(With apologies to Jim Gaffigan.)
Let's start by acknowleding what New York Times columnist Kristof gets right in his little screed, "Tussling Over Jesus": he spells Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted's name correctly, something I didn't do a few weeks ago in a post about the Archbishop of Phoenix. Hat's off to you, Mr. NK. Nicely done.
Otherwise, his column is completely in the wrong—and proudly, condesendingly, arrogantly so. It opens with a headline from the National "Catholic" Reporter, so you immediately know that truth, facts, and respect for Catholic teaching are going to be about as scarce as an on-field huddle during the recent Auburn-Oregon football game (the result of which was as painful to me as reading Kristof's column). And then:
Yet the person giving Jesus the heave-ho in this case was not a Bethlehem innkeeper. Nor was it an overzealous mayor angering conservatives by pulling down Christmas decorations. Rather, it was a prominent bishop, Thomas Olmsted, stripping St. Joseph’s Hospital and Medical Center in Phoenix of its affiliation with the Roman Catholic diocese.
The hospital’s offense? It had terminated a pregnancy to save the life of the mother. The hospital says the 27-year-old woman, a mother of four children, would almost certainly have died otherwise.
Bishop Olmsted initially excommunicated a nun, Sister Margaret McBride, who had been on the hospital’s ethics committee and had approved of the decision. That seems to have been a failed attempt to bully the hospital into submission, but it refused to cave and continues to employ Sister Margaret. Now the bishop, in effect, is excommunicating the entire hospital — all because it saved a woman’s life. ...
To me, this battle illuminates two rival religious approaches, within the Catholic church and any spiritual tradition. One approach focuses upon dogma, sanctity, rules and the punishment of sinners. The other exalts compassion for the needy and mercy for sinners — and, perhaps, above all, inclusiveness.
The thought that keeps nagging at me is this: If you look at Bishop Olmsted and Sister Margaret as the protagonists in this battle, one of them truly seems to me to have emulated the life of Jesus. And it’s not the bishop, who has spent much of his adult life as a Vatican bureaucrat climbing the career ladder. It’s Sister Margaret, who like so many nuns has toiled for decades on behalf of the neediest and sickest among us.
Then along comes Bishop Olmsted to excommunicate the Christ-like figure in our story. If Jesus were around today, he might sue the bishop for defamation.
There are several key facts that you won't find in Kristof's column, the absence of which complete distorts the picture. And, of course, that is what Kristof needs, because it's obvious that he wants to shake a finger in the face of bishops such as Abp. Olmsted who are taking their directives from the supernatural Church founded by Christ, not by the secularist newspaper funding and featuring Mr. Kristof. Here are the main points:
1. Abp. Thomas Olmsted is not just a priest and bishop, but he is a priest and bishop with a master’s degree in theology and a doctorate in canon law. This is significant because the matter involving St. Joseph’s Hospital and Medical Center requires a sound grounding in both theology and canon law. It may be that Kristof also has those degrees; I don't know. It may be that newspaper pundits sometimes know more than theologians/canon lawyers/bishops when it comes to theology, canon law, and governing. But I think that anyone not sucked into the intellectually nepotistic orbit of NCR and NYT will give the benefit of the doubt to the theologian/canon lawyer/bishop until given good reason to do otherwise.
2. Keeping with the first point, the case of the abortion at St. Joseph’s Hospital in Phoenix required a grasp of some delicate but clear distinctions made in Catholic moral theology and canon law. The key distinction is that between a direct abortion and the death of an unborn child resulting indirectly from a medical procedure meant to save the life of the mother. This is such an important point I will quote at length here from the June 2010 USCCB statement, "The Distinction Between Direct Abortion and Legitimate Medical Procedures":
The difference can be seen in two different scenarios in which the unborn child is not yet old enough to survive outside the womb. In the first scenario, a pregnant woman is experiencing problems with one or more of her organs, apparently as a result of the added burden of pregnancy. The doctor recommends an abortion to protect the health of the woman. In the second scenario, a pregnant woman develops cancer in her uterus. The doctor recommends surgery to remove the cancerous uterus as the only way to prevent the spread of the cancer. Removing the uterus will also lead to the death of the unborn child, who cannot survive at this point outside the uterus.
The first scenario describes a direct abortion. The surgery directly targets the life of the unborn child. It is the surgical instrument in the hands of the doctor that causes the child's death. The surgery does not directly address the health problem of the woman, for example, by repairing the organ that is malfunctioning. The surgery is likely to improve the functioning of the organ or organs, but only in an indirect way, i.e., by lessening the overall demands placed upon the organ or organs, since the burden posed by the pregnancy will be removed. The abortion is the means by which a reduced strain upon the organ or organs is achieved. As the Church has said many times, direct abortion is never permissible because a good end cannot justify an evil means.
The second scenario describes a situation in which an urgently-needed medical procedure indirectly and unintentionally (although foreseeably) results in the death of an unborn child. In this case the surgery directly addresses the health problem of the woman, i.e., the organ that is malfunctioning (the cancerous uterus). The woman's health benefits directly from the surgery, because of the removal of the cancerous organ. The surgery does not directly target the life of the unborn child. The child will not be able to live long after the uterus is removed from the woman's body, but the death of the child is an unintended and unavoidable side effect and not the aim of the surgery.
There is nothing intrinsically wrong with surgery to remove a malfunctioning organ. It is morally justified when the continued presence of the organ causes problems for the rest of the body. Surgery to terminate the life of an innocent person, however, is intrinsically wrong. There are no situations in which it can be justified. Pope Pius XII summed up Catholic teaching when he stated: "As long as a man is not guilty, his life is untouchable, and therefore any act directly tending to destroy it is illicit, whether such destruction is intended as an end in itself or only as a means to an end, whether it is a question of life in the embryonic stage or in a stage of full development or already in its final stages."
3. The above statement is further notable because it was issued by the USCCB's Committee on Doctrine in full, public support of Abp. Olmsted. (See links here to pertinent documents/stories.) Kristof would have you think that Abp. Olmsted is something of a rogue, "conservative" bishop who is outside the pale of what most Catholics think. Well, in a way, he might be half right about that, as many Catholics are not just clueless about Catholic teaching, they run like lemmings to follow nearly anyone who convinces them that doctrine and Magisterial teaching are meant to oppress the poor, rob them of sexual pleasure, and shore up the Tea Party (or whatever the bogeyman is at the time for leftists such as Kristof).
4. Kristof is disdainful of the approach within Catholicism that "focuses upon dogma, sanctity, rules and the punishment of sinners." His leg tingles when he thinks of the contrary approach that "exalts compassion for the needy and mercy for sinners — and, perhaps, above all, inclusiveness." It is, of course, a clumsy attempt at the classic divide (disingenuously) and conquer (doubtfully) routine: "Your side is mean and nasty; mine is sweet and swell; ergo, I win." Perhaps Kristof, unlike Abp. Olmsted, is unaware of the duties of a Catholic bishop. Abp. Olmsted explains:
I am a successor to the Apostles. I need to carry on the mission that Jesus left to them. A bishop has three primary roles: to teach, to sanctify, and to govern. I place the primary emphasis on teaching, because Jesus said “Go teach all nations.” But you don’t teach without being totally rooted to Christ in prayer and being one with him through the Eucharist. So the sanctifying role has to be closely linked to the teaching role.
The shepherding or governing role is also intimately united with the others. To fulfill it, I need a strong working relationship with my priests, who carry on day-to-day life in our parishes. I see my role with my brother priests as both father and brother.
And—prepare to be shocked!—this is completely in keeping with the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which states: "To the apostles and their successors Christ has entrusted the office of teaching, sanctifying and governing in his name and by his power. But the laity are made to share in the priestly, prophetical, and kingly office of Christ; they have therefore, in the Church and in the world, their own assignment in the mission of the whole People of God" (par. 873; also see 1592). That quote, by the way, comes from the Second Vatican Council Decree, Apostolicam Actuositatem (par. 2); this isn't just some strange holdover from the dreaded "pre-Vatican II Church". Needless to say, Kristof has no grasp at all on the fact that dogma, sanctity, rules, and punishment are part of what it takes to develop, protect, and nurture true compassion, mercy, and love. Any parent worth their salt knows this is the case.
There is more (for example, I could go on and on about Kristof's lame and laughable appeal to the neo-Enlightment, trendy leftist Jesus who has nothing to do with the real Jesus), but I'll conclude by noting that Kristof relies on three "authorities": the National "Catholic" Reporter, the head of the hospital in question, and ... novelist Anne Rice? Huh? Really? Yep:
Anne Rice, the author and a commentator on Catholicism, sees a potential turning point. “St. Joseph’s refusal to knuckle under to the bishop is huge,” she told me, adding: “Maybe rank-and-file Catholics are finally talking back to a hierarchy that long ago deserted them.”
Oh, she's a (commence sonorous, deep tones!) "Commentator On Catholicism". I'm deeply impressed and insanely intimidated! No, actually, I'm not. I've expressed my thoughts many times—see here and here and here and here and here and here—on the sad debacle of Anne Rice's "unversion" (and her embarrassing failure to really understand or accurately represent Catholicism), and I know that anyone who is appealing to Rice in order to buttress his assault on orthodox Catholic bishops is indeed spouting nasty, Catholic-bashing krap.
prominent and courageous position in defense of the Traditional liturgy, and of Pope Benedict XVI as well, in the face of last year’s media onslaught." 
Just prior to the November 2010 meeting of the United States bishops in Baltimore, Bishop Thomas J. Paprocki of Springfield, Illinois announced he would host a two-day conference on exorcism. More than 50 bishops and 60 priests registered to attend. Paprocki explained he wanted to bring attention to a badly needed ministry in the American Church.
Recent Comments