Tag: The Catholic church

  • Improper use of social media

    A word of advice for schoolteachers: don’t ever seek a job in Cincinnati Catholic Archdiocese schools. You’d have to sign a contract that makes you their slave.

    The Archdiocese has a new contract for teachers, one that’s twice the size of previous contracts, to accommodate the many things it tells you not to do.

    The contract for the 2014-15 school year explicitly orders teachers to refrain “from any conduct or lifestyle which would reflect discredit on or cause scandal to the school or be in contradiction to Catholic doctrine or morals.” It goes so far as to ban public support of the practices.

    Principals in the 94 Archdiocese-supervised schools in Southwest and Central Ohio began receiving the new employment agreements Thursday. More than 2,200 Greater Cincinnati parochial teachers will be affected by the new contract, the Archdiocese estimates.

    I wonder how many of them are looking around for a new job right now.

    Under the new contract, teachers are expressly prohibited from: “improper use of social media/communication, public support of or publicly living together outside of marriage; public support of or sexual activity out of wedlock; public support of/or homosexual lifestyle; public support of/or use of abortion; public support of/or use of a surrogate mother; public support or use of in vitro fertilization or artificial insemination.”

    The wording is horrendously foggy – maybe whoever drew up that contract should do a refresher course in how to English – but you can figure out what they’re trying to say. You can’t publicly support “living together outside of marriage.” You also can’t yourself “live together outside of marriage.” (What, no roommates? What do people do if they can’t afford the rent? Or if they just want company around the house? If they just like sharing the rent and the chores with a friend or two or four?) You can’t support “sexual activity out of wedlock” and you also can’t fuck someone you’re not married to. You can’t support “homosexual lifestyle” and you also can’t be lesbian or gay or bi. (I don’t even know what the Vatican thinks about being trans. Maybe it forbids itself to have an opinion.) You can’t support “use of abortion” and you can’t yourself have an abortion. (What if you’ve already had one, or more than one? Is that a firing offense?) You can’t support “use of a surrogate mother” and you can’t “use” a surrogate mother yourself. Does that also mean you can’t be a surrogate mother? Is it ok to be one but not to “use” one? Who the fuck knows. The Archdiocese has its list of rules, and it’s doing its best to put them into a contract; don’t bother it with tiresome questions.

    In short, the Archdiocese thinks it has the right to be all up in your business every hour of every day just because you work for one of its schools.

    The contractual language is a first because it brings more specificity to the individual teacher employment agreement and what practices will cost teachers their jobs.

    And it further focuses on the Archdiocese’s established philosophies and the importance of adhering to Catholic teachings, Archdiocese spokesman Dan Andriacco said.

    “There aren’t any new expectations of our teachers in the 2014-2015 contract. The revised wording is just more explicit in that it lists examples of behaviors that are unacceptable as contrary to church teaching,” Andriacco said. “We think that’s fairer to the teachers and a help to them.

    “We’ve always regarded our schools as a ministry. That’s why we open the doors in the morning. Not all of our students are Catholic and not all of our teachers are Catholic, but all of our schools are Catholic. And we found out from listening sessions around the Archdiocese two years ago – when we developed our Vision for Catholic Schools – that Catholic identity is very important to our Catholic school families,” Andriacco said.

    And what is Catholic “identity”? For the majority of Catholics, it’s much more a matter of shared rituals and symbols than it is of obedience to that hateful list of Forbidden Things above. Much more. But the Archdiocese wants to interpret it is both permission and demand for more rigorous enforcement of the hateful rules.

    Before and after: New restrictions in teacher contract

     

    • The 2013-14 teacher employment contract for the Cincinnati Archdiocese has provisions on personal behavior, but not as detailed as the one teachers will be required to sign for the 2014-15 school year. Teachers must also initial some of the provisions as well as sign the contract agreement.
    • The current, three-page contract includes a provision that states in part that teachers: “understand and fulfill his/her duties as a Ministerial employee of the School/Educational Office and serve as a Catholic role model, inside and outside of the classroom, regardless of his/her personal beliefs or other religious affiliation; comply with and act consistently in accordance with the stated philosophy and teachings of the Roman Catholic Church … which include certain proscriptions on personal behavior not adhering to the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church that could be detrimental to the Employee’s ability to serve as a Catholic role model; comply with the policies and directives of the School/Educational Office and the Archdiocese, including without limitation the Archdiocese’s “Ethics and Conduct Policy.”

    Hmm. What other kind of thing is detrimental to the Employee’s ability to serve as a Catholic role model? Anything they forgot to mention? Does the Employee have to molest children?

    At any rate, they’re not kidding. They do fire people for not being reactionary-Catholic enough.

    Recent Archdiocese firings, suspensions, dismissals for clashing with church teaching

     

    • In 2009 a nun was suspended by the Archdiocese for publicly supporting the ordination of women priests.
    • Later that year a volunteer religion education teacher was dismissed after her letter to The Enquirer in support of the suspended nun was published.
    • In 2010 the Cincinnati Archdiocese fired an unmarried teacher who became pregnant by artificial insemination. A federal court ruled in 2013 in her favor, ordering the Archdiocese to pay her $171,000 for her improper firing.
    • In 2013, an assistant principal at Purcell Marian High School was fired for writing on his public blog his support of gay marriage.

    You have been warned.

  • Strong bars on strong cages

    Jennifer Collins at Religion News reports on Ireland’s little problem with Catholic saturation of the public state-funded schools.

    The Catholic Church runs 90 percent of primary schools in Ireland. The rest are mainly Protestant, and about 4 percent are managed by the nonprofit Educate Together, which is nonsectarian.

    The arrangement is unsettling to some parents who have little choice in where to send their children.

    “They integrated religion into every subject in the school,” said Martijn Leenheer, an atheist who moved from the Netherlands to a small village in west Ireland eight years ago. “For instance, in biology, they would say ‘God created these flowers.’ Even in math they do it. They basically make religion part of everything in the school.”

    Although he requested that his son opt out of religious classes, Leenheer later found that his son was learning how to recite prayers and said the school’s principal was unsympathetic to his concerns.

    He had to move to be able to have access to one of the Educate Together schools.

    Jane Donnelly of Atheist Ireland said the European court’s decision may help parents like Leenheer.

    “If you’ve got nowhere else but to send your child to the local school and the local school is Catholic and the state is funding that education for your child, then the state should be responsible for the protection of your human rights in that school and for religious discrimination in that school,” said Donnelly.

    Ireland’s system of school patronage provides for public funding of schools but allows private groups to establish schools as long as there is sufficient demand.

    Long the most powerful institution in Ireland, the Catholic Church has established more than 2,500 schools under the system. Educate Together has 68 schools, mainly in urban areas.

    On the one hand more than 2,500, on the other hand 68. Hardly a fair fight, is it. Hardly a fair anything, in fact. Why should small children have Catholicism forced on them at school every day? Why should anyone, but especially small children, who naturally think that school=authority=truth.

    Responsible for their own admission policies, many Irish schools often favor baptized Catholics when enrollment exceeds available seats. As a result, parents sometimes baptize their children in the Catholic faith so they can receive an education.

    And then the church gets to count those children and thus gets to inflate its membership. It also does that by counting everyone except people who go to the trouble and expense of getting themselves officially taken off the rolls. The church fights dirty every step of the way.

    As part of a study on the church’s role in schools, Ireland’s Department of Education found that around 8 percent of parents in some areas said they might move their children to nondenominational schools if given a chance.

    “Everyone accepts that there’s probably an oversupply of Catholic schools at primary level,” said Drumm, though he added that a “blanket divesting” from church-run schools would only harm the education system.

    Atheists like Donnelly remain skeptical.

    “They might hand over a few schools here and there to try to give the impression that something is happening on the ground, but in reality they have no intention of handing over enough schools to radically change the system,” she said.

    But the mere fact that Ireland is having the debate, albeit with the help of the European court, shows that the country is growing more diverse even as it retains its strong Catholic identity.

    A “strong Catholic identity” that has been forced on it in myriad ways. It’s more like a strong Catholic prison than a strong Catholic identity.

     

  • Special tickets

    There’s a hearing on institutional responses to child sexual abuse in the Catholic church going on in Sydney now. It started off with a bang on Monday

    Victims of child abuse and their supporters walked out of a public hearing at the royal commission into institutional responses to child sexual abuse after the Catholic church’s legal representative quoted the Bible in his opening address.

    Peter Gray, representing the church’s Truth, Justice and Healing Council began his opening statement by quoting a passage from the gospel of Mark, prompting cries of shock and disgust in the hearing room.

    “Many will remember, from their own childhoods, the ageless words from the gospel of Mark,” said Gray.

    “Let the little children come to me; do not stop them; for it is to such of these that the kingdom of God belongs.”

    Members of Care Leavers Australia Network and survivors of abuse walked out of the room, some in tears.

    Speaking to reporters outside the commission during a recess, Trish Charter said that at that point she could not listen any more and that hearing the words was “crashing us back down”.

    Imbecile. Think about it. What do these many remember from their own childhoods? Hearing those “ageless words” in a context that made them a foul, cruel joke. Hearing them uttered by men who did nothing to help the real children in their power, or men who abused the real children in their power. Talk about whited sepulchre! King Lear says it best:

    Thou rascal beadle, hold thy bloody hand.
    Why dost thou lash that whore? Strip thine own back.
    Thou hotly lust’st to use her in that kind
    For which thou whipp’st her. The usurer hangs the cozener.
    Through tattered clothes great vices do appear;
    Robes and furred gowns hide all. Plate sin with gold,
    And the strong lance of justice hurtless breaks.
    Arm it in rags, a pigmy’s straw does pierce it.

    David Marr reports on the first day’s testimony.

    At one end of an immensely expensive room in the Sydney legal district was a squad of lawyers briefed months ago for the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse.

    But in the gallery at the other end sat victims and the parents and friends of victims who have been on the case for nearly 20 years. For some it has become their life’s work. And they came from all points on Monday to see what they had managed at last: to put the Catholic Church in the dock.

    They made their presence felt. They groaned. They protested. A handful walked out when Peter Gray SC, counsel for the church’s Truth, Justice and Healing Council, began by quoting the “ageless words” of St Mark: “Let the little children come to me.”

    Gray laid on the apologies not with a trowel but a front-end loader. He called abuse by clergy and its concealment by the church unbearable, disgraceful, heartbreaking, shattering and devastating. He declared the royal commission, “a watershed in church history and indeed in Australian history”.

    The gallery was unmoved. For 20 years the church has been saying sorry and promising to do better. Nothing to applaud here. Nor did the campaigners seem impressed by Gray’s fresh assurances the church would co-operate “fully, without reservation” with the commission.

    Isn’t that called, obeying the law?

    Well…yes, for ordinary humans, it is, but for people with special tickets from god, it’s a different story.

  • Cardinal Dolan caught lying about the church funds

    Timothy Dolan again. Remember Timothy Dolan? Former archbishop of Milwaukee? Now archbishop of New York? Also a cardinal?

    The Timothy Dolan who whined and complained, in March 2010, about the unfair and meany way journalists would keep reporting on the Catholic church’s habit of protecting priests who rape children. He seems to have removed that post from his archepiscopal blog now, but the Internet archive still has it.

    So Friday’s headline, only the most recent, stings us again:  “Doctor Asserts Church Ignored Abuse Warnings,” as the psychiatrist who treated the criminal, Dr. Werner Huth, blames the Church for not heeding his recommendations.

    What adds to our anger over the nauseating abuse and the awful misjudgment in reassigning such a dangerous man, though, is the glaring fact that we never see similar headlines that would actually be “news”:  How about these, for example?

    –    “Doctor Asserts He Ignored Abuse Warnings,” since Dr. Huth admits in the article that he, in fact, told the archdiocese the abusing priest could be reassigned under certain restrictions, a prescription today recognized as terribly wrong;

    –    “Doctor Asserts Public Schools Ignored Abuse Warnings,” since the data of Dr. Carol Shakeshaft concludes that the number of cases of abuse of minors by teachers, coaches, counsellors, and staff in government schools is much, much worse than by priests;

    –    “Doctor Asserts Judges (or Police, Lawyers, District Attorneys, Therapists, Parole Officers) Ignored Abuse Warnings,” since we now know the sober fact that no one in the healing and law enforcement professions knew back then the depth of the scourge of abuse, or the now-taken-for-granted conclusion that abusers of young people can never safely work closely with them again.

    What causes us Catholics to bristle is not only the latest revelations of sickening sexual abuse by priests, and blindness on the part of some who wrongly reassigned them — such stories, unending though they appear to be, are fair enough, — but also that the sexual abuse of minors is presented as a tragedy unique to the Church alone.

    No, it isn’t, but even if it were, you self-justifying piece of crap, that would be because of the way you presume to inhabit the moral high ground and to tell everyone else what to do. The point is that your claims to moral elevation are disgusting and contemptible, and your attempts to boss everyone and to meddle with politics while enjoying tax-exempt status are an outrage.

    And you haven’t learned a god damn thing.

    Files released by the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Milwaukee on Monday reveal that in 2007, Cardinal Timothy F. Dolan, then the archbishop there, requested permission from the Vatican to move nearly $57 million into a cemetery trust fund to protect the assets from victims of clergy sexual abuse who were demanding compensation.

    That’s our morally elevated cardinal and archbishop – maneuvering to protect the church’s vast – and tax-exempt – bank account from the claims of people who were raped by that church’s employees. Cynical, callous, and selfish – that’s your man Cardinal Dolan.

    Cardinal Dolan, now the archbishop of New York, has emphatically denied seeking to shield church funds as the archbishop of Milwaukee from 2002 to 2009. He reiterated in a statement Monday that these were “old and discredited attacks.”

    However, the files contain a 2007 letter to the Vatican in which he explains that by transferring the assets, “I foresee an improved protection of these funds from any legal claim and liability.” The Vatican approved the request in five weeks, the files show.

    So he’s a liar as well.

    The release of more than 6,000 pages of documents on Monday was hailed by victims and their advocates as a vindication and a historic step toward transparency and accountability. They were well aware that the archives would bring unusually intense scrutiny to the country’s most high-profile prelate, Cardinal Dolan, who as president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and the archbishop of New York has sought to help the church turn the corner on the era of scandal.

    Cardinal Dolan has been regarded by many Catholics as part of the solution. In public appearances, he has expressed personal outrage at the harm done to children, apologized profusely and pledged to help the church and the victims heal.

    But the documents lift the curtain on his role as a workaday church functionary concerned with safeguarding assets, persuading abusive priests to leave voluntarily in exchange for continued stipends and benefits, and complying with Rome’s sluggish canonical procedures for dismissing uncooperative priests who he had long concluded were remorseless and a serious risk to children. In one case, the Vatican took five years to remove a convicted sex offender from the priesthood.

    Can we stop treating these people as moral authorities? Like, right now?

    In 2007, the year Cardinal Dolan asked to transfer the funds, the Wisconsin Supreme Court issued a decision that in effect lifted an unusual law that had long shielded the church from sexual abuse lawsuits. When he was later accused of trying to shield church funds, Cardinal Dolan said on his blog in New York that it was “malarkey” and “groundless gossip.” Archbishop Listecki and former Auxiliary Bishop Sklba invoked a theme that many other church officials have used in the past to explain their conduct: that their missteps reflected a broader lack of awareness about child sexual abuse in society.

    Archbishop Listecki wrote that he did not want to make excuses, but that church officials had relied on the advice of doctors and therapists who were “seemingly more concerned about ‘Father’ than about the children.” He said the documents would reveal “the progression and evolution of thinking on this topic.”

    However, the Rev. James Connell, a priest in the Milwaukee Archdiocese who helped to form a group called Catholic Whistleblowers, said in an interview that he did not find this claim credible.

    “I was in high school in the 1950s,” he said, “and I learned about statutory rape in high school. An adult having sexual activity with a minor is a crime. We knew about it then, so you can’t claim that social thought changed.”

    Besides which, the whole point of the Catholic church and its claims to moral authority and right to boss everyone – the whole point, I say – is that it’s timeless and absolute. It’s not supposed to be dependent on things like learning about statutory rape in high school! IT’S SUPPOSED TO BE DIVINE FUCKING REVELATION. If baby Jesus forgot to tell them that fucking little children in secret and threatening them so that they’ll keep the secret is not a nice thing to do – WHAT ELSE DID BABY JESUS FORGET TO TELL THEM?

    They are not the moral bosses of us. They are benighted, ignorant, reactionary, misogynist party bureaucrats who protect themselves and each other at the expense of everyone else.

     

  • Catholic schools have “general principles about ethos and values”

    Oh, brilliant – another encroachment by the Catholic church on a secular bit of society.

    High-performing Catholic schools are to be given considerable influence over the running and performance of struggling secular schools under plans being drawn up by the Church and government.

    Catholic schools are currently bound by strict rules that mean they cannot form federations with their non-faith counterparts. But with the growth of the academies programme and the diminishing influence of local authorities, the Church wants to make a “greater contribution” to the running of different types of schools.

    Well of course it does. That way it gets to impose its horrible reactionary anti-woman anti-human dogma on people who are formally outside its “magisterium.” It gets more power and control and influence. Of course the church wants to make a “greater contribution”!

    Paul Barber, the new director of the Catholic Education Service, said that Church schools had an important contribution to make. “The point is that Catholic schools are part of a partnership with the state. They feel strongly that they are part of the wider family along with other schools; they share that collective responsibility.

    “Many of our schools feel very strongly that they want to make a contribution to that wider scene.”

    Yes of course they do. They’re imperialist. They want to spread and take over and dominate. They’re having huge success in taking over all medical care in the US, and they will no doubt have huge success in taking over all primary and secondary schooling in the UK.

    “We are trying to explore the various ways in which Catholic schools can, if they wish to, assist other schools, including those which aren’t Catholic. We are looking at other mechanisms, other forms of trust arrangements,” he said.

    The plan follows a similar ambition outlined more than a year ago by the Church of England, which also wanted to offer partnerships and advice to non-Church schools.

    Of course it did, for the same reasons. Der. They don’t want to fade away, they want more power, more influence, more money, more jobs for the boys.

    Mr Barber added that Catholic schools had “general principles about ethos and values” that could be brought to a wider community.

    Pre-cisely.

    Keith Porteous Wood, executive director of the National Secular Society, said that faith schools should not have a say in how secular schools were run. “Whenever you have a merger or amalgamation of a faith and non-faith school, everything always leans towards faith,” he said. “What if Catholic schools start to insist on a Catholic head or they want to sack people who don’t want to teach RE?”

    A report by the British Humanist Association last year highlighted that, in the past five years, a number of schools had been redesignated as faith schools, but that no schools had lost their religious character.

    Another front opens.

  • The cardinal tripped and fell below the standards

    Cardinal Keith O’Brien, after saying “I never!!” for several days, has given a delicate admission that he was sexually…well he doesn’t say exactly, apart from admitting that it wasn’t quite the done thing. Well he’s a Catholic priest, and a high-ranking one, you can’t expect him to just come right out and say he fucked goats or had affairs with slabs of liver or raped children in the confessional.

    Cardinal Keith O’Brien, formerly Britain’s most senior Roman Catholic cleric, today admitted his sexual conduct had “fallen beneath the standards expected of me”.

    The Northern Ireland-born cleric stepped down from his post as Archbishop of St Andrews and Edinburgh last month, a day after three priests and one former priest made allegations of “inappropriate” behaviour against him.

    After initially denying the allegations, the cardinal last night admitted sexual wrongdoing for the first time, as he asked forgiveness for those he had “offended”.

    Lots of squeamish wording there, as the Indy’s scare-quotes hint, and no particulars at all. Inappropriate is it. Hmm. He announced he had a hard-on in the middle of Mass? He played with himself while telling the nuns what to do? He plastered his office with photos of sheep?

    And then the apology to those he “offended” is rich. “Sorry for raping you in the bum, little Johnny, hope you weren’t too offended.”

    Last night Mr O’Brien, 74, said: “I will now spend the rest of my life in retirement. I will play no further part in the public life of the Catholic Church in Scotland.”

    Until the allegations last month, the cardinal had been outspoken on issues including euthanasia and abortion, and had described gay marriage as a “grotesque subversion”.

    Yeeeah, that’s how that works. He can marry chickens, but gay marriage is grotesque. One law for me, a totally other kind of law for thee. Now get the fuck off my santified lawn.

  • One final verdict

    Frank Bruni wrote a pretty blistering op-ed in the NY Times last week on the Catholic church’s funny way of veering between theocracy and secularism depending on which is most convenient at any particular moment. He pointed out things that don’t get pointed out nearly often enough, especially by hyper-respectable newspapers like the Times.

    On the one hand, he notes, you have the bishops shouting about contraceptive coverage in health care plans, and on the other hand, you have lawyers for a Catholic hospital chain arguing that fetuses aren’t persons. And then you have those pesky child-raping priests…

    We’ve been getting a fresh and galling peek into that with the court-compelled release of documents from the Los Angeles Archdiocese, which engaged in a pattern of willful blindness and outright cover-up so egregious that the current archbishop, José Gomez, took the shocking step last week of publicly reprimanding his predecessor, Cardinal Roger Mahony.

    The documents show that Mahony and his lieutenants repeatedly failed to report allegations to law enforcement officials and urged accused priests to leave or stay out of the state, lest they face prosecution. They decided, in short, that the church’s representatives and reputation mattered more than justice: that the church could hold itself above laws that governed everybody else.

    Because free exercise. It’s in the Constitution! It totally means that churches can just make up their own laws and ignore all secular laws and legal institutions!

    Not.

    Around the country, the church has beaten back lawsuits by priests’ victims and tried not to furnish information about priests’ wrongdoing by claiming that such scrutiny violates the free exercise of religion, said Jeffrey Anderson, a Minnesota lawyer who has represented hundreds of victims over three decades. “It’s audacious, it’s bold and it’s across the board,” he said.

    But the church has simultaneously reserved the right to behave just like any other institution, leaning on legal technicalities, smearing victims and demonstrating no more compassion than a tobacco company might show.

    Having it both ways is totally part of free exercise, which is in the Constitution.

    From my extensive reporting on the sexual abuse crisis in the 1990s, I don’t recall any great push to excommunicate priests who forced themselves on kids. But when Sister Margaret McBride, in 2009, was part of a Phoenix hospital’s decision to abort an 11-week-old fetus inside a 27-year-old woman whose life was gravely endangered by the pregnancy, she indeed suffered excommunication (later reversed).

    So a fetus matters more than the ravaged psyche of a raped adolescent? And Sister McBride deserved harsher rebuke than a rapist? It’s hard not to conclude that a church run by men shows them more mercy than it does women (or, for that matter, children).

    Definitely children. That woman with the life-endangering pregnancy? She has four young children. Their lives wouldn’t have been improved much if she had died along with her fetuses, I think.

    One final verdict is already in. On the charge of self-serving hypocrisy, the church is guilty.

    Unanimous.

  • Like many others

    Janet Heimlich casts a cold eye on a bishop’s “apology.”

    You know what’s coming. We could all write the “apology” in our sleep.

    “I wish to acknowledge and apologize for those instances when I made decisions regarding the treatment and disposition of clergy accused of sexual abuse that in retrospect appear inadequate or mistaken.” Curry added, “Like many others, I have come to a clearer understanding over the years of the causes and treatment of sexual abuse, and I have fully implemented in my pastoral region the archdiocese’s policies and procedures for reporting abuse, screening those who supervise children and abuse prevention training for adults and children.”

    Uh huh. In retrospect. In retrospect they appear inadequate or mistaken. As Janet says, that’s no apology.

    In retrospect they appear inadequate or mistaken, meaning, they appeared perfectly fine at the time, indeed virtuous and holy, because otherwise I wouldn’t have done them, because I am a bishop. It was all a mistake of perception, like being color blind. It was not at all a failure of empathy or moral alertness or basic consideration for others or recognition of the helplessness of a child in the hands of an adult man with all the weight of the church behind him. No no. Just a mistake, that’s all, like thinking Pluto was a planet.

    Like many others, now he has learned better, but he didn’t know then, and that’s not his fault because he was like many others. Only he was also completely different because he was a Catholic priest, so he got to conceal crimes from the police. Janet continues:

    The statement is disgraceful and disrespects victims of sexual abuse. The documents that have been released reveal communications between Curry and Cardinal Roger M. Mahony, who is also Archbishop Emeritus of Los Angeles, in which they discussed ways to conceal cases of molestation from law enforcement. (Mahoney issued a more heartfelt apology to victims on January 21.) One particular case involves a priest who admitted to sexu­ally ab­us­ing 13 boys dur­ing his 36 years in the Los Angeles arch­diocese. Yet, rather than reporting the man to police, Curry said he should be sent to “a lawyer who is also a psychiatrist,” thereby putting “the reports under the protection of privilege.”

    But he wants us to think that at the time, like many others, he didn’t know it’s not ok to hide crimes from the police.

    But then if he didn’t know, because he was like many others, what becomes of the church’s claim to be better than everyone else? Why didn’t his priesthood make him better than “many others” – isn’t that the whole point of it? If it’s not, why are they always trying to tell everyone what to do?

    They’re lying cowardly self-serving placeholders. They let their colleagues and friends make generations of children miserable, and now they pretend they didn’t know any better. They’re contemptible.

     

  • Heed the warning of the Holy Father

    LeftSidePositive pointed out yesterday that when Catholic archbishops prate of freedom of conscience they are bullshitting, because they don’t believe in or promote other people’s freedom of conscience to have nothing to do with Catholic rules.

    This needs to be mentioned more often.

    The US Conference of Catholic Bishops issued a statement on religious freedom last April. It is of course that kind of bullshit from beginning to end. They don’t mean religious freedom in general at all; they mean only “freedom” for them to coerce everyone else, including non-Catholics.

    We are Catholics. We are Americans. We are proud to be both, grateful for the gift of faith which is ours as Christian disciples, and grateful for the gift of liberty which is ours as American citizens. To be Catholic and American should mean not having to choose one over the other. Our allegiances are distinct, but they need not be contradictory, and should instead be complementary. That is the teaching of our Catholic faith, which obliges us to work together with fellow citizens for the common good of all who live in this land.

    No it doesn’t. Their Catholic faith obliges them to obey rules laid out by the Vatican. It obliges them to obey what they pretend are commands from god. That’s a different kind of thing from working together with fellow citizens for the common good of fellow citizens. (And how about working for the common good of all people?) Obeying god is god-centered; working with people for the common good is human-centered. The Catholic church is god-centered. It tries to elbow its way into secular matters in the hope that we won’t hate it so much, but it doesn’t mean a word of it. It does not work for the common good of people. It says it does, but it doesn’t.

    Freedom is not only for Americans, but we think of it as something of our special inheritance, fought for at a great price, and a heritage to be guarded now. We are stewards of this gift, not only for ourselves but for all nations and peoples who yearn to be free. Catholics in America have discharged this duty of guarding freedom admirably for many generations.

    Some Catholics have, no doubt. The Catholic church and its hierarchy have not.

    Catholics in America have been advocates for religious liberty, and the landmark teaching of the Second Vatican Council on religious liberty was influenced by the American experience. It is among the proudest boasts of the Church on these shores. We have been staunch defenders of religious liberty in the past. We have a solemn duty to discharge that duty today.

    No. No, no, no. You don’t let your own nuns have religious liberty – you monitor them and call them in for a scolding and do your best to force them to obey you. You excommunicate a nun who approved a life-saving abortion. You browbeat healthcare administrators who refuse to sign an agreement never to save a woman’s life via an abortion even when the fetus is doomed anyway. You don’t believe in religious liberty at all. You believe in liberty for yourselves to coerce everyone else.

    We need, therefore, to speak frankly with each other when our freedoms are threatened. Now is such a time. As Catholic bishops and American citizens, we address an urgent summons to our fellow Catholics and fellow Americans to be on guard, for religious liberty is under attack, both at home and abroad.

    This has been noticed both near and far. Pope Benedict XVI recently spoke about his worry that religious liberty in the United States is being weakened. He called it the “most cherished of American freedoms”—and indeed it is. All the more reason to heed the warning of the Holy Father, a friend of America and an ally in the defense of freedom, in his recent address to American bishops:

    Of particular concern are certain attempts being made to limit that most cherished of American freedoms, the freedom of religion. Many of you have pointed out that concerted efforts have been made to deny the right of conscientious objection on the part of Catholic individuals and institutions with regard to cooperation in intrinsically evil practices. Others have spoken to me of a worrying tendency to reduce religious freedom to mere freedom of worship without guarantees of respect for freedom of conscience.

    There it is, you see – “liberty” understood as the unfettered ability to hinder other people’s access to medical treatment and contraception. “Liberty” to take away the liberty of other people.

    Religious Liberty Under Attack—Concrete Examples

    Is our most cherished freedom truly under threat? Sadly, it is. This is not a theological or legal dispute without real world consequences. Consider the following:

    Catholic foster care and adoption services. Boston, San Francisco, the District of Columbia, and the state of Illinois have driven local Catholic Charities out of the business of providing adoption or foster care services—by revoking their licenses, by ending their government contracts, or both—because those Charities refused to place children with same-sex couples or unmarried opposite-sex couples who cohabit.

    Their cherished freedom to interfere with other people.

    They are such operators.

  • Yes, it is a sin

    Cristina Odone is worried. What’s she worried about? She’s worried that Ireland is planning to change its abortion law – to legalize abortion when it’s necessary to save the woman’s life – on the basis of a mistake about what happened to Savita Halappanavar. Oh noes!

    I’m a Catholic but I believe abortion has to be legal. Yes, it is a sin; and yes, there are women who use it as contraception. But the risk of having a long roll call of tragic deaths like Savita’s is too cruel to contemplate. Like divorce, abortion should be available, but reserved as a last-resort nuclear option – and when the mother’s life is in danger is precisely such a scenario.

    The Irish U-turn over Savita’s death worries me, though. Is this the right result based on the wrong premise? As I have written here before, listening to the radio interview with the journalist who broke the story, we’re left with the distinct impression that she is not sure that Savita or her husband actually asked for, and were refused, a termination. Nor does she explain what condition the mother-to-be was in when she was admitted to hospital: in other words, was she healthy and her death was preventable by an abortion, or was she suffering from some other condition, which eventually killed her?

    And that’s the thing to worry about, clearly. Could Parveen Halappanavar be all wrong, or lying, about what happened at Galway University Hospital? Or could Savita have had some other mortal illness that had nothing to do with her pregnancy and that nobody knew about or mentioned to Praveen? That’s the thing to worry about, rather than the possibility (or likelihood) that this has happened many times in Ireland without a Praveen to go to the media about it, and rather than the need to make sure it doesn’t happen in the future.

    That kind of thinking is the real “sin.”

  • Shut up and obey

    In writing that post I turned up this item from The Catholic Phoenix a couple of years ago. It’s special.

    Denys Powlett-Jones is commenting on the leaking of the bishop’s infamous letter to Catholic Healthcare West by the Arizona Republic.

    It is also no surprise that it is C(INO)HW who has decided to fight this one out in the media, and not the Bishop. Phoenix Catholics already know that our shepherd is not in the business of publicly correcting the dissent, disobedience, and scandal that are as much a part of the Church in Phoenix as they were of the Church of Corinth in St Paul’s day. Our Man in the Mitre is a vigilant shepherd, but he always works quietly and personally with tough cases, as a good pastor should; when nasty stuff in Olmsted’s diocese goes public, it’s always the wayward sheep that are doing the bleating.

    C(INO)HW – geddit? Catholic in name only. Haw! That’s a good one. And note the dissent and “disobedience” deserve scorn, and the dissenters are bleating sheep. Catholicism in action!

    Catholic Phoenix readers should really read the Bishop’s letter in its entirety. The circumstances that have necessitated its writing are lamentable—namely, the hospital’s performance of an induced abortion as a “life-saving” measure back in late 2009, a hospital nun’s approval of the procedure and her automatic excommunication, and the hospital’s continued public insistence that life-saving abortions are consistent with Catholic doctrine. But the bishop’s letter is a powerful and heartening portrait of a shepherd preparing to use his crosier not to try to pull the wayward in, but to push dissimulating wolves out of the fold.

    Note the scare-quotes on “life-saving.” Note the cold contempt for the notion that life-saving abortions are consistent with Catholic doctrine. Note the blood-chilling implication that the hospital really really should have let that woman die rather than performing an abortion. Note that Denys Powlett-Jones will never die in that particular way.

    In the letter, Bishop Olmsted takes on C(INO)HW’s claim in a previous letter that “many knowledgeable moral theologians have investigated this case…(it) is a very complex matter on which the best minds disagree.”  (Note to dissident Catholics: this kind of thing makes you look really silly. “On the one hand, we have the Catechism and the Magisterium; on the other, we have someone with a degree from Georgetown whom we are paying, and she says something else. What’s a Catholic supposed to believe?”)

    Note to Denys Powlett-Jones: this kind of thing makes you look really fascist.

     

     

     

     

  • The bishops really do mean it

    Jen Gunter is also disturbed by what the Irish bishops said.

    Terminating a pregnancy is “gravely immoral in all circumstances.” All circumstances includes 17 weeks and ruptured membranes. Unless I misunderstand the meaning of “all,” then Irish Catholic Bishops also view ending a pregnancy at 17 weeks with ruptured membranes and sepsis, either by induction of labor or the surgical dilation and evacuation (D & E), to be “gravely immoral.” They must also view ending a pregnancy for a woman who previously had postpartum cardiomyopathy and a 50% risk of death in her pregnancy as “gravely immoral.” So if you have a medical condition that is rapidly deteriorating because of your pregnancy, too bad for you if you live in Ireland. Because the mother and unborn baby have equal rights to life, Irish law spares women the anguish of choosing their own life. Neither can be first, so both must die.

    Yes. That is also the position – the considered position, the insisted on, mandated, shoutingly ordered position – of all US bishops, because it is the position of their union, the US Conference of Catholic Bishops. That is the position the bishop of Phoenix tried to force St Joseph’s Hospital in Phoenix to promise in writing never to disobey again*.

    posted about it last March.

    Yes, Catholic bishops really do take the position that ending a pregnancy at 17 weeks with ruptured membranes and sepsis, either by induction of labor or the surgical dilation and evacuation (D & E), is gravely immoral. In Ireland they do and in the US they do.

    They are scarier than almost anyone realizes. They really do try to compel Catholic hospitals to refuse to save women’s lives if they’re in situations like the one that Savita Halappanavar was in. It seems impossible but it’s true.

    The statement from the Irish Catholic Bishops is medically nonsensical, contradictory, and immoral and as it represents a group of men who have never practiced medicine opining on an aspect of medical care that they clearly can’t understand.

    The only thing this statement clarifies is how Irish physicians could easily be confused by an Irish abortion law steeped in religion, and thus reinforces the claim that Catholicism contributed to Dr. Halappanavar’s death.

    Indeed. We desperately need separation of church and medicine.

    *The hospital administration refused to obey the bishop

  • But it’s not just Ireland

    Ann Marie Hourihane has an interesting piece in the Irish Times on how awkward it is for her to be in the US right now, because of all the shocked questions about how that hospital could have let Savita Halappanavar die rather than perform an abortion to complete the miscarriage that was already happening.

    Perhaps America is tired of Ireland’s excuses. The sad bewilderment among liberals here, when they heard the news of Savita Halappanavar’s death in a Galway hospital in October, is worse than any aggression. The thing is, Americans just can’t understand why surgical treatment for a miscarriage can be withheld from a woman on the grounds that the foetal heart is still beating, when medical staff have already agreed that the pregnancy has no chance of survival, as is claimed to have happened in this case. This is proving rather difficult to explain.

    But it can happen here too.

    Clearly very few Americans know this. That really needs to change.

    It is surprising how much Americans know about Irish abortion law, or the lack of it. “The mother’s life has priority, right?” they ask. Since Wednesday there has been no clear answer to that question. Is it, “We would like to think so”? Is it, “Well, it depends on where you are in Ireland, and also where in Ireland the pregnant woman is at the time”? Or is it “Er, we’d prefer not to think about that, if you don’t mind. Now bung us a couple of call centres, and leave us in peace”?

    But that’s true here too. The ERD says no, the mother’s life does not have priority no matter what. The US Council of Catholic Bishops says no, definitely not, and it tried to force St Joseph’s Hospital in Phoenix to sign a written statement agreeing to that. The hospital refused. Not all hospitals refuse! And there is apparently no oversight, no enforcement, no one making sure that all hospitals give the mother’s life priority.

    Americans really need to know this.

  • Within the Catholic moral tradition

    A reader pointed out an article at “Catholic Health World” –

    Interjection: what the hell is “Catholic health”? I know, that’s not what they mean, it’s just the name of a publication of the CHUSA, the Catholic Health Association of the US. But that’s stupid too. We’re deadened to all this because of habituation. We’re used to it so we don’t notice how ridiculous it is, let alone how dangerous it is. Catholic health? Catholic health care? What the hell, man? There is no such thing. Health is health, it isn’t Catholic or Jewish or Baptist. Health care is health care, it isn’t Lutheran or Muslim or Hindu.

    An article at “Catholic Health World,” I was saying. Pregnancy complications can bring on complex ethical questions.

    Well I can think of some possible ones – like what to do about a woman who wants to risk her life to try to save a fetus that can’t be saved, or even a woman who wants to give up her life to try to save a fetus that can’t be saved. That might be a complex ethical question, because there’s an intuition that it should be her decision, but it has to be horrible to let someone die when you know you could save her.

    But that of course is not the kind of complex ethical question they have in mind at CHUSA.

    They offer hypotheticals. This one for instance –

    A second fictitious case concerned a mother at 15 weeks’ gestation whose fetus is missing part of its brain. The baby will almost certainly die within days of birth. The physician recommends that the mother terminate the futile pregnancy to avoid the psychological distress of carrying a nonviable baby to term.

    Slosar said that, applying directive 47, this termination would not be justified because the mother’s life is not at risk — the condition only affects the health of the baby. Also, the reason for the termination — to relieve the psychological burden to the mother — is not considered proportionate to the effect of the act, that is, the death of the baby, within the Catholic moral tradition.

    How hateful. The “psychological distress” is grief for the baby and the futility of it all. The stinking CHUSA makes it sound selfish and callous. What good does it do the baby to have a few days outside the uterus? The Catholic moral tradition is brutal.

  • Part 3 of the Legion of Death’s “Directives”

    The instructions.

    Prenatal diagnosis is not permitted when undertaken with the intention of aborting an unborn child with a serious defect.

    No matter what the defect. No matter how unable the parents are to deal with an infant born to suffer and then die. No matter how much futile suffering is in store for the infant.

    Those evil bastards.

    52. Catholic health institutions may not promote or condone contraceptive practices but should provide, for married couples and the medical staff who counsel them, instruction both about the Church’s teaching on responsible parenthood and in methods of natural family planning.

    53. Direct sterilization of either men or women, whether permanent or temporary, is not permitted in a Catholic health care institution. Procedures that induce sterility are permitted when their direct effect is the cure or alleviation of a present and serious pathology and a simpler treatment is not available.

    Then get out of the field.

    I’ll skip the rest for now, because it’s separate from the “when in doubt, refuse the woman treatment” issue.

    This situation is an absolute nightmare. Because of the free exercise clause of the Constitution, the US government is very leery of messing with churches, even with churches that are simultaneously running a huge chunk of the health care sector and refusing to provide certain kinds of care on dogmatic authoritarian reactionary religious grounds that should have no place in a health care system. That means that the US government allows churches to run health care systems but refuses (or at least neglects) to monitor them properly.

    Catholic bishops are in charge of a big fraction of the US health care system.

    That needs to change.

     

     

     

  • The ERD part 2

    The US Catholic bishops’ orders to Catholic health care providers.

    Page 20 still.

    28. Each person or the person’s surrogate should have access to medical and moral information and counseling so as to be able to form his or her conscience. The free and informed health care decision of the person or the person’s surrogate is to be followed so long as it does not contradict Catholic principles.

    Doesn’t that sound familiar. From the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam:

    ARTICLE 16:
    Everyone shall have the right to enjoy the fruits of his scientific, literary, artistic or technical production and the right to protect the moral and material interests stemming therefrom, provided that such production is not contrary to the principles of Shari’ah.

    ARTICLE 22:
    (a) Everyone shall have the right to express his opinion freely in such manner as would not be contrary to the principles of the Shari’ah.

    (b) Everyone shall have the right to advocate what is right, and propagate what is good, and warn against what is wrong and evil according to the norms of Islamic Shari’ah

    (c) Information is a vital necessity to society. It may not be exploited or misused in such a way as may violate sanctities and the dignity of Prophets, undermine moral and ethical values or disintegrate, corrupt or harm society or weaken its faith.

    ARTICLE 24:
    All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Shari’ah.

    ARTICLE 25:
    The Islamic Shari’ah is the only source of reference for the explanation or clarification of any of the articles of this Declaration.

    You can haz all the rights to all the things so long as it does not contradict Catholic principles/in such manner as would not be contrary to the principles of the Shari’ah. You can haz all the rights to all the things we say you can have, and no others.

    Back to the bishops. Page 21.

    36. Compassionate and understanding care should be given to a person who is the victim of sexual assault. Health care providers should cooperate with law enforcement officials and offer the person psychological and spiritual support as well as accurate medical information. A female who has been raped should be able to defend herself against a potential conception from the sexual assault. If, after appropriate testing, there is no evidence that conception has occurred already, she may be treated with medications that would prevent ovulation, sperm capacitation, or fertilization. It is not permissible, however, to initiate or to recommend treatments that have as their purpose or direct effect the removal, destruction, or interference with the implantation of a fertilized ovum.

    Fuck you, bishops.

    Page 22.

    37. An ethics committee or some alternate form of ethical consultation should be available to assist by advising on particular ethical situations, by offering educational opportunities, and by reviewing and recommending policies. To these ends, there should be appropriate standards for medical ethical consultation within a particular diocese that will respect the diocesan bishop’s pastoral responsibility as well as assist members of ethics committees to be familiar with Catholic medical ethics and, in particular, these Directives.

    In other words, all ethics must be Catholic “ethics” – i.e. church dogma.

    Page 24.

    For legitimate reasons of responsible parenthood, married couples may limit the number of their children by natural means. The Church cannot approve contraceptive interventions that “either in anticipation of the marital act, or in its accomplishment or in the development of its natural consequences, have the purpose, whether as an end or a means, to render procreation impossible.” Such interventions violate “the inseparable connection, willed by God . . . between the two meanings of the conjugal act: the unitive and procreative meaning.”

    Absolutely none of your business. Butt out.

    Page 25.

    41. Homologous artificial fertilization (that is, any technique used to achieve conception using the gametes of the two spouses joined in marriage) is prohibited when it separates procreation from the marital act in its unitive significance (e.g., any technique used to achieve extracorporeal conception).

    Oh ffs. Get over yourselves. “Ew no conception in a petri dish, ew.”

    Page 26. Here we go.

    45. Abortion (that is, the directly intended termination of pregnancy before viability or the directly intended destruction of a viable fetus) is never permitted. Every procedure whose sole immediate effect is the termination of pregnancy before viability is an abortion, which, in its moral context, includes the interval between conception and implantation of the embryo. Catholic health care institutions are not to provide abortion services, even based upon the principle of material cooperation. In this context, Catholic health care institutions need to be concerned about the danger of scandal in any association with abortion providers.

    Then get out of the field. It’s legal. If you don’t want to do it, get out of the health care field. You shouldn’t be in it in the first place. We don’t need Catholic health care any more than we need Catholic accounting or agriculture or engineering or transportation. Your field is godbothering. Stick to that.

    Listen up, any of you planning to have bad miscarriages that fail to complete.

    47. 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.

    48. In case of extrauterine pregnancy, no intervention is morally licit which constitutes a direct abortion.

    49. For a proportionate reason, labor may be induced after the fetus is viable.

    Look at that. Look at 48 – they’re saying just leave ectopic pregnancies alone, so that the tube will burst and the woman will probably die of an infection. And 49 is Savita’s death sentence.

    Fuck you all. Fuck you hideous evil monsters.

     

  • Start at the beginning

    Now. Let’s be thorough about this. I need to understand the Ethical and Religious Directives – commonly and folksily called ERD – and just exactly how they function, and why. I need to know if and how and why anyone relevant (like, hospital administrations, and medical practitioners) considers them binding. I also need to know what they say.

    So let’s take a look.

    Page 4.

    The Directives have been refined through an extensive process of consultation with bishops, theologians, sponsors, administrators, physicians, and other health care providers.

    That’s ridiculous, and dangerous. Bishops and theologians have nothing relevant to say.

    But of course the whole thing comes from bishops. The wretched thing is on the USCCB website. It’s theirs. It’s Orders From the Bishops. Bishops are telling medical professionals what to do, as medical professionals. This is a fucking outrage.

    Still page 4.

    …the Directives will be reviewed periodically by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (formerly the National Conference of Catholic Bishops), in the light of authoritative church teaching, in order to address new insights from theological and medical research or new requirements of public policy.

    Authoritative church teaching, theological and medical research – bad, bad, bad.

    Page 13.

    9. Employees of a Catholic health care institution must respect and uphold the religious mission of the institution and adhere to these Directives. They should maintain professional standards and promote the institution’s commitment to human dignity and the common good.

    What is the status of that? Is it a condition of employment? Can the bishops fire medical practitioners who fail to adhere to these Directives? Can they force hospitals to fire medical practitioners who fail to adhere to these Directives? That was at issue with the nun who agreed to the abortion at St Joseph’s hospital in Phoenix, certainly.

    Page 19 – it starts to get sinister.

    When the health care professional and the patient use institutional Catholic health care, they also accept its public commitment to the Church’s understanding of and witness to the dignity of the human person. The Church’s moral teaching on health care nurtures a truly interpersonal professional-patient relationship. This professional-patient relationship is never separated, then, from the Catholic identity of the health care institution. The faith that inspires Catholic health care guides medical decisions in ways that fully respect the dignity of the person and the relationship with the health care professional.

    That first sentence is very sinister. Some people – lots of people – are forced to “use institutional Catholic health care” because it’s all that’s available to them. Nobody should be forced to accept anyone’s commitment to any church’s understanding of anything as a condition of getting medical treatment. Nobody. Ever. Medical care should be secular.

    Page 19 still.

    24. In compliance with federal law, a Catholic health care institution will make available to patients information about their rights, under the laws of their state, to make an advance directive for their medical treatment. The institution, however, will not honor an advance directive that is contrary to Catholic teaching. If the advance directive conflicts with Catholic teaching, an explanation should be provided as to why the directive cannot be honored.

    Well fuck you.

    Page 20.

    26. The free and informed consent of the person or the person’s surrogate is required for medical treatments and procedures, except in an emergency situation when consent cannot be obtained and there is no indication that the patient would refuse consent to the treatment.

    Now they’re lying, because Catholic hospitals routinely don’t tell patients that they are not getting standard of care treatment for reasons of theology. They don’t require informed consent at all.

    That will be part one. To be continued.

     

  • Hospital administrators interfered

    More detail, from the full report by the National Women’s Law Center.

    the Study revealed four serious lapses in care resulting from religious restrictions:

    • Doctors performed medically unnecessary tests, resulting in delays in care and additional medical complications for patients. These tests were done solely to address hospital administrators’ concerns that the treatment complied with religious doctrine.
    • Doctors transferred patients with pregnancy complications because their hospitals’ religious affiliation prohibited them from promptly providing the medically-indicated standard of care.
    • Hospital administrators interfered with doctors’ ability to promptly provide patients with the standard of care.
    • Hospital administrators interfered with doctors’ ability to provide patients with relevant information about their treatment options.

    The religious administration of these hospitals is over-ruling the technical decision process of doctors, and endangering and sometimes killing women by doing so.

    Why, exactly, is this being allowed?

    One illustrative horror story:

    Yvonne Shelton, a nurse employed in the labor and delivery unit at a nonsectarian hospital in New Jersey, refused to assist in two cases of women experiencing serious pregnancy complications: an emergency hysterectomy of a woman who was eighteen weeks pregnant and experiencing a life threatening condition, and another patient, also with an pregnancy that was not viable, who needed to have labor induced in order to save her life.83 Based on her religious beliefs, Shelton refused to assist in any procedure that terminated fetal life. She considered such procedures to be unacceptable abortions, even though nothing could be done to save the pregnancies and the procedures were necessary to save the women’s lives.

    The hospital offered Shelton a transfer to another unit where she would avoid such conflicts, but she refused to make the change. After being fired, Shelton sued the hospital, claiming religious discrimination in violation of Title VII, the federal law prohibiting employment discrimination on the basis of religion. The court ruled in favor of the hospital. It found that the hospital’s transfer solution had been a reasonable accommodation, and that its overriding responsibility was to protect a patient seeking emergency care.

    Note that. Shelton not only refused to assist, she refused to do a different job. She wanted to insist on staying in the very job she refused to do, so that she could prevent women from getting needed medical care. She wanted to make women like that die.

    With respect to Catholic-affiliated hospitals, they are governed by the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services, which provide guidance on a range of reproductive health services including surgical sterilization, family planning, infertility treatment and abortion.

    They are “governed by” Catholic religious directives. Hospitals are governed by Catholic religious directives.

    Medical care is a technical subject. It’s not religious doctrine. Religious directives should play no role in the governance of any hospitals.

    We don’t let Catholic religious directives govern engineering firms, do we. No we don’t. We don’t want papal edicts deciding on the safety of airplanes or bridges or tall buildings. Why do we allow Catholic religious directives to govern hospitals? Is it because it’s only women who are killed by this disgusting policy?

    Most individuals and even many health providers presume that the Directives’ prohibition on the provision of a range of abortion services applies only to nonemergency pregnancy terminations of otherwise viable pregnancies. But the Study is consistent with anecdotal accounts that provide strong evidence that some hospitals and health care providers have interpreted the Directives to prohibit prompt, medically-indicated treatment of miscarriage and ectopic pregnancy, placing women’s lives and health at additional and unnecessary risk.10

    As did University Hospital Galway.

    Miscarriage, or pregnancy loss before twenty weeks gestation, occurs in ten to twenty percent of all diagnosed pregnancies.11 The standard of care depends on the condition which caused the miscarriage as well as the particular circumstances of the patient. One factor is whether the patient is stable, or unstable. An unstable patient is one who is “within reasonable medical certainty” likely to experience a “material deterioration” of her condition during a transfer to another hospital.12 Signs that a patient is unstable include heavy bleeding, severe pain, and a rising temperature — an indication of the onset of an infection.13 If it is determined that nothing can be done that would allow the woman to continue her pregnancy, the established standard of care for unstable patients who are miscarrying is an immediate surgical uterine evacuation.14 In the case of such a patient, immediate uterine evacuation reduces the patient’s risk of complications, including blood loss, hemorrhage, infection, and the loss of future fertility.15 A delay in treatment may subject a woman to unnecessary blood transfusions, risk of infection, hysterectomy or even death.16 (Emphasis added.)

    As happened at University Hospital Galway.

    I’m now wondering if anybody has any actual figures on this. It seems pretty clear that many of these deaths won’t be reported in the way Savita Halappanavar’s was – they won’t be reported as malpractice at the behest of religious doctrine. But perhaps some have been?

    At any rate – it’s a fucking outrage, it has to be stopped, attention has to be paid.

     

     

  • It’s not just Ireland

    I’ve been re-reading the National Women’s Law Center report on religious restrictions at hospitals that put women’s lives at risk, from January 2011. It’s about what happened to Savita Halappanavar last month and what happens to a significant (but unknown) number of women because of religious bullshit surrounding the termination of pregnancy. It’s about hospitals substituting religious bullshit for technical medical understanding and experience.

    The summary is Women’s Health and Lives at Risk Due to Religious Restrictions at Hospitals, New Center Study Shows.

    What it tells us.

    The Center’s report, Below the Radar: Ibis Study Shows that Health Care Providers’ Religious Refusals Can Endanger Pregnant Women’s Lives and Health, demonstrates that certain hospitals, because of their religious beliefs, deny emergency care, the standard of care and adequate information to make treatment decisions to patients experiencing miscarriages and ectopic pregnancies. The study and report focused on cases where no medical intervention was possible that would allow the patient to continue her pregnancy and where delaying treatment would endanger the woman’s health or even life.

    Exactly what happened to Savita Halappanavar, you see. University Hospital Galway denied her the standard of care, because of religious obstruction. She died.

    “Most women assume that when they go to a hospital they will be offered the best medical treatment options for their diagnosis,” said NWLC Co-President Marcia D. Greenberger. “But this report paints a chilling picture of women with ectopic pregnancies or suffering miscarriages who are not offered the full spectrum of medically appropriate treatment options because they have gone to a hospital whose religious affiliation conflicts with the provision of those options.”

    And they won’t be told that, so they don’t report it. If they die, their relatives don’t report it.

    The reports highlight stark cases where doctors noted a discrepancy between the medically-accepted standard of care for miscarriage and ectopic pregnancy and the treatment provided by hospitals due to their religious affiliation.  For example, while the standard of care for certain ectopic pregnancies requires patients to receive the medication methotrexate, doctors in the study reported that their hospitals forbade the use of the drug.

    A fetus can’t survive an ectopic pregnancy. Methotrexate dissolves the fetus. The godbotherers forbid it – they want the woman to keep on having the fetus stuck in her fallopian tube until the tube bursts.

    One doctor in the study reported several instances of potentially fatal tubal ruptures in patients with ectopic pregnancies at her Catholic-affiliated hospital.  She said that her hospital subjected patients with ectopic pregnancies to unnecessary delays in treatment, despite patients’ exhibiting serious symptoms indicating that a tubal rupture was possible.  These patients, therefore, were denied emergency care to which they were legally entitled.

    Which puts their lives at risk, as well as their future ability to reproduce.

    And here is the situation in that hospital in Galway. Emphasis added.

    In some of the miscarriage cases described in the Ibis Study, the standard of care also required immediate treatment. Yet doctors practicing at Catholic-affiliated hospitals were forced to delay treatment while performing medically unnecessary tests.  Even though these miscarriages were inevitable, and no medical treatment was available to save the fetus, some patients were transferred because doctors were required to wait until there was no longer a fetal heartbeat to provide the needed medical care. This delay subjected these patients to further risks of hemorrhage and infection and could have violated their right to receive emergency medical treatment under federal law.

    This isn’t priest-ridden Ireland we’re talking about, this is the US of A. This is priest-ridden healthcare in the US of A.

    Some doctors at religiously affiliated hospitals are speaking out. Dr. Robert B. Holder, an ob-gyn at Sierra Vista Regional Health Center, a Catholic–affiliated hospital in Sierra Vista, Arizona told the Center: “A couple came into the ER after the wife had miscarried one of her twins at home. When I determined that the remaining twin was in a hopeless situation, this couple faced a tragic, heart-wrenching decision. After helping them make the medically appropriate decision to complete the miscarriage, I contacted the hospital’s administration to seek permission to perform a uterine evacuation. I wasn’t granted permission and I was told to inform this already traumatized couple that their decision was seen as “unethical” per the Directives.

    “I was ashamed and angered when I transferred this patient by ambulance to a secular hospital in Tucson, 80 miles away to get proper care,” he added.  “This patient was successfully treated in the end, but ultimately she didn’t receive the treatment she was entitled to in her local community hospital.”

    That’s disgusting. It’s all disgusting.

  • The bishops prattle of humility

    The US Catholic bishops are chastened by their failure to impose their religious views on the electorate last week, and Cardinal Timothy Dolan lectured them yesterday on what to do about it.

    To think harder and realize that they should pay more attention to human well-being as opposed to pretended goddy mandates?

    Don’t be silly.

    After sweeping setbacks to the hierarchy’s agenda on Election Day, New York Cardinal Timothy Dolan on Monday (Nov. 12) told U.S. Catholic bishops that they must now examine their own failings, confess their sins and reform themselves if they hope to impact the wider culture.

    “That’s the way we become channels of a truly effective transformation of the world, through our own witness of a repentant heart,” Dolan, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, told the 250 bishops gathered here for their annual meeting.

    Repentant for being bossy authoritarian theocratic bullies who abuse the illegitimate power of the pulpit to try to force people to do things that are not good for them?

    Don’t be silly.

    On Monday, various speakers reiterated that they were not about to change their beliefs or policy positions, but they indicated they have to rethink their strategy. Dolan’s approach in his presidential address was to repeatedly stress the theme of humility and the need for bishops to go to confession to renew themselves spiritually so that they can then preach their message more effectively.

    They need to pretend to be more humble so that they can force people to do what they pretend God commands. There’s nothing humble about that.