Video
Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feed
Decatholicizing opinions vs. catholicizing facts
In Texas, a Catholic bishop made two hospitals cease doing tube-tying operations for women who are not going to have more babies. In Arizona, a nun was excommunicated and the hospital where she works was expelled from the church after 116 years for allowing doctors to terminate a pregnancy to save a woman's life. At the same time, some doctors and other health professionals have faced disciplinary action for refusing to perform procedures or provide medications that go against their religious beliefs.
Should Catholic hospitals be able to restrict doctors from performing common and legal medical practices? Do such restrictions unfairly impinge on the rights of non-Catholic patients and doctors, particularly those in rural or underserved areas where alternative hospitals are not readily available?
The prohibition against tubal ligation in a Catholic hospital in Texas and the "de-Catholicizing" of a hospital in Arizona are two different issues. Although the results appear to be similar, the ecclesiastical justification for each decision comes from a different source. While it is tempting to mix apples and oranges, a bit more discretion is warranted here.
Catholic theology is focused by intention. "I didn't know the gun was loaded," can be permissible grounds for evaluating morality in Catholic thought. If, for instance, the purpose of pointing the gun (unloaded) was to "protect" oneself -- that action is morally different than shooting a loaded gun to rob a bank.
To judge the Texas case, we have to ask, "What is the purpose of this operation?" It is hard to imagine that tying a woman's tubes has any purpose other than to prevent conception. Thus, it is consistent with Catholic theology to stop Catholics from tying the tubes. It may surprise some to read that the Catholic Church is not against birth control as a part of family life. What is considered out of bounds are elective operations that result in sterilization.
To put that legalese into a common-sense analogy, the purpose of speeding is to get to a destination faster. There is no law against getting to the destination, but a driver is not supposed to put other people at risk in doing so. (Of course, if it is the proverbial need to get the hospital in time to give birth, exceptions can be made - but that is beyond the present discussion.)
Thus, on the presumption that virtually all tubal ligation is intended to produce sterilization, a Catholic hospital is well within its rights to prohibit such operations. At present, most laws of local and national relevance do not force doctors, nurses or hospitals to perform actions that violate their religious teachings. As elective -- that is, "not necessary" surgery -- requiring an individual patient to seek this operation in another facility seems to offer little harm to the good of society. What happened in Texas makes sense to me.
In the Arizona hospital, however, the abortion was deemed not "elective," but rather necessary since the stated intention was to save the life of the pregnant woman. That reasoning falls entirely within the accepted parameters of Catholic theology. The archbishop who later ruled on the matter decreed that he did not believe that the surgery was necessary (to save the life of the mother) but merely "elective." On that basis, it was stated that all those involved in performing the surgery had fallen under the excommunication leveled by canon law upon those who intentionally participate in elective abortion.
Notice that the Archbishop of Phoenix did not attempt to repeal the pro-life teaching of Catholic theology that when both mother and fetus are sure to die, one ought to be saved if possible. He has no authority to change Catholic teaching that way. What he did was to impose his personal judgment on this particular situation, and thus reversed the judgment made by those in the hospital.
The analogy here would be to a local court making one decision and having that conclusion reversed at a higher court. The hospital review board made a ruling at a local level that the pro-life criteria of saving at least one life had been met. The Archbishop reversed the earlier decision -- not as a matter of reversing the law -- but as disputing the facts on the ground.
Catholic practice recognizes the authority of the bishop to make such decisions, but does not confer infallibility upon them. Much as a federal appellate ruling does not replace the Supreme Court, the local bishop does not speak for the pope. The statement by the Archbishop that in his understanding the nun had been automatically excommunicated for her role in authorizing the operation is a valid one, but operative only within his jurisdiction. The same canon law that gives the bishop authority to make such a ruling in his diocese also prevents him from obliging all other bishops to his opinion.
This reasoning requires patience and careful attention. I can understand why many would urge Catholicism to just get rid of so much legalese. However, it is just these kinds of efforts that have enabled Catholicism to last through two millennia. It may be an ecclesiastical mess, but it is our mess and we are prepared to serve God as best we can in spite of all.
By
Anthony M. Stevens-Arroyo
|
January 25, 2011; 2:26 PM ET
Save & Share:
Previous: The right to Episcopal authority |
Next: Sadly, Catholic hospitals have a right to be medieval
Posted by: amelia45 | January 26, 2011 1:43 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Fine, then the solution is obvious! No so-called religious institution should have any business functions or any other operations not explicitly religious such as hospitals, nursing homes, food providers, housing shelters, clothing outlets, bingo parlors, parking facilities, schools, non religious consoling, day care not for parents attending religious services or instruction, etc. I for one refuse to allow any religious superstition or dogma to have any influence directly on any governmental or business law, service, or action! Religions only have a right to advise their members on actions by their members for their members; they may argue for society to change its behavior, but no government or business should be allowed to impose any actions based solely on religious grounds. To do so, makes us no better than other theologies such as Israel, the Vatican or Saudi Arabia!
Posted by: CHAOTICIAN101 | January 26, 2011 12:49 PM
Report Offensive Comment
If the religious communities, if you will, like to follow certain precepts they are free to do so. I don't feel neither government nor anyone else can interfere with that. That being said the religious institutions such as RCC, Baptists, and whatever shade they may be should not encroach into secular domain unless they are willing to live by the secular rules. Otherwise they can go away like the Amish and remove themselves from the secular world all together.
Given that RCC and all these bigoted religious institutions have a strangle hold, whenever there are these extra secular fiats at the hospitals their funding from the benefactors and the patients should stop patronizing these institutions run by theses bigoted people and institutions. I passionately believe that we secularists should dig and start doing that. Next time when we are going for an elective procedures we should ask this of the hospital and make sure that the specialist we engage has privileges at more secular hospitals too and request that we be treated in those secular hospitals. Cut the bastards off their life line, $$$$$$$.
Posted by: Secular | January 25, 2011 8:42 PM
Report Offensive Comment
This is not a question of faith or the first amendment. The RCC is a big business running hospitals throughout the country. They are, at best, incidental to religion. Most have received secular donations and secular help. They take insurance from both private and government agencies. They are not an arm of a religion.
If the RCC doesn't want abortions performed in hospitals they run, they can quit running hospitals. They have no other legal or moral right.
Posted by: david6 | January 25, 2011 6:17 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Well, my grandmother, a wonderful and very Catholic woman had a good solution.
Doctors told her another pregnancy would kill her. She had her tubes tied. At her next confession, she told Father _____ that she would confess this one time and never mention it again; and she expected Father to do the same. And so, she prayed her penance and the subject was closed for both of them. She lived to care for and raise the children she already had and to love her husband. She remained a good Catholic.
I think Catholic hospitals or any religiously affiliated hospital that limits services should not receive federal money. That is my tax dollars that go to supporting a religious viewpoint. So, they should not get money from federal or state programs like medicare/medicaid. No one is stopping from keeping to their notions of right and wrong, but no one who doesn't believe as they do is having to pay for it, either.