Lessons from an abortion in Phoenix

If you read the Catholic press or blogosphere, you undoubtedly have come across the story of the excommunication of Sister Margaret McBride, who served on the hospital ethics board and as hospital administrator where the board recommended that an abortion be performed on a pregnant woman suffering from pulmonary hypertension because of her pregnancy, which was way to early on to induce labor and put the child on life support. I have given ample comment on the NCR and America web pages, as have many others, as to whether ending the pregnancy was justified, either directly or indirectly and whether it is moral cowardice to stand behind such terms as "indirect abortion" in order to justify saving the life of the mother. You can read one article in NCR here and I am sure there are links to others: http://ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/mercy-sister-margaret-mcbride-speaks-out-her-silence

I am not going to take the usual stance on this event. Its been done and done well, both from the feminist perspective and from the Catholic moralist perspective. I will instead bring a bit of scripture to the issue, as well as my training in organization theory and bureaupathology.

Part of the criticism of Sister Margaret's actions were that she did not notify the local bishop in advance of the situation to get his guidance. In other words, she broke the chain of command. I am not sure this is a valid criticism, since everyone knows what Bishop Olmsted would have done. It is demonstrated by his excommunicaiton of Sister. He would have said no. He really had no choice in the matter, since ascenting to the abortion would have caused him to share in the taint of it, even if he did not procure it himself. I suspect that in his mind, he would have been as culpable as Sister Margaret for the abortion (as if he could really stop it). In other words, he would have likely put the state of his own soul before the life of the woman who's pregnancy - and let's face it - who's child was killing her for a reason only known to the pathologist who did the post mortem.

Is the life of another worth your own soul? Paul, in his letter to the Corinthians, in Chapter 13 (often read at weddings) asks what does it profit a man if he gains the world but loses his own soul, however such an interpretation takes the concept of saving your soul out of context. Paul was talking about having love as the great gift that lasts. Putting one's own moral scruples ahead of the life of another hardly qualifies as a loving act, to either the woman or even to the child who is doomed should his mother die. The more applicable scripture is the one where the Lord cautions that he who would preserve his own life will lose it, but he who gives up his own life will save it.

Had Bishop Olmsted approved of the abortion ahead of time, or concurred with the action of the committee, he would have faced the same kind of consequences he felt necessary to impose on Sister Margaret. It would have been an act of moral bravery and faith in God one does not expect much from American Catholic bishops. It would have also had major blowback. Some fanatic who makes a fetish of life, probably one of his flock, would have complained to Cardinal Rigali of Philadelphia, the USCCB as a whole and to the Papal Nuncio in Washington. There would be talk that he was excommunicate for putting the life of the mother ahead of the life of the child. Indeed, he would have been at risk of losing his Benefice - his diocese, the house, the towncar and the authority of office. He would have given up his life in order to save our as yet unnamed mother of four who was in danger of death.

I have no knowledge of whether these factors entered into his Excellency's moral calculus - however if they did he reached the wrong decision. Only he can answer for his own motivations - and answer he will - not to us, but to God. I would be remiss, however, if I did not urge him to consider the motivations for his decision and seek absolution if required. Indeed, I would urge the USCCB to examine their motivations on this question and see if their actions were motivated by love or by authority - not because they must answer to me or to all of us in the Church (although in reality they do), but because they must answer to God for both their actions and their motivations.

Archbishop Wuerl's comments

Washington Archbishop Wuerl offerred his perspective as the Chairman of the Committee on Doctrine for the American Bishops. It was an attempt to praise the role of women in the Church as a way to soft pedal the recent actions by the Vatican to raise the level of seriousness with which those who illictly ordain women are treated - which was released at the same time that the Church cracked down on viewing child pornography by the clergy and other aspects of how it will deal with sexual abuse by clergy. The timing of these announcements has universally been considered bad. You can find the Archbishop's statement many places. I read it on America Magazine's site, which you can see at http://www.americamagazine.org/blog/entry.cfm?blog_id=2&entry_id=3121

My comments, which are yet to be published on the site because they have upped their level of review, are as follows:

Ordination occurs within the confines of the government of the Church. It does not help matters to ordain women outside of this. To disobey this rule is to actively resist the structure of the Church and it is no surprise that the hierarchy will react badly.

Whether ordination of women is invalid does not depend on whether it is illicit. Ancient history indicates that there were women at all levels of the Church in its earliest times, but the counter-cultural nature of this was quickly overcome by the dominant male culture.

It is naive, however, to claim that a valid ordination will ever be accepted as licit without first gaining permission and it actually hurts the cause of female ordination to do so - at least within the context of the Roman Catholic Church. Within the context of a non-Roman Catholicism that seeks its own legitimacy, what Rome says is moot. I am sure we can debate what is more scandalous - strking out on one's own or forcing women into doing so.

The old bulls who insist that female ordination is invalid will retire or die soon enough. Time will not wait for them nor will time end when they are gone. This explains the stridency of their current rhetoric. The fact that A/B Wuerl is joining the chorus is only proof that they are dangling a red hat in front of his face. Whether he maintains the status quo after he receives it and the old bulls have retired will be one of the most interesting questions in the life of the Church.