sway our thinking is laughable.

  • How very harsh and judgemental of you Susan! Are you related to Bishop Olmsted by chance? Or have just shared some kool-aid with him lately?

    The moral framework I am using is not put place by a corrupt hierarchy that tries to convince pepole it speaks for God. My moral framework is a pro-life not a pro-death framework, ie it is the basic Judeo-Christian moral framework that says life is the highest good.

  • Susan,

    I doubt her purpose here is to be amenable to reason. I doubt she’s interested in being open to what you have said. Her purpose here is to advocate on behalf of a viewpoint at odds with Catholic moral teaching, and part of said advocacy is to paint that teaching and the Bishops who espouse it as morally degenerate.

    She obviously knows Sr. Margaret personally and is obviously primarily concerned with rehabilitating her at the expense of the Bishops, Catholic moral teaching, and, indeed, the truth. In that regard, she paints the Church’s moral theology as twisted, uncaring, and, in fact, really “pro-death”; meanwhile, evil is called good and abortion called “really pro-life” in an effort to absolve Sr. Margaret (and, it seems, herself) from any culpability.

    And now, having already dragged out the Galileo card, and having hinted around the edges of argumentam ad pedophilium, she pulls out the last refuge of the theological left: the “judmental” card. Almost as pathetic as it is predictable.

  • No, Lisa, I am just a Catholic.

    I am only judging the quality of your thought processes as displayed here.

    Catholics do believe that the magisterium of the Church speaks with divine authority in certain specifically defined areas.

    “the basic Judeo-Christian moral framework” -a lot of people deny that there is sufficient commonality to justify the term “Judeo-Christian” and there are most certainly different, as witness the difference between Orthodox Judaism and Catholicism on this particular issue, but OK, we’ll let this one pass

    “that says life is the highest good.” Are you reading what you write?
    Christianity most certainly does not say that life is the highest good!
    Did the Christians who suffered torture and death rather than burn a pinch of incense to the Roman emperor believe that live is the highest good?
    Luther, in the Reformation standard, “A Mighty Fortress is our God’
    “Let goods and kindred go/ this mortal life also/ the body they may kill/ God’s truth abideth still/ His Kingdom is forever. ”

    Fr. Faber, in “Faith of Our Fathers” ” Our fathers chained in prisons dark/ Were still in heart and conscience free/ Happy would be their children’s fate/ If we like them/ could die for thee. ” (He was writing about the English martyrs under Elizabeth. )

    GOD is the highest good, and for human beings, union with Him. The good for which we are made is the Beatific Vision.

    Why did God make me? He made me to know, love, and serve HIm in this life, and to be happy with Him forever in the next. Are you too young to remember that? Just an old catechism, but a great truth to memorize, helping to keep priorities straight.

    As for Judaism, I can’t speak with great knowledge about it, but I do know that Orthodox Jews are taught that there are some actions which one should die rather than do.

    Yehareg ve’al ya’avor (“Let him be killed rather than transgress”) refers to the requirement to give one’s life rather than transgress a law. Although ordinarily one is permitted to transgress halakha when a life is in danger, certain situations require one to give his life.
    Three exceptional sins
    There are three sins for which one is always required to die rather than transgress:
    sexual misconduct such as incest, adultery, and homosexuality (see sexual immorality prohibited by Torah)
    The above three are ruled as being exceptions by the Talmud. In tractate Sanhedrin 74a, the Talmud records: “Rav Yochanan said in the name of Rav Shimon ben Yehotzadak: ‘It was decided by a vote in the loft of the house of Nitezeh in Lod: For all the sins in the Torah, if a man is told, ‘Transgress and you will not be killed,’ he should transgress and not be killed, except for idol worship, sexual relations and bloodshed.’” A Jew must sacrifice his/her life rather than transgress the above-mentioned sins.

    So even for Judaism, life is not the highest good.

    Susan Peterson

  • “there are most certainly differences” why can’t I proofread until I have posted! i think I do …

  • Lisa’s moral framework, whether she wishes it or not, is one in which the innocent can be killed for the sake of another. That includes, as she has admitted, that the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are justified. She may not wish to admit it, but there is not reason to reject the Bush Administration’sw interrogation practices or for that matter, to limit enhanced interrogation techniques to what was done. If fact, and what she will not admit to or not be able to see, her moral framework allows just about anything to be done if the right reason can be found.

    She will decry this as silliness. But she will not be able to say why it is so.

  • Umm, are we overlooking that Bishop Olmsted has a doctorate in canon law? Not that I would expect anyone to dismiss a bishop’s teaching because he wasn’t a canon lawyer, but since some give more moral weight to a canon lawyet, I would think a canonist who has teaching authority from the Church would carry a tad bit more influence.

  • “… Bishop Olmsted has a doctorate in canon law …”

    Please don’t confuse people with facts that contradict the so-called “obvious facts” that are, apparently, “obvious” only to those completely uninterested in what the Church actually teaches.

  • Susan,

    To add to your salient point re: Judaism, I’d add the Battle of Masada, where the remaining Jews chose to die by each others’ hands than on Roman spearpoints. (while this differs with Catholic teaching, obviously, it serves to support your point that life is not always considered the highest good)

  • Abraham, Isaac, the Maccabees, and countless other Jews in the old testament, certainly did not value life as the highest good. I don’t know where she is getting that from.

  • In fact, even many pagans recognized that mortal life itself was not the highest good – death with honor, making it to Valhalla or the Elysian Fields or wherever. Even they had a sense that the after life was more important than the mortal one.

    Only an athiest, it seems, would have such a view of things. And then, only if he ascribed to the nonsensical concept of “good” in an athiest world.

  • sorry, that s/b atheist.

  • Well, I’m going to say this: Lisa Kaiser has earned my respect. I’ve never seen anyone argue with this many people for this long, except me.

    She’s a com-box warrior.

  • I echo Joe’s sentiments.

    Though she is woefully wrong on most points, she certainly has the stamina to engage with so many.

  • I disagree. Stamina to argue is an overrated value. She has no appetite to listen, and that is far more valuable.

  • On the other hand, Lisa’s opponents have tried often enough turn this thread into a discussion about her. Staying focused on the issue is certainly not an overrated value.

  • I’m with Mike on this one. Stubbornly clinging to error after it’s been refuted is no virtue.

  • I don’t know if I have stamina or not–I am just an old litigator who like many attorneys does not believe in accepting anything at face value. And that includes blind adherence to man-made rules. In Jewish Scripture there is only one reference to induced abortion–and that only is a discussion of legal penalties for hitting a pregnant woman that results in the death of the fetus. For killing the fetus, the perpetrator pays a a monetary fine to the woman’s husband. If the woman dies also as a result of the blow, that was considered a capital offense.

    The Gospels are of course silent on the issue. As are Acts, the Epistles and the Book of Revelation.

    Jewish theology/medical ethics see the life of the woman and fetus as equal and in most cases, there is preference for the life of the woman.

    And I will stick by my assertion that that in Judeo-Christian theology the highest good is life. I thinks its illogical that some of you who post here and consider yourselves pro-life argue against this. The first commandment that God gives people as a whole is to “be frutiful and multiply.” God created life and this Genesis continues (the astrophysicist Edwin Hubble tells us that space continues to expand–so who know what other life may be out there?). And in the Hebrew, what is often translated as in the Beginning God created..” can be translated in the Hebrew as “in the beginning of God’s creating…”.

    The Church can create its rules, but that does not mean that these rules are God’s rules or that these are right. to blindly accept them with out critical analysis is negating God’s gift of intellect. And it does the Church as whole no good. I just do not believe that the Church is without error. Only God is without error. Popes, cardinals and bishops (or canon lawyers or moral theologieans) are not God.
    If the Church is to be a living entity–then it must have light and fresh air and it must change. Living things changes. Only dead things or inorganic things do not change. To refuse to change is to die–that is true of all living species of cretures on earth and it is true of institutions. The Church’s refusal to see moral value in the life of women, its near idol worship of the unborn, its resounding indifference to children after they are born, its secrecy/living in darkness, its insistence on preserving feudal/meieval privelege for the hierarchy, etc, etc, has and will continue to empty the pews. If the Church continues like it is, refusing to cahnge–it will cease to be a living entity.

  • Actually, it was the use of the intellect by men and women over hundreds of years that have developed this teaching. One which you have consistently refused to address besides using tired pro-abortion rhetoric. Unfortunately, if Sister McBride thinks as you do, the bishop was most certainly correct.

  • Phillip, I am not pro-abortion. My position is that is an oxymoron for the Church to say it is prolife in advocatiing that the moral thing to do was to let both mother and baby die in the situation we are discussing. That is pro-death. Sr. Margaret made a pro-life decision in saving the life of the mother in a situation where both mother and baby could not have been saved. Saving the life of the mother in this situation was the moral, pro-life thing to do.
    Death, as advocated by Bishop Olmsted and others, is not pro-life.

  • >>to blindly accept them with out critical analysis
    >>is negating God’s gift of intellect.

    Translation: If I don’t agree then you’re stupid.

  • MarineBrat, Since I don’t know you, I cannot comment as to whether you are stupid or not.

    I will jsut repeat what I said in an earlier post,

    Jesus died on the cross to take away our sins, not our brains. Man-made laws are should always be subject to critical analysis and revision. Blindly adhering to something is just being a mindless drone. And does honor God’s givt of intellect.

  • Again, you haven’t engaged the substance of the posts above that point out why the Church’s position is pro-life and yours is pro-abortion. Yes, if you advocate for abortion in some circumstances, you are to some degree pro-aboriton.

  • Phillip–by that logic, when you advocate for death in some situations,as does Bishop Olmsted and the Church, then you are pro-death.

    Sr. Margare is pro-life because she advocated for saving a life rather than losing two lives. I think that is a pretty clear statement of my position.

    The Church’s “rule” that would advocate for both other and baby to die in the situation we are discussing is NOT pro-life. It IS pro-death. Advocating death is being pro-death.

    I can’t be any plainer than that. It is not pro-lfe or aoral to let both die when one can be saved. The mother’s life is a life and it moral to save her. That is being pro-life Th baby in this situation could not have been saved per the assessment of the medical professionals who actually were present with the patient, saw her and knew what the medical situation was at the time.

  • So if we have two patients in the same hospital ward, one diagnosed with terminal cancer and the other with terminal heart disease. Nothing known can prevent the death of the cancer patient, but the heart disease patient could certainly benefit from a heart transplant. As fate would have it the cancer patient’s blood and tissue match the heart patient. Under Lisa’s reasoning if after a lot of hand wringing it would be a pro-life decision to kill the cancer patient to harvest their heart so that the heart patient may live. The object is the same, directly killing one innocent person to save the life of another.

    I suspect Lisa will be repulsed by that idea, as she should. However, if one considers a child in the womb as having the same dignity as those outside the womb it is the same thing.

  • Nope Lisa, we are allowing death and not causing it. A big difference.

  • Phillip, sorry but “allowing” death when a life can be saved is not being pro-life. And is it legally and morally culpable homicide in the case of medical professionals in a hospital. In the istuation we are discussing, not treating the mother is causing a death of a human being–her death. Inaction is not justified when a life can be saved. And again, saving the life of the mother has moral value!!!!!

    RL, you are incorrect. My position is NOT that that it would be moral to kill the cancer patient. In the real-world situation we are discussiing, which is different from your hypothetical of 2 independent lives, only one life could be saved. That of the mother’s. If left untreated she and the baby (11 weeks in utero) would have died. Again, there is nothing pro-life about allowing 2 deaths, when one could be saved.

  • Touche Lisa. Nice one. But you’re wasting your time if you think the Church is going to follow your special wants and desires. That’s what Universalist churches are for. Anything goes there, and you can meld your religion to your dictates.

  • It may be so legally but not according to Catholic morality. And that is what is in question here. And since Sr. McBride violated that morality, she was properly excommunicated.

  • MarineBrat, I certainly do not think the Church is going to change its rules. My opinion (and that of a lot other folks as well) is that in this isntance the Church is wrong and is acting in a wrongful manner toward Sr. Margaret.

    She has been a long-time and faithful servant of the Church and of the Sisters of Mercy. And while upholding his interpretation of the rules of the Church, Bishop Olmsted could have been compassionate and expressed his regret and sorrow re the situation. Instead he wielded his crosier like a club. You may want to take alook at the Web site of the Diocese of Phoenix tosee exactly how harsh the Bishop was.

  • Phillip, my point is that theat the man-made law of the Church has resulted in an unjust result in what was an untenable situation for Sr. Margaret, the ethics committee, any any other Catholic involved.

    The Torah called for the stoning of adulerers. But when Jesus came across a crowd looking to stone a woman caught in adultery, he stopped it because it was unjust.

    As Lord Acton remind us, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. That is what we are seeing in the Church hierarchy today. Today’s hierarchy would not have stopped the stoning. As we have seen, they are the first to throw the stones.

  • The penalty may be man-made (and easily remedied by Sr McBride repenting) but the prohibition against actively killing is God’s law. This is not a matter of power corrupting, it is the Church being faithful.

  • Phillip, the penalty is man-made and could be changed by the hierarchy recognizing that saving the life of the woman in this case is being pro-life!! That her death would have been a case of actively killing her. You ignore that 2 lives were involved here.

    And of course we do not know what Sr. Margaret has done or not done since all this has come to light. And really, only God knows the state of her soul.

    And yes, this all one more manifestation of the hierarchy being corrupt. it picks and chooses what rules it want to enforce and with whom to enforce them. Part of the problem here is that priests and bishops have actively committed grave moral and criminal offenses against children and have not been excommunicated–when they could have been and should have been. this is the hierarchy coming down hard in a bad istuation to deflect criticism re its sytematic moral turpitude in the treatment of children in the US and in other nations.

    The hieriarchy is concerned about maintaining its priveleges and its power–that is why it insists on orthodoxy re its man-made rules. Its why the Jesus who stopped the stoning of the woman, despite the rule in palce about it, would not recognize these guys who wear miters and carry crosier as His followers.

  • The man-made penalty could be changed, the moral truth that one cannot directly take a life cannot.

    But the penalty is in force now and Sr. McBride knew it. Thus she incurred the penalty. Easy enough for her to get out of it also.

  • Again, Phillip, not treating the woman would have been taking her life. The church’s rule is pro-death and unjust in this situation.

    If Sr. Margaret has not repented, why should she? Why should she cooperate with the Church’s injustice in this instance? FYI, this a rhetorical question. The obvious anser, is that hoepfully she would not cooprate with the Church’s injustice in this situation by repenting a n action was pro life and not pro death.

  • Broken Record

    I read Bishop Olmsted’s statement, and heartily concur. Is someone still giving Episcopal Spine awards? He deserves one!

    Susan Peterson

  • I am the mother of five beautiful children and one angel in heaven. After the birth of my first child, I experienced excruciating pain and my blood pressure began to drop. Ectopic pregnancy. Truly, both my baby and I would have both died had I not had surgery to remove the baby and fallopian tube.

    My husband consulted our priest who advised that I should go ahead with this operation so I could raise our young child.

    My child’s life was not sustainable. The fallopian tube had burst — an environment in which the baby could not have grown and thrived –and I was bleeding–I lost two pints of blood and would have bled to death.

    Please don’t judge this ethics committee. Like me, when there is an ectopic pregnancy, both mother and child can die.

    I will pray that Sister Margaret forgives those who judge her. This was not a ‘pro-death’ decision. I went on to have four more children who are beautiful and bring God’s love to this world.

  • Lisa’s still fighting!

    Keep your chin up 🙂

  • I think murder is much more serious that rape, even child rape-which is what molestation is.

    That said, if both mother and child were truly going to die without any action on the doctor’s part than choosing to have an abortion seems to be the only moral choice.

    Choosing not to have an abortion would not have saved the baby’s life in this cause and thus does not appear to be Pro-Life.

    I know this is not an easy situation to deal with but when faced with an industry that makes a profit by embracing and causing the death of the unborn it makes little sense to demand that both unborn and mother die instead.

  • RL an interesting analogy.

    But let me point out that the life of the cancer patent was not in the process of causing the death of the patent with heart disease.

  • pplr
    So the life of the baby was in the process of causing the death of the patient with heart disease? This almost sounds as if it is the baby’s fault so it deserves to die! I am guessing though that you don’t mean that. But no, it was the heart disease was causing her death. Pregnancy was an increased strain, showing that heart disease had progressed to the point that her body could not sustain a normal female life function.

    In any case, this is PRECISELY what you cannot do-save one life by taking another. In any circumstance, lifeboat, starvation, two people trapped in a caved in building, or a mother baby situation, you can’t bring about a good end by an intrinsically evil act.

    Susan, the situation of an ectopic pregnancy in a fallopian tube has traditionally being treated as a double effect situation; the tube is considered a diseased or defective organ which can be removed, incidentally and unfortunately resulting in the death of a human embryo. This reasoning breaks down if methotrexate is used to flush the tube, or if the embryo has implanted elsewhere as it sometimes does, and the situation becomes unclear, but the reason the priest said this was acceptable is that double effect has traditionally been used in this situation. Your life was (most likely)saved by removing the tube, not by killing the embryo. This is why the procedure was licit.

    I am glad everything turned out so well for you and your family. Perhaps someday they will figure out how to reattach the embyoes in tubal pregnancies to a place where they can grow; I think that solution would be ideal.

    Susan Peterson

  • Susan Peterson,

    You are absolutely correct, of course. The principle here is that it is never morally permissable to directly and intentionally take an innocent human life. Most people accept this until the consequences become unappealing. At that point they will either (i) question whether the life in question is innocent or even human or (ii) resort to reasoning from consquences (i.e., consequentialism).

    Unappealing outcomes are not hard to find, and the outcome options in this case were indeed quite tragic. It is telling that our irrepressible Ms. Kaiser has steadfastly avoided opining on the hypothetical I shared earlier in which mother must choose whether to shoot and kill her innocent daughter or allow a gunman to shoot and kill both her innocent daughter as well as her innocent husband. Instead, she just ignores it. The truth is that the only possible distinction between the hypothetical and the instant situation is the distinction between the unborn innocent child and the born innocent child. Ms. Kaiser insists she is pro-life, but I strongly suspect that she does not see the unborn child as fully human. In addition, Ms. Kaiser has already shown, via her commentary on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, that she is a consequentialist. Fair enough. She has admitted that murder of innocents is acceptable if for sufficient reason, and such reason is judged via outcome. This is not peculiar point of view. It is widely held and often expressed as the ends justifying the means. Implicit in this view is the idea that no means are intrinsically evil; but that instead the moral nature of the means cannot be evaluated without examining the ends.

    One cannot reason with consquentialists, not because they are illogical as such — actually their moral system is grounded in its own internally consistent logical — but because it premised on moral assumpions that are simply incompatible with those of us who adhere to a morality grounded in natural law.

    While for some strange reason Ms. Kaiser seems reluctant to admit it, her logic is actually very straightforward. Life is the ultimate good and we ought do whatever it takes to preserve as much life as possible. When pressed she will have to admit that not only may the mother in my example kill her innocent daughter, such an act is morally required since it saves one net life. Morality is a utilitarian calculus, that’s all.

  • Mike, you are correct about my not commenting on your hypothetical. I have not commented I suppose because it pales in comparison to the real-world situation we are discussing.

    I think your viewpoint is very contemporary Catholic. But that viewpoint may or may not be a correct one. Only God knows for certain. No moral system created by human beings can be perect or error free. As I commented yesterday–Jewish medical ethics/theology would offer a different viewpoint. That is, the life of the mother and fetus are equal and that in most cases where a choice has to be made to save one or the other–the preference is generally for the mother. Jews have an even longer (much longer)experience with and tradition of sorting out the hard moral questions. And as I mentioned yesterday–the place in Scripture where abortion is even vaguely hinted at is in the Torah. And that reference refers only to legal penalities. If someone hits a pregnant woman and that blow causes the death of a fetus–then the perpetrator must pay a monetary penalty to the woman’s husband. If the blow also causes the death of the woman, that was considered a capital offense.

    I certainly believe that a fetus is fully human life. But I do not believe that in the situation we are discussing, that two deaths are preferable to one. That is just not a pro-life position. And to say that it is, is Orwellian.

  • Lisa,

    Simply asserting that my hypothetical “pales in comparison” to the instant situation is not addressing it at all. The reason for your reluctance is obvious. There is no logical distinction and you know it.

    Yes, my viewpoint is contemporary Catholic, but the word “contemporary” is a bit deceptive, no? After all, the Catholic moral principles that relevant here are are not remotely new.

    Yes, Jewish moral tradition may reason differently — I wouldn’t know. But Sister Margaret’s task was not to employ Jewish moral reasoning, or Taoist moral reasoning, or Islamic moral reasoning — it was precisely to employ Catholic moral reasoning; and in this she failed.

    I certainly can appreciate that you do not agree with Catholic moral reasoning, but I cannot understand why you don’t just come clean and own up to your consequentialism and utilitarianism? It isn’t hard. You’d be in good company. This fellow for instance:

    What I find really remarkable is not that your moral reasoning is grounded in utilitarianism and not Catholic, but that you would expect a Catholic hospital to make moral decisions using reasoning that is grounded in utilitarianism and not Catholic. It is really quite odd.

    Finally, I honestly can understand your position that pro-life means anything that saves the most lives; there is an intuitive appeal to such a view. But I doubt that is what most pro-life people mean by the term; instead they mean that people should not directly and intentionally kill innocent human beings and that enforcing this component of natural law is an important and legitimate role of government. The axiom that it is ok to murder innocents as long as more lives are saved is certainly a point of view, but I seriously doubt most pro-lifers share it, including those who first helped coin the term. Indeed they would consider the notion that pro-life means that it is morally good to murder innocents if the result is fewer lives lost to be Orwellian.

  • Well then Jewish ethics seems to be inconsistent. If the life of the mother and fetus are equal, why the preference for the mother? That is saying the life of the mother and fetus are equal, except when they are not. It offers nothing.

    It is also not so different from your view that the Church is wrong on this issue. You keep saying that only God knows which position is correct, yet, very coincidentally, “God’s” position seems to line up with yours. You seem to imply that you, Lisa Kaiser, know God’s position, while hurling accusations against the Church’s teaching for being presumptuous about speaking for God. Ironic.

    I still have not seen whether you agree with the proposition that you cannot do an evil act to bring about good results. If we disagree about that, then there is really no point continuing discussion, as there is a fundamental disagreement on first principles.

    To say mortal life is the ultimate good from a Judeo-Christian perspective simply ignores the abundance of Scripture which completely contradicts such statement (not the least of which are Christ’s own words that you must lose your life to gain it, and what does it profit a man to gain the world and lose his soul). The Old Testament is replete with figures who would rather die than commit the sin of blasphemy or idolatry. The ultimate good is eternal life with God. Mortal life is a secondary good, and it must give way when preserving mortal life costs your eternal life. That is what the Church teaches in this situation, and I find it hard to believe God would disagree.

  • Mike, OK, I am not really interested in addressing your hypothetical. Its jsut a hypothetical and I am not interested in addressing it.

    And yes in actholic hospital, Catholic treaching is applied. My point is that that teaching can be in error , wrong, etc. and I think that is the case here. My only point in mentioning Jeiwsh medical ethics/theology is that people of faith can arrive at different conclusions. And that since the Jew have been figuring out morality for about 5,000 years that perhaps Catholicism can learn from Judaism in this instance. The hierarchy of the Catholic church does not have a corner on truth. The hierarchy is fallible.

    You keep talking about “innocent life”. The Catholic teaching, by using such a term, denigrates life. Human life is human life. The mother is a human being and protecting her life in this situation is being pro-life. The Church used the term “innocent life” as means to devalue the lives of women. The hierarchy does not value the lives of women.

    It is not moral to allow two deaths, when a life can be saved. Sr. Margaret, a woman, saved the life of a woman and the hierarchy is afraid this will catch on! That Catholics will start believing that women are made in the image of God!

  • C Matt:

    Just to clarify: I don’t presume to know God’s position on the situation we are discussing.

    Re the Scriptures: Jesus was using a metaphor in saying you must lose your life to gain it. He was refering not to physical death, but to setting aside your old life/self and embracing God and God’s commandments–committing to a new life. Not death. What profit a man if he gains the whole world, but loses his soul is also not a reference to physical death. It is reference to how human regard for material wealth or earthly status may blind us to living as God wishes us to live. Empahsis on the living.

    As to Jews dying rather than commiting idolatry, ,etc refers to the exceptions in Jewish theology that permit a person to commit suicide. Life is the highest good, but Jews are permitted to kill themselved in 3 instances and 3 instances only–3 very extreme instances. The fact that suicide is permitted in only 3 extreme instances highlights the value placed on life, rather than indicates that life is not the highest good. You misread or misunderstand or misinterpret the ideas presented in Scripture.

    At to what the hierarchy teaches–again Jesus died to take away our sins, not our brains! The hierarchy is not infallible and the hierarchy has no regard for the lives of women. So in situations that involve the Church saying that pregnant women have to die in favor of a nonviable fetus–my thought is that the hierarchy is very very wrong and misguided.

  • The term innocent life has nothing to do with “devaluing the lives of women.” It is used in discussion of life issues to distinguish the abortion situation from the issues of killing combatants in war, from the death penalty, and from self defense situations in which someone is trying to kill you and you can stop him only by killing him. The traditional argument is that the soldier of an unjust aggressor [although he may personally have had no choice in the matter], the person who has committed a capital crime, or the person who is trying to kill you, have all forfeited their “right to life”, that is, their right not to be killed. Therefore it isn’t strictly speaking true that “human life is human life.” That is a mistake people make when they try to equate war and the death penalty issue with abortion. But it has nothing to do with devaluing women. The mother of course has the same right not to be killed as does the unborn child.

    However no one, you know, has a right not to die!

    We have a right not to be killed by our fellow human beings, who have a moral obligation not to kill us. That is what “right to life” means!

    (Not directly pertinent to this discussion, but tangentially pertinent; this is why the ‘right to life’ doesn’t mean people have a right to be fed by the government, or a right to have health care provided by the government, because that promotes their living longer! We might decide-or we might not-that for the government to help people get food, such as with food stamps, or for the government to pay for health care, is a good idea. But the ‘right to life’ does not imply that people have a right to what sustains their lives. It would be more accurate to call it a “right not to be killed,” just as the right to liberty is a right not to be imprisoned or enslaved. )

    And if you are a Catholic, you do believe that the Church was given the authority by Jesus Christ to teach in matters of faith and morals. If you are not a Catholic, fine. But don’t criticize a Catholic bishop for doing exactly what a Catholic bishop is supposed to do!

    Hopefully we will be seeing a lot more of bishops behaving in this way!

    Susan Peterson

  • I just read where you said, “Not treating the woman would have been taking her life.”

    First of all, there is a distinction between killing and not treating. For instance, if someone needs an expensive form of chemotherapy and can’t afford it, a hospital which refuses to administer it without being paid, or an insurance company/ medicaid which according to the terms of its contract will not pay for it, and the person dies that hospital/company/agency has not killed the person. Cancer has killed the person.

    More importantly,directly taking the life of an unborn child is not treatment!
    Or if you insist on calling it treatment, it is a form of “treatment”
    which a Catholic, or Catholic hospital, can never engage in.
    If someone dies of natural causes because I refuse to do something immoral, I have not killed that someone.

    It is more important that no one sin, than that no one die.
    But we have gone over this ground before.
    You just don’t agree with the Catholic teaching.

    Susan Peterson

  • Regardless of my opinion on this matter, the lack of civility, the name-calling and snide remarks for this post detract from the message.

  • If somebody has bias, he or she can’t solve a problem correctly. Instead of solving the problem, why do some want to attack the Church? You may attack the Church. You have your own right. But be aware of the fact that the Church was attacked since it was instituted by Christ. Thou shall not take God’s name in vain. We should not use the name of God to support our idea. Susan Peterson is genius. I personally like your way of thinking and appreciate your faith. Sometimes because of some critical situations our faith becomes stronger and stronger.

Nick Vujicic: Living the Pro-life Message

Friday, May 14, AD 2010

Hattip to commenter restrainedradicalNick Vujicic is a living refutation of the pro-abort lie that some lives are not worth living.  The joy and energy with which he embraces life with what most people would view as horrifying disabilities reminds me of the behavior of my son with autism.  Life with a physical or mental disability can be very difficult.  Having seen my son deal with autism has given me some of the worst times in my life.  However, witnessing his courage,  joy and love has also provided me with the best moments in my life.  God gives us life and he gives us courage.  With those two assets it is marvelous to see what we mere mortals can accomplish in the time God allots us.

Continue reading...

2 Responses to Nick Vujicic: Living the Pro-life Message

Palin: The Temptation of Abortion

Friday, May 14, AD 2010

Hat tip to Ed Morrissey at Hot Air who is on a pro-life role today.  Sarah Palin in her address to the Susan B. Anthony Celebration of Life Breakfast.  Go here to see a video of Palin’s speech.  In her speech Palin made it clear that she understands the temptation of abortion.

Speaking at the Susan B. Anthony List Celebration of Life breakfast, Palin said that when she learned during her pregnancy that Trig would be born with Down syndrome, she “had no idea how I was going to handle the situation of raising a special needs child.”

She said she was struck by “not knowing if my heart was ready, not knowing if I was patient and nurturing enough.”
While she had previously believed that “God will never give me something I cannot handle,” she said, she was left thinking, “I don’t think I can handle this. This wasn’t part of my life’s plan.”

As a busy mother who already had four kids and who was serving as Alaska governor, she wondered how she would handle raising the child, she said. She wondered if her sister, who has a child with autism, would have been better equipped to raise him.

Palin said the experience helped her understand how a woman would consider “even for a split second” having an abortion, “because I’ve been there.”

Continue reading...

2 Responses to Palin: The Temptation of Abortion

Gallup: Americans Becoming More Pro-life

Friday, May 14, AD 2010

Hat tip to Ed Morrissey at Hot Air.  For a second year in a row Gallup finds that more Americans call themselves pro-life than pro-choice.

The conservative shift in Americans’ views on abortion that Gallup first recorded a year ago has carried over into 2010. Slightly more Americans call themselves “pro-life” than “pro-choice,” 47% vs. 45%, according to a May 3-6 Gallup poll. This is nearly identical to the 47% to 46% division found last July following a more strongly pro-life advantage of 51% to 42% last May.

While the two-percentage-point gap in current abortion views is not significant, it represents the third consecutive time Gallup has found more Americans taking the pro-life than pro-choice position on this measure since May 2009, suggesting a real change in public opinion. By contrast, in nearly all readings on this question since 1995, and each survey from 2003 to 2008, more Americans called themselves pro-choice than pro-life.

According to two-year averages of these results since 2001, Republicans have become more likely to call themselves pro-life since polling conducted in 2003/2004, as have Republican-leaning independents since 2005/2006. Independents who lean to neither party also became more likely to call themselves “pro-life” between 2003/2004 and 2005/2006, but have since held steady.

Democrats’ self-identification with the pro-life position has moved in the other direction, declining from 37% in 2003/2004 to 31% in 2009/2010. Among independents who lean Democratic, there has been no movement in either direction.

Continue reading...

2 Responses to Vote Vampire Lincoln!

28 Responses to Video of New Jersey Governor Christie Puting the Media in Their Place

  • Good, its about time someone didn’t give the impression that their spinal column had been replaced with gelatin.

  • That was pretty awesome!

  • He’s a Republican who’s actually serious about cutting spending, not just paying lip service.

    “By far the biggest category of spending we will need to cut, however, is that for programs which actually have merit, and in most cases make sense, but which we simply cannot afford at this time.”

    And with that he made huge cuts to education.

    You may like his personality but Christie’s positions are typical Northeast Republican. Fiscally conservative, socially liberal, tough on crime and foreign policy, weak on illegal immigration. You sure that’s what you want?

  • No, its not what I want politically – just rhetorically.

  • It is interesting that the question was asked ” you sure this is want you want? ” Evidently the majority of New Jersey voters did and elected him. Having worked in that State and watched the type of politicians he described was very factual. They used the old “2 step” on each and very issue. Years ago several insurance copnaies left that State for the same reason. If you want an earful go sit in on one of thier legislatiive sessions and listen to their rhetoric. It would be nice to have every social program under the sun, however, if the money is not available ( ie Greece )or you can move to the many US cities and now possibly some States where Chapter 9 Bankrupties are about to take place or they still have not been able to enact a State budget or have to pay people with IOU script.

  • Actually restrained radical, Chris Christie has taken the ax to Planned Parenthood funding in New Jersey and his views on abortion strike me as heading in the right direction:

  • Mr. McClarey,

    Let’s not get duped by this. He says he wants to reduce abortions–even Obama says as much. He’s also said he’s not going to “shove that down our throats.” He also chose a pro-abort Lieutenant Governor.

    He’s another Republican that claims to be pro-life, just enough to not get Rudy’d. Seriously, to call for a ban on partial-birth abortion (which is already banned and only restricts one particular procedure while allowing for late-term abortions of any other method) and 24 hour waiting periods is pretty nominal.

    Don’t get me wrong, I love what this guy does fiscally, but to support him doesn’t seem that different from supporting “personally opposed” politicians on the Dem side.

  • No Steve, he does far more than that he merely says he wants to reduce abortion. His support of a partial birth abortion ban and parental notification places him in a category far different than Obama. Most importantly to me is his effort to defund Planned Parenthood, something that should be a model for other pro-life politicians.

    I might also add that if Congressman Chris Smith vouches for him, that is good enough for me.

  • If we insist on waiting for a perfectly pro-life candidate to come along before voting for anyone, we’ll be waiting an awfully long time, and in the meantime pro-abort RINOs and Dems will keep on getting elected. Is THAT what we want?

    Also, before fellow Illinoisans and others start getting our hopes up about electing someone like this, or about running Christie for president, bear in mind that the office of governor in NJ is extremely powerful constitutionally — more so than the POTUS or any other state governor. What Christie is doing can’t necessarily be repeated in other states or at a national level.

  • A good article today in The Hill on Christie:

    Christie is leading a true grass roots revolt in New Jersey and those of us who live outside of the Garden State are beginning to pay attention.

  • Did I wake up in a dream? Did a man get elected in modern day America and proceed to actually do everything he promised he do with little to no regard for his poll numbers?

  • The commie-caths are nothing if not consistent. They find fault with all GOP’ers and give praise to Obama.

    I bet above Christie detractors (look up detraction) voted for Obama.

    You know: a President Christie would not nominate to SCOTUS anyone like a Dean Kagan, but the commie-cath-elected Dems would filibuster all his judicial nominees, anyhow.

    But, keep voting with satan, socialist saints! Because 47,000,000 exterminated unborn babies is a small price to pay for the destruction of the unjust, racist capitalist system.

  • T.Shaw I can guarantee you that neither restrainedradical nor Steve are commie-caths. In regard to Steve, I suspect that I would be closer to being a commie-cath than he would be. 🙂

  • Did I wake up in a dream? Did a man get elected in modern day America and proceed to actually do everything he promised he do with little to no regard for his poll numbers?

    It’s even stranger. He is doing a much better job than his bland and substance-less campaign would have suggested. He’s the anti-Crist.

  • That’s one heck of a piece of extemporaneous speaking. And he pulled it off with good humor and no bitterness. Impressive.

  • I was thinking the same thing, Dale. Either that question and answer was planned out ahead of time (and I don’t think it was), or Chris Christie is one fine public speaker.

  • Mr. McClarey,

    Because I have a great deal of respect for you I will stand down. Christie’s action on PP is certainly commendable.

    My reluctance to support him is rooted in a history of being burned by so-called pro-lifers like Bush who ushered in federally funded stem cell research (the fact that it was just a little bit does not justify it) and little else make me even more suspicious of Republicans who make the “I’m not going to shove it down people’s throats” type of remarks. If it’s murder–and it is–it should absolutely be shoved down people’s throats.

    Elaine, I couldn’t disagree more. Had McCain been elected, the country’s descent into socialism wouldn’t have been reversed; it would have merely been slowed. While sitting out the last couple elections may have unfortunately given the Dems power now, it also was a necessary condition for the revival we’re about to see in November. And I’m not just talking about the hit the Dems will take but also the lousy sort of Republicans you seem inclined to support (Bennett, Crist, etc.)

    T. Shaw, you couldn’t be more mistaken. I’ve got a toddler who starts booing when he sees Obama on TV. I think that your remark lacked basic Christian charity.

  • I back Donald as well.

    I don’t know Steve well enough, but Restrained Radical is the real deal when it comes to his faith (I could be wrong, but I haven’t read anything to say otherwise).

  • I like Christie and would vote for his reelection if I lived in NJ. I don’t know if I would vote for him for president though. It has nothing to do with spending. His fiscal conservatism I love. But there’s a real possibility he’s not that far from Rudy.

  • RR,

    I am an ardently pro-life NJ resident who would not hesitate to vote for him for president. Christie is nothing like Rudy (except in his fiscal policies). I have little doubt that he would absolutely come down on the pro-life side of ANY legislation that came before him. The “not pushing it down people’s throats” comment was, I think, more about what his focus was going to be – the economy. He’s not focusing on abortion, but he’s certainly not promoting it or even tolerating it. Even in his budget battles, he’s already taken the pro-life step of cutting funding to Planned Parenthood. That’s a pretty bold move if you’re secretly looking to avoid the abortion fight or if your “personally opposed, but…” and I don’t think it should be overlooked as evidence of who he really is. Keep your eye on him and I think all your fears will be put to rest.

  • Sorry to all.

    I have a visceral, uncharitable “problem” with (was it 52% or 62% of) majority of Catholics that wittingly/unwittingly voted for Obama, abortion, Kennedys, economic deconstruction, Kerry, subversion of morality, Pelosi, etc.

    I fear nitpicking/sniping at basically “good guys” like Christie will help keep abortionists in power.

  • T. Shaw,

    I understand where you’re coming from.

    A difficult lesson I learned is that don’t use name calling, but do describe what they are doing.

  • Pro-life is such a minor issue these days to the majority of Americans. You guys need to make it a sub-issue and focus on the issues that really matter in evey day America – primarily the economy, which this Governor is actually willing to do something about. He’s actually going to be fiscally conservative. Thank God! Who cares about whether he supports or is against abortion. Move on people!

  • “Who cares about whether he supports or is against abortion. Move on people!”

    I couldn’t think of a worse venue to preach that particular message than The American Catholic. We care deeply about the pro-life cause here and we will never “move on” from that struggle until the innocent unborn enjoy the same right to life that you and I enjoy.

  • The lousy economy is a symptom of the culture of death, rather than a separate issue. Addressing fiscal issues without turning our hearts back to God is just a band aid.

  • Move on people!

    JG, there’s already a website for that. But as Don said, you don’t seem to know much about who this blog community consists of.

  • “Pro-life is such a minor issue these days to the majority of Americans. You guys need to make it a sub-issue”

    It depends on how you interpret that. Pro-life is NOT a “sub issue” in the sense that it is dispensable or of lower priority than how a candidate stands on the economy. If you don’t have the right to live, all other rights are meaningless. Anyone who is aggressively pro-abortion or who fails to make even the slightest effort to protect the unborn is NOT going to get my vote even if they have the most brilliant economic ideas on earth.

    However, that does not mean that every pro-lifer must constantly flog the abortion issue or make it the primary focus of their campaign or of their administration if elected. Nor are they obligated to make unrealistic promises of action that likely will not pass their legislatures or that will be struck down by the courts (e.g. promising to enact a complete abortion ban). They must, however, make clear where they stand and promise to take advantage of any opportunity they have to protect unborn life. I think Christie’s decision to defund Planned Parenthood is a good example of that. It can be justified on fiscal grounds (the state can’t afford it, and has no business asking taxpayers to pay for it) as well as on moral grounds.

    Here we need to keep in mind Christ’s saying about how those who prove themselves faithful in small things will be faithful in greater things. I believe pro-lifers who show themselves to be honest, trustworthy, and wise on “lesser” issues like the economy, taxes, etc. will have more credibility with both the “unconverted” as well as the “choir” when they address life issues. Likewise someone who constantly beats the drum for pro-life but proves to be a complete incompetent or idiot when it comes to other aspects of governing doesn’t do the movement or the unborn any favors.

  • Steve’s right about this: The lousy economy is a symptom of the culture of death. If the one-in-every-three kids who have been killed in this country for the last 35 yrs were young adults today, we wouldn’t be worried about Mcare, SS funding etc…just for starters. Of course that doesn’t even count the people who aren’t here thanks to contraception.
    Thanks, boomers.

Brits Forgetting Winston Churchill

Thursday, May 13, AD 2010

Hattip to Allahpundit at Hot Air.  One in five British adults were unable to identify a picture of Winston Churchill in a recent survey.

As part of the survey, carried out to mark this week’s 70th anniversary of Churchill’s prime ministerial tenure, more than 1,136 people were asked to identify three prominent 20th century PMs including Churchill, Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair.

One in five (19%) adults failed to name Churchill, with the figure rising to 32% of 25 to 34-year-olds and 44% of those aged 16 to 24.

Following the pattern, researchers projected the rough date when the leaders would no longer be recognised, with Churchill’s demise predicted in 80 years’ time…

The survey, which involved people naming black and white headshot photos of the prime ministers, saw Churchill mistaken for Stephen Fry, Robert Hardy, Michael Gambon, Charlie Chaplin, Oliver Hardy, John Betjeman and Roy Hattersley, the Royal Mint said…

Kevin Clancy, head of Historical Services at the Royal Mint, added: “It’s shocking that one of our greatest statesmen runs the risk of potentially being forgotten.

Continue reading...

12 Responses to Brits Forgetting Winston Churchill

  • Pathetic.

  • I should add don’t blame the schools, Don. They are busy with more important things like teaching the kids “how” to learn and ensuring high self-esteem. Who cares what happened 50 years ago?” The dude was probably just some old white guy.

  • True Mike. The schools obviously have to keep their priorities straight: politics and sensitivity first, knowledge if there is time.

    The truly dismal aspect of this is that more than a few of the teachers are probably not that clear on Churchill, probably dimly remembering him from a politicized survey course on British History they took in high school or college.

  • Perhaps I’ve found a way to make children reconnect with Churchill:

  • I bet more than 1 in 5 Americans won’t be able to identify FDR. School is where you’re locked up while your parents work. We learn from TV.

  • “We learn from TV.”

    God help us all.

  • Yet only in 2002 Winston Churchill was voted the greatest Briton by over 500,000 votes. A little more representative than 1000 in this survey. Besides which if the poll was taken in London then it is almost like the pool was undertaken in a foreign country, London is so cosmopolitan now.

    Saying that, we live in a culture which recognises only youth and celeb gossip which is a fairly recent import from the USA, (thank you USA!!). If you’re not in the media ever other day then you aren’t anyone!!

  • Sorry for the typo, it should have been ‘poll’, not pool.

    I live about 15 miles from Sir Winston Churchill’s family home – Chartwell which is now part of the National Trust. Visting there is like stepping through history, letters from all the world leaders during World War II and post war. Gifts from all over the world in gratitude for his efforts and with a library full of books he’d written. I came out feeling very insignificant. I learnt more there than in all the lessons at school.

  • If we learn everything from TV, then I suspect that Britons would fare better in this poll if taken today. Mr. Churchill appeared in an episode of Dr. Who a few weeks ago, so he should by now be readily identifiable. 🙂

  • Bear in mind the article was in the UK newspaper the Daily Mail, I was once offered a
    copy free with a Latte and refused to accept it. My dad used to read
    it and it always wanted to make me slit my wrists.

    On the wider note about engaging the younger generation, I have twin
    boys of 14 and if anything as a result of the likes of the History
    channel etc they have a better appreciation of history and WW2 than I
    ever did at their age. They have recently come back from a WW1 tour of
    Belgium, we didn’t do that sort of thing when I was a lad.
    I wrote a book with my boys in mind called Churchill’s Secret Skills
    which takes Winston’s WW2 talents for running the war and applies them
    to modern business. I figured if I could keep them interested enough
    to read it through to the end then I had just about pitched it right.
    You have to keep it engaging and throw in as much humour as possible.
    Teenage kids are a tough crowd

  • I can sort of understand mistaking him for Oliver Hardy by a photograph.

  • I bet plenty of British school kids have heard of the Spitfire, though.