skip to main |
skip to sidebar
The Catholic Church continues to lose followers for awful decisions like the one it made last week to strip an Arizona hospital of its official religious status because it performed an emergency abortion to save the life of the mother.
The controversy has the ACLU appealing to the federal government to ensure that emergency contraceptives and abortions remain available at Catholic hospitals.
In a letter to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the ACLU said "the refusal by religiously affiliated hospitals to provide abortion and other services was becoming an increasing problem."
Their complaint stems from a Catholic Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted's decision to strip St. Joseph’s Hospital and Medical Center in Phoenix of its Catholic status after staff doctors performed an abortion to save a mother's life late last year.
The bishop who oversees the hospital excommunicated a nun who was involved in the decision-making process last Tuesday and announced that the hospital could no longer call itself Catholic because he discovered it had been providing women with "birth-control pills and other forms of contraception" and sterilizations and abortions in certain situations.
The medical center followed with a very brave announcement of its own last Tuesday, saying it will continue to provide life-saving abortion care to patients even though it means losing its affiliation with the local Roman Catholic Diocese.
This commendable decision by St. Joseph’s and the hospital network that oversees it, Catholic Healthcare West, upholds important legal and moral principles. It also underscores the need to ensure that religiously affiliated hospitals comply with their legal duty to provide emergency reproductive care.
Advocates for reproductive rights are concerned that as Catholic hospital chains take over more hospitals, it will become more difficult for women to access contraception and medically necessary abortions.
The controversy stems from an incident in November 2009, when a 27-year-old mother of four in her third month of pregnancy arrived at St. Joseph’s. She was diagnosed with pulmonary hypertension, a serious complication that might well have killed her if she had continued the pregnancy.
The hospital performed an abortion, leading Bishop Olmsted to declare Sister Margaret McBride, a member of the hospital’s ethics committee, “automatically excommunicated” because she had consented to the therapeutic abortion necessary to save the woman’s life.
Last week, Bishop Olmsted said he no longer had confidence that the administration of St. Joseph's Hospital would run it according to Catholic teachings, "and therefore this hospital cannot be considered Catholic."
Leaders of the institution, founded in 1895 by a Catholic order, the Sisters of Mercy, said it would continue to operate "in the Catholic tradition" but without the official sanction of the church.
"I have hoped and prayed that this day would not come," the bishop was quoted as saying at a news conference. "However, the faithful of the diocese have a right to know whether institutions of this importance are indeed Catholic in identity and practice."
Just last month, Bishop Olmsted threatened to remove his endorsement of the hospital unless he received a written acknowledgment that the abortion violated Catholic policy and “will never occur again at St. Joseph’s Hospital.”
The hospital has steadfastly refused to bow to these demands, summing up its position with elegant simplicity: “Morally, ethically, and legally we simply cannot stand by and let someone die whose life we might be able to save.”
It is hardly reassuring that following the incident at St. Joseph’s, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops said Sister Margaret was properly punished and seconded Bishop Olmsted’s stance against providing the abortion, even to save a woman’s life.
No one has suggested that Catholic hospitals should be required to perform nonemergency abortions. But as St. Joseph’s recognized, the need to accommodate religious doctrine does not give health providers serving the general public license to jeopardize women’s lives.
The hospital's president, Linda Hunt, said she was "deeply saddened" by Olmsted's decision, adding, "The fact that this situation stems from our decision to save a young woman's life is particularly sad."
This is no small matter. Catholic hospitals account for about 15 percent of the nation’s hospital beds and are the only hospital facilities in many communities. Months ago, the American Civil Liberties Union asked the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services to investigate reported instances where religious doctrine prevailed over the need for emergency reproductive care, and to issue a formal clarification that denying such treatment violates federal law.
As previously mentioned, St. Joseph's is run by San Francisco-based Catholic Healthcare West, which operates more than 40 hospitals and clinics in California, Arizona and Nevada.
— The Curator
The pope is at it again: Confusing the faithful and activists on whether the use of condoms to help stop the spread of AIDS is OK with the church.
I respect all religious views, but I want to be up-front here and happily disclose that I am a FORMER Catholic, and the most recent flap has only strengthened my resolve to never, ever go back.
How is it even possible to have to think about whether the use of condoms to help stop AIDS and all STD’s is advantageous? It is a no brainer, but apparently the Vatican remains stuck in the wrong century, as usual. It also remains blatantly homophobic and obviously bigoted, views it has held close to his hypocritical chest and has carefully nurtured for over 2,000 years.
While some AIDS activists welcomed the pope’s apparent softening of the Vatican’s opposition to the use of condoms, sex workers said his concession, directed only at infected prostitutes, demonstrated both his prejudice, and stark removal from reality. Not to mention, his apparent belief that sex workers are responsible for AIDS!
In a book-long interview entitled Light of the World to be published on Tuesday, the 83-year-old German pontiff suggests that using condoms could be justified in some cases on moral grounds to prevent infecting others with the virus causing AIDS, citing the example of a “male prostitute.”
In a book to be published this week, Benedict XVI said there could be “justified individual cases” in which condoms could be used, softening Rome’s blanket ban on contraception, one of the most controversial issues facing the Church.
"In certain cases, where the intention is to reduce the risk of infection, it can nevertheless be a first step on the way to another, more humane sexuality," the head of the world's 1.1 billion Catholics said, giving as an example a male prostitute having sex with a client.
Of course, he gave no guidance on the long-standing moral and religious question of whether it would be permissible for a married couple, in which one partner is HIV positive, to use condoms in order to prevent the other partner from becoming infected. Not to mention, the millions of homosexuals worldwide who are sexually active and want to protect themselves and their partners from AIDS and any and all other STD’s.
If that is what he meant even in this very narrow area, it is quite a contradiction, since the pope spoke out against condom use as recently as March 2009 during a trip to Africa. At that time, the pope caused an international uproar by claiming that condoms “increase the problem” of AIDSs. Ridiculous, disgusting and incredibly dangerous, in my view.
Pressed yesterday by Peter Seewald, a German Catholic journalist, whether he meant that the Church was not opposed in principle to the use of condoms, Pope Benedict replied: “She of course does not regard it as a real or moral solution but, in this or that case, there can be nonetheless, in the intention of reducing the risk of infection, a first step in a movement toward a different way, a more human way, of living sexuality.” Um, what?
While the Vatican’s ban on artificial birth control was set out in a 1968 encyclical, it has not formally documented its position on condoms as a means to combat AIDS.
“This is a significant and positive step forward taken by the Vatican,” Michel Sidibé, executive director of UNAids, said. “This move recognizes that responsible sexual behavior and the use of condoms have important roles in HIV prevention. This will help accelerate the HIV prevention revolution.”
Predictably, Jon O’Brien, head of Catholics for Choice, a U.S. group, commented quite positively, proclaiming, “It is a marvelous victory for common sense and reason, a major step forward towards recognizing that condom use can play a vital role in reducing the future impact of the HIV pandemic.”
O’Brien asserted that the pope’s words were especially significant for “the many, many people who work for Catholic aid agencies and have been secretly handing out condoms while fearing that they will lose their jobs.”
But, the Vatican today apparently contradicted that all-too rosy interpretation as well as its Pope! The Vatican's chief spokesman today said that the pope is neither "reforming or changing" the Catholic Church's position banning condom use. Reverend Federico Lombardi emphasized that the church does not consider condoms a "moral solution" to sexually transmitted diseases, such as AIDS.
Some activists, including dissident Catholics, were dismayed that the pope only specifically cited the narrow example of a male prostitute – although the Vatican’s own newspaper fueled confusion by translating his words in Italian as a female prostitute.
“Thirty years of Vatican prevarication and refusal to admit the gravity of the HIV pandemic – which has already claimed the lives of 25 million people and threatens not only the 33 million currently affected but their partners and offspring – cannot be wiped away by a narrow exception constructed by a papacy under fire,” commented Mark Harrington of Treatment Action Group.
The pope’s shift was also interpreted by some Vatican observers as a communications ploy to soften his image as an out-of-touch fundamentalist whose papacy has been tarnished by revelations of hundreds of cases of child abuse committed by priests, sometimes protected by their bishops.
Sex workers were equally unimpressed by the pope’s new insight. “What the pope said is not connected to reality,” said one 23-year-old male prostitute in Rome who asked not to reveal his name. “No one cares about him. Maybe it is interesting from the theological point of view but in practical terms it makes no difference.”
A representative of the International Committee on the Rights of Sex Workers in Europe said his remarks were a, “damn sight better than saying condoms are of no use, but still pins the blame for AIDS on sex workers who face discrimination and stigmatization.” She also questioned whether the pope was really directing Catholic social workers to do anything differently.
Catholic aid organizations account for some 25 per cent of AIDS programs in sub-Saharan Africa, providing education, treatment and working against the stigma attached to the disease.
— The Curator
I routinely visit the doctor for ongoing treatment of Lupus, but I got way more than I bargained for last week when I got into it with a group of patients in the waiting room.
The issue that brought about the mini-skirmish was homosexuality in general, and gay marriage in particular.
Guess I’d better explain. When I arrived, my doctor was running late (don’t they always?), so I found a seat in the small and very crowded waiting room. A TV was blaring a Jerry Springer-like program in the corner. I’d brought a book to read, so I sat as far from the set as possible, which sadly put me facing the group of eager TV viewers.
These folks included more than 20 mixed race people, a little older than a normal cross-section of the public because the doctor we were waiting for is a rheumatologist. The key “player” in what turned out to be my personal drama was a man in his 30’s who had driven his elderly mother to her appointment and was waiting with her. He was quite handsome: tall, fit – cut even – with a stylish shaven head, but a less-than-stylish toothpick sticking out of the corner of his mouth. He was wearing expensive summer shorts and a blue polo shirt. He was also very loud.
At some point on the TV program, a homosexual man and his partner were picked out of the audience. They said they were planning to wed when/if it ever became legal in their home state. Immediately, the handsome man I was sitting across from began making unpleasant remarks about the gay couple on the TV. He loudly expressed how disgusting, etc. the whole thing was, prompting the bulk of the remainder of those in the waiting room to chime in their complete agreement. The handsome man, egged on by the obviously appreciative crowd and vise-versa, began to laugh derisively at the men on the TV. The handsome man and several others in the waiting room continued to express and utter a lot of vicious gay-bashing insults, and similar remarks that I will not dignify by repeating here.
As the whole thing unfolded, I literally felt sick to my stomach. I am bisexual, but even if I was straight, I would have been deeply offended by the terrible hate-talk.
After a few minutes, I found that I had almost involuntarily put my book down and was facing all of them. Quite abruptly, as if I was looking down on myself from some place high and hovering just below the ceiling, I interrupted this room of average Americans. At that point, almost all of them were laughing merrily – very happily bashing homosexuals, the handsome man at the center of it all, his eyes absolutely twinkling with cruel delight.
With as level a voice as I could manage, I softly asked them if they, “did not like gay people?”
An African-American woman who appeared to be in her 50’s answered without hesitation, “No,” prompting the majority of the group to all nod in agreement. The handsome man laughed again, and the others joined him.
She went on to proclaim that she was Christian, and that nowhere in the Bible did it say that homosexuality was anything but a sin, or that “those awful, awful people could marry.”
Another woman, who was white and said she was Italian-American and Catholic, said she agreed completely, proclaiming that, “those sick people will all go to hell, and this country will be better off without them in it.”
I told them that I couldn’t understand that view at all, that I tried to judge each person as an individual, and not to stereotype them. I said that I had thought that Christianity promoted that very approach. I also noted that the Bible also fails to condemn slavery, while actually providing instructions to slave owners. As a result, I suggested to the African-American woman that perhaps her citing it as support for an anti-homosexuality argument wasn’t the best choice under the circumstances.
For some reason, I kept talking. I noted calmly that many of those who were speaking out against homosexuals in the room were of different races. I told them that to me, “gay-bashing is just another form of bigotry – a different flavor of prejudice.”
The handsome man, who happened to be African-American, had suddenly become very, very, angry. He sharply and loudly criticized me for “daring” to speak out “in favor of those fags,” and for horribly comparing it to racial bigotry. He said I was "full of shit,” and that he had a right to his opinion.
I told him I agreed completely that he had the right to believe anything and everything that he chose. Swallowing my now palpable fear, I unwisely added, “but you’re in a public place, laughing at and insulting a group of people simply because of their sexuality. I really see it as bigotry. Your conversation and behavior are very offensive to me, and I would appreciate it if you would stop.”
An immediate and deep-as-a-ravine silence followed in which the only sound I could hear was my own heart thudding wildly in my chest like it was trying to jump completely out of my body, along with the constant drone of the TV.
“We’ll stop – but not because of you, because we’re finished talking,” he said, twisting his handsome features into an honest-to-God sneer. Then he leaned way forward in his chair and actually jabbed a finger out directly at me, reaching very close to where I was sitting. “Change the subject, or this is going to get very ugly for you – right here, right now.”
Look, I'm almost twice his age and disabled. I’m a 54-year-old white woman who can only walk with the use of two canes.
Somehow, I managed to look directly and deeply into his now hate-filled and threatening eyes. I knew in that instant that if I said a single other thing to him – anything – he really might strike me. And, if he did, I also knew he’d never suffer a pang of conscience, even though any blow from him would injure me quite badly.
“No problem. I have my book,” I replied, my mouth suddenly very dry. As I looked away from him, not one person in the waiting room made eye contact with me. Turning to my book still on my lap, I found that my hands were shaking uncontrollably.
No one spoke the rest of the time we were pressed together. When it was finally my turn to see the doctor and we were alone in an examination room, she asked if I was OK. The receptionists, all women, had heard everything and had told her because they were upset. Despite how they had felt, not one of them had tried to stop the gay-bashing.
Even so, the doctor thanked me for speaking out. She said that, "a lone voice against hate and intolerance does make a difference." She said it puts a different energy into the minds of everyone present. She said she thought it was fear that had stopped some to speak up who probably had agreed with me; some that felt gay marriage was OK; or others who believed that homosexuality was nothing to be made fun of, and that gays should not be abused.
I found out later that the oh-so-thoroughly-furious-handsome man was...wait for it...a police officer! Just what we need, not only another homophobic-bigoted man – but one with a badge and a gun.
— The Curator
An Argentine judge paved the way for gay marriage when she granted a homosexual couple permission to marry in a first for Latin America, the world's biggest Catholic region.
Buenos Aires, known for its active if low-key gay movement, became the region's first city to approve civil unions for gay couples in 2002. It was followed by Villa Carlos Paz in the north and the southern province of Rio Negro.
Those civil unions grant gay couples some, but not all, the rights enjoyed by heterosexual married couples.
The court ruled that two articles in the city's civil code that say only people of different sexes can get married are illegal. The court decision applies only to Buenos Aires. Same-sex unions in most of the rest of Argentina remain illegal.
Friday's ruling by Judge Gabriela Seijas ordered the civil registry to make official the marriage of Alejandro Freyre, 39, and Jose Maria Di Bello, 41, who had been denied their request because they were both men. The couple had filed a discrimination complaint in April.
"The law should treat each person with equal respect in relation to each person's singularities without the need to understand or regulate them," the judge said in her ruling.
The city code prevents people from "enjoying the rights that couples who enter into matrimony are entitled to," she said. Those rights include inheritances, pensions and the ability to make decisions for the other person when he or she is incapacitated.
It could increase pressure for lawmakers to take up a stalled gay marriage bill in Congress.
"We are very happy, moved, but we also feel the heavy weight of responsibility because it's not just about us, it's encouraging legal equality in Argentina and the rest of Latin America," Di Bello told reporters.
In the rest of Latin America, Mexico City, the Mexican state of Coahuila and the Brazilian state of Rio Grande do Sul also allow civil unions for same-sex couples.
Uruguay became the first country in the region in late 2007 to legalize civil unions for gays. In January 2009, the Colombian Constitutional Court recognized a series of rights for homosexual couples, including social welfare rights.
But no Latin American country authorizes marriage between gays.
"The law must treat everyone with the same respect according to their particular situation" and declared unconstitutional two articles of the civil code, including one stating that marriage is only between a man and a woman, Seijas ruled.
"All you have to do is change the words 'man' and 'woman' with the word 'party,'" said Di Bello, who along with his partner is HIV-positive.
The Catholic church is especially powerful in Argentina, a country whose population is 91 percent Catholic.
Bishop Baldemoro Martini charged that, "same-sex unions do not contribute to the public good; they put it especially at risk."
The landmark decision could still be struck down if there is an appeal.
But Buenos Aires Mayor Mauricio Macri, a conservative, said the government would make no such move, pledging that his government will NOT appeal the court decision.
Macri called the ruling a "very important step," adding that "we have to live together and accept reality...The world is headed in that direction."
His decision was not easy, Macri said. Many people had urged him to appeal.
"I had an important internal debate, weighing my upbringing with my search for the best customs and best liberties for society," he said in a videotaped message on his Facebook page.
"What we have to learn is to live in liberty without violating the rights of others," he said.
Macri likened the current debate over same-sex marriage to a similar discourse years ago.
"It's the same as happened with divorce several decades ago – a very intense debate. And today it is something very natural," the mayor said.
Judge Seijas issued the ruling Wednesday but it did not become public knowledge until Thursday, when it was posted on the court's Web site.
Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador and Uruguay are also addressing the issue of same-sex civil unions.
Several homosexual groups hailed the judge's ruling.
"I am very happy and I join the feeling of Argentine gays, who were repressed for many years," said Marcelo Cerqueira, president of Gay de Bahia, one of the most active gay rights groups in Latin American giant Brazil.
"For us in Brazil, we have no expectations, neither in court, nor in the medium or long term."
The decision by Seijas "is incredibly courageous, we didn't expect it," acknowledged Di Bello, who fell into his partner's arms when he learned of the verdict.
I find it so very impressive that in a region that is so ultra religious and quite conservative, doing the right thing has won out over politics! I’m literally still in shock, and also ashamed that our country lags so far behind on this issue. This courageous ruling and the equally courageous decision NOT to appeal should stand as a shining example to all states and countries worldwide grappling with this issue. It seems so obvious to me that equal rights and protections MUST apply to all, not just to those who are part of the status quo. Have we forgotten that our beloved Constitution and Bill of Rights were drafted to protect the minority from oppression by the majority? It is time to act as true American patriots and allow gays the same basic human rights as everyone else in the US enjoys. In point of fact, ONLY gays are still discriminated against in this manner. No other group, creed, or race continues to endure such overt prejudice, stereotyping and government-sanctioned denial of their basic human rights and protections. Mayor Macri said it best, "What we have to learn is to live in liberty without violating the rights of others." Isn't it sad that the birthplace of democracy has to be taught what freedom actually means?
— The Curator
