Details on the Bishop's decision about St Josephs Hospital

This video is the best I've seen for details - it should answer any questions:

News Conference at the Diocesan Pastoral Center, Dec. 21, 2010 from Diocese of Phoenix on Vimeo.

The Diocese of Phoenix held a news conference today announcing that St. Joseph's Hospital can no longer identify itself as Catholic.

The Bishop and the Hospital

In a controversial decision (at least according to the news services), Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted revoked his consent for St. Joseph’s Hospital to use the name Catholic because he cannot verify that the hospital will provide authentically Catholic health care in accord with the teachings of the Church.

Bishop launched a website to explain why.

His reasons are as follows:

• St. Joseph’s Hospital’s sanctioning and performing a direct abortion in late 2009,
and

• St. Joseph’s admitting to being in formal cooperation in abortions, sterilizations and contraceptive services administered through their Mercy Care Plan — a $2 billion endeavor covering about 368,000 of Arizona’s poor.

Let's talk about the first one because the second reason is a no brainer. NOTE: The Bishop never said that St Joseph's was not a good hospital or that you will not get good health care there. He merely wants to warn Catholics that it's no longer a Catholic hospital i.e. St Joseph's is not delivering care according to Catholic church teachings on life issues!

The concern of the doctors was not an immediate emergency with the lady with pulmonary hypertension (for whom the Sister approved an abortion) but rather that in a number of cases with this disorder, during childbirth, women have been observed going into respiratory shock leading to death a few days after delivery.

In other words, there was no medical emergency with the pregnancy but in the case of a high risk pregnancy, doctors will always suggest aborting the baby.

This is effectually saying that the mother's life is worth more than the baby's life. But the Catholic church disagrees. We do not rate one life as worth more than another, and we cannot sanction willful murder of one life to make life "less risky" for another human.

The bottom line may come from the Jesuit Spiritual Exercises which remind us that no immoral means justify any ends, even the best of ends.

As my Jesuit Spiritual advisor, Fr John Becker, would say in answer to ANY arguments in favor of abortion, "But it’s murder!"

It is interesting to note that when St Gianna Molla, a pediatrician was pregnant and developed a tumor, she was given the same advice by her doctors that the lady with pulmonary hypertension was given, to abort the child.

St Gianna told them whatever the case, save the baby. St Gianna developed septicemia after her delivery of a little girl (who is now, like her mother, a physician) and died about two weeks after delivery.

And now the church honors her AS St Gianna, a model for all of us. Her daughter whose life was saved by her mother's decision, was present when her mother was canonized by John Paul II.

Truly, as a mother, I would not want to buy my life with the life of my baby. If God wants me or the baby (or both) to live, He will allow it. If not, we, as Catholics do believe that His Divine Providence is a perfect plan.

That is why the Bishop decided what he did and I applaud his decision. He is courageous and standing up for Our Lord and what our church teaches.

Gender - is it really in the genes?

A recent "Mystery Diagnosis" program which featured a woman who did not mature, female-wise, throws some doubts on the idea of gender being in the genes as is often claimed by trans-gendered folks. A doctor consulted on her lack of female development, recommended surgery, saying her ovaries were non functional and had a high risk of being a factor in cancer later on. She was quickly taken into the hospital and the offending ovaries were removed or at least that's what she was told.

Before her surgery, she had developed looking more male than female with the exception of the bodily hair which she did not have. After surgery, she was given large amounts of estrogen and told she would have to stay on this for life but, as an adult, unsatisfied with the diagnosis, she began to dig and finally asked for her hospital records (which they gave her a hard time about releasing, first claiming she had never had surgery there). When a doctor in California examined her records, he found that she had been lied to. She had never had her ovaries removed because she never developed ovaries. Apparently, her "gonads" were non functional... the gonads secrete what is needed to either develop ovaries and a feminine shape or not. They had removed the gonads (the part about them being a prevalent spot for cancer was true). They probably had not told her because of the fear of throwing her in a position of considering "gender reassignment" but apparently, the reason she had not developed ovaries was because she, unlike females, had a "Y" chromosome!

What was surprising is despite being physically somewhat "masculine", she, after finding out she had a "Y" chromosome did NOT seek gender reassignment. She was attracted to men and found a mate who was crazy about her - they adopted 2 kids and have been married at least 18 years (the oldest kid is 18 and was adopted as a very young kid).

The interesting thing is she's totally happy as a woman and if gender reassignment would be understandable in anyone, it would be someone who is genetically, basically a man and yet, apparently this woman on the show had never even considered that - it seems totally off her radar screen.

One study, touted as the largest study on the issue, stated that one gene had been found which was a bit "longer" in females than males and "might cause" "feminisation" of the brain. This study was only of 112 male to female gender reassignment cases however, and is far from conclusively proving that there is anything genetically involved.

The Discovery Health "Mystery Diagnosis" case throws serious doubt into the need for "gender reassignment" in anyone - something, even knowing several "gender reassigned" folks, I have wondered about for years. None of the "gender reassigned" people I've known were really, truly the gender they claimed to be and in more closely interviewing several of them, it seemed the problem was more "inferiority complex" or bad memories from the past (one gender reassigned male to female had been an officer in Vietnam, ordered to blow up entire villages) or simply feeling that they more "belonged" to the female (or male) gender due to their interests, for example like one artist I knew or their sensitivity. For one transgendered male to female, I matched all her stories of childhood female likes with my boy likes - I was a tom boy, loving guns, using dolls to merely to be hostages in boy games and even not particularly desiring to be female when I grew up. I have to date, always hated make up (feels yucky on the skin so I have never worn it) and dresses (hamper movement and are not as comfortable as pants). I wear my hair very short and find that much more convenient than the alternative. And yet, I loved being a mother and love being a grandmother and am very attracted to males, particularly my good looking husband of 44 years duration.

So often we are basing gender on their likes (like boy toys or girl toys etc) and clothing or makeup or long hair, rather than deeper things, forgetting that in other societies it may be the men who wear dresses or makeup. It may be that gender is much deeper than even what we are genetically, like possibly, in the so called "soul" or "spirit".

If God wanted us to use artificial birth control ....

I keep wondering this - if God wanted us to use artificial birth control, why hasn't He helped us invent something which is both safe and effective? The family planning method which is safe and effective is "periodic abstinence" or "Billings Ovulation". And ironically, this is the method the Catholic Church recommends. You only have to abstain 5-7 days a month and the rest of the time, have a good time whenever you want. So why are 85% of Catholic Women using artificial birth control?

Natural Family Planning is one of the best kept secrets perhaps because no one makes a buck from it.

With the latest news of the study which found a significantly higher risk of both lung cancer and breast cancer in women taking pharmaceutical estrogen and progestin, perhaps Catholic women will have a change of heart.

I have personally observed young women on this medication to have severely crippling strokes and another friend on the medication who developed uterine cancer - she ended up dying in her early 60's with pancreatic cancer.

The Health Read News blog tells about the latest risks found in low dose birth control.

Book Review - Not Like Me by Eric Michael Bryant

Note: a copy of this book was provided me free of charge by the publisher for reviewing purposes.

Eric Michael Bryant, author of "NOT LIKE ME", is a young guy who introduces himself by way of stating that he's white and bald but lives in a part of town where most of his neighbors are either African American or Hispanic. And he's also a youth minister. Pretty soon in the book one discovers his passions - for conversion and for reaching out to groups of people he feels Christians often ignore. And while this is certainly commendable, i.e. We should not require our friends to have to agree with us in order for us to love them, it isn't necessarily what Jesus had in mind when He told us we should love unconditionally. Conversion as the result of reaching out to others, is a condition.

That being said, the book offers some good suggestions including, befriending folks who are different, bringing over treats for new neighbors and inviting new people to outings, probably things we all knew about but still, a reminder every so often is good.

Where the book runs into problems is toward the end where Bryant extends his search for diversity among the attendees of a church, in a bit questionable direction.

He describes a dark woman as attending a church where she was pleased to find a warm friendly reception, until they discovered that she is an abortionist. Suddenly church members' attitudes toward her cooled as they attempted to share with her why abortion is so wrong. Needless to say, she left the church rather than abandoning her lucrative profession. Eric Bryant appears to disagree with the attitude of the members toward abortion and maintains that had the church looked past her gruesome field of work and tolerated her totally, she might have converted.

I disagree here. While we are asked to love the sinner, not telling her about such a serious sin would have not taken her spiritual welfare into consideration. The Catholic Church calls "admonishing the sinner", a spiritual act of mercy. Thus the folks in the church who let the abortionist know how the church and God looks at abortion, did her a greater kindness than those who would have remained silent.

One of my favorite quotes comes from Edmund Burke:

"All that is needed for evil to prevail is for good men to keep silent!"

Bryant's conclusion about abortion was that people shouldn't complain about it but rather adopt an unwanted child. Adoption is a good idea but I cannot see how this will end abortion. It sounds good though and more importantly, allows those who are "pro choice" to be comfortable (and possibly attend his church, bringing their bucks along?). I feel it's very wrong for a Christian to be any kind of tolerant toward something as intrinsically evil as abortion.

Bryant took a similar non-position on immigration - he pointed out that we had imported thousands of these people to labor for us (for very low wages) thus boosting our economy (true) but then also stated that "thousands of immigrants" had stolen Americans identities in order to work here. I've heard this accusation from the media but find it hard to believe that the rather un-techy immigrants from Mexico would bother stealing an identity in order to do manual labor for low pay. Bryant left the reader questioning just what his position on immigration was.

A chapter entitled "the Mosque next door" held promise of perhaps counteracting the anti Muslim sentiment prevalent now, however I found that whereas Eric Bryant seemed tolerant of "alternate lifestyles" and s/s marriage, and even tolerant of abortion, he seemed less willing to respect other spiritual paths like that of the Muslims. Ironic was that Muslims who enjoyed his young ministry events, were likely as intent on converting him as he was intent on making them Christians!

Bryant got in his complaints about liturgy also, toward the end of "Not Like Me". He writes,

"religion does not work because religion is humanity's attempt to earn God's favor" (page 224)

And

"Jesus message was very different. He taught that the practice of "religion" cannot be the answer." (page 222)

He also points out that he feels that,

"We cannot do enough good to come to God on our own merits" (ibid)

He is of forgetting the following rather clear part of the Bible:

James 2:18ff "Indeed someone might say, "You have faith and I have works." Demonstrate your faith to me without works, and I will demonstrate my faith to you from my works."

This is a common omission on the part of many believers in the "Salvation by Faith alone" theory.

My issues withstanding, I did find "Not Like Me" to be well written and organized in a unique manner. Bryant often uses his own experiences and family anecdotes to illustrate his points which I found charming. At the end of every chapter, he includes comments from other Christian writers which bring a different prospective to the chapter's discussion.

That is, if you don't mind the contradictions and theological errors, you might find "Not Like Me" an interesting read.

About the author:



Eric Bryant serves as an elder, speaker and navigator with the leadership team at Mosaic (www.mosaic.org) in Los Angeles, a church known for its creativity and diversity. He is part of the core teams for the Mosaic Alliance (www.mosaicalliance.com) and The Origins Project (www.originsproject.org). Bryant completed his Doctorate of Ministry in Entrepreneurial Leadership with Bethel Seminary. He lives with his wife, Debbie, and two children, Caleb and Trevi, in the middle of Los Angeles County.

You can find Eric and share your break through ideas at www.ericbryant.org.

New Morning After pill is risky and the media is not telling people!

Ella is a dangerous medication - it was approved by the FDA for a "morning after pill" (meaning if conception took place, the baby will be aborted). It's supposed to be "good" for 5 days but because of its half life, it can actually stay in your system for 14 days or more. It blocks progesterone in stopping the production of it as well as blocking progesterone receptors which is supposed to cause a miscarriage. But it isn't effective sometimes. With every million doses of Ella given, 20,000 babies will survive the treatment and be born probably with serious disabilities.

Blocking progesterone can also cause many repercussions especially that the medication stays in your body for so long.

These are repercussions from the short pharmaceutical studies (at least those they are telling us about). We have no idea what other repercussions this medication might have which will come up in the aftermarket research.

Ella was rushed through FDA approval, circumventing the usual net of safety required for new medications.

There is a press silence about the dangers of Ella which works similarly to the RU 486 and so people will be taking the medication without knowing the danger they may face.

The following blog is by a scientist, a microbiologist, Dr Gerald Nadal and it gives more details - please take the time to read it because knowing this may not only save a baby's life but perhaps that of the mother of that baby.

Ella - untangling the ball of lies

Catholic Bishops back Bishop Olmsted's statement

In Phoenix, Arizona, in November 2009, a Catholic Sister named Sr. Margaret Mary McBride approved an abortion for a patient in St Joseph's Hospital. The woman has pulmonary hypertension, a potentially fatal illness and she was in the hospital to treat her illness. Apparently when the doctors found out she was pregnant, they, in feeling the pregnancy posed greater risks for the woman, suggested an elective abortion and the Catholic Sister approved this decision.

Unfortunately, in her approval of an elective abortion, Sr M. M. ended up with an "automatic excommunication" which is a bit of a sticky situation for a Catholic nun to be faced with (to put it mildly).

The hospital defended her decision and the news services found the story a new way to attack the Catholic church for their stand on abortion. So 8 months after the fact, the story, first leaked by the AZ Republic was splattered all over the news.

Reporters interviewed Bishop Thomas Olmsted of the Diocese of Phoenix. Was the Sister really excommunicated, they asked. The Bishop confirmed the automatic excommunication for participation in an "intrinsic evil" act. And of course, that made the Bishop the target for more attacks.

I wrote a blog on this for the AZCentral news site and was told by one of the commenters that "all Catholics know that the stands of the Catholic church are outdated..." Huh? Since when is a prohibition of a particularly gross type of murder, outdated?

Anyway, turns out the Catholic Bishops Committee, supports Bishop Olmsted and they recently released a statement which explains things rather clearly. According to Catholic News Services:

A June 23 statement from the USCCB Committee on Doctrine addresses the Arizona controversy, and calls upon the teachings of the Holy Fathers to explain the issue at hand. “The Distinction between Direct Abortion and Legitimate Medical Procedures” clarifies Church teaching, and applies it succinctly to the Arizona case.

Church teaching, said the statement, holds that direct abortion is never permissible. Direct abortion is an act whose primary intent is to terminate a pregnancy and kill an unborn child. However, medical procedures which have other primary intentions, and which indirectly end the life of the unborn child, are not considered to be direct abortions nor immoral.

“The difference can be seen in two different scenarios in which the unborn child is not yet old enough to survive outside the womb,” says the statement. “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 is an example of a direct abortion, because the surgery directly targets the life of the child. The procedure only affects the function of the woman’s organs, and thus her health, in an indirect way, explained the document. “As the Church has said many times, direct abortion is never permissible because a good end cannot justify an evil means.”

In the second scenario, the surgery “indirectly and unintentionally (although foreseeably) results in the death of an unborn child.” However, it “directly addresses the health problem of the woman” and her “health benefits directly from the surgery, because of the removal of the cancerous organ.”

In that scenario, “the surgery does not directly target the life of the unborn child,” explains the statement. “The death of the child is an unintended and unavoidable side effect and not the aim of the surgery.”

Seems clear enough to me. As the Bishops stated, I hope this clears the confusion of the public about this incident.