|
|
Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted Letter Says Only a
Baptized Man Can Be Validly Ordained
Here is his letter posted in the Catholic Sun.
Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,
As reported in the news this week, a schismatic group in Tempe known as the Ecumenical Catholic Communion attempted to confer the Sacrament of Holy Orders upon a woman. It was also reported in the news that Fr. Vernon Meyer, a priest of our diocese, participated in the attempted ordination.
 Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted Actions such as these are extremely serious and carry with them profoundly harmful consequences for the salvation of the souls participating in this attempted ordination. To feign the conferral of the Sacrament of Holy Orders results in the penalty of excommunication. This penalty applies both to the person attempting the ordination and the person attempting to be ordained.
The attempted ordination of a woman is a grave offense against a sacrament and the structure of the Church. As it states in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, #1577: “Only a baptized man validly receives sacred ordination. The Lord Jesus chose men to form the college of the twelve apostles, and the apostles did the same when they chose collaborators to succeed them in their ministry. The college of bishops, with whom the priests are united in the priesthood, makes the college of the twelve an ever-present and ever-active reality until Christ’s return. The Church recognizes herself to be bound by this choice made by the Lord himself. For this reason the ordination of women is not possible.”
The Church’s position on the Sacrament of Holy Orders, of course, does not mean that women are of any less value or dignity than men. We are all called to Christian service, and women have always played an instrumental role in the life and holiness of the Church. Women serve in various levels of Church leadership and hold nearly half of diocesan administrative and professional positions, including chancellor and school superintendent in our own diocese. Women serve as presidents of Catholic colleges and universities in our country, and nearly 80 percent of lay parish ministers are women.
However, it is of paramount importance to recognize that the Catholic Church teaches that only a baptized man can be validly ordained to the ministerial priesthood. The Catholic priesthood, today as in ages past, mirrors the actions of Christ, who lived as a celibate male and chose to ordain only men.
You or your parishioners may also have seen it reported in the news that the Holy See allegedly considers the attempted ordination of women to be on par with the sexual abuse of minors. This is simply not true. This portrayal arose following the release of a letter from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to the public July 15, 2010, which concerns updates to norms related to grave crimes that were outlined in 2001 by Pope John Paul II. It expands the number of offenses to be referred to the Holy See and deals with such issues as sexual abuse of a minor, pornography, violations of the seal of the confession, and the attempted ordination of women.
Please pray for all involved in this divisive, scandalous act against the Catholic Church.
Grace and wisdom in the risen Christ,
+Thomas J. Olmsted
Bishop of Phoenix
What’s At Stake is Our Cultural Sanity and Viability!
Bishop Thomas Olmsted-Living in an age of relativism and one marked by sound-bite triviality rather than thoughtful reasoning, such labeling of opposing opinions as “hang ups” may come across as persuasive to some. But if looked at logically, and especially if seen from the perspective of God’s plan for marriage revealed in the first chapters of the Bible (as well as from the perspective of natural law), it comes off as absurd and only nominally rational.
What is at stake here is cultural sanity and viability. Defending the clear nature and purpose of marriage is not discrimination against homosexual persons. Why did God create both men and women, not just one sex? Is it merely accidental that one is born either a woman or a man? Is femininity or masculinity of little import? Does it not matter if a child grows up with no mother but two fathers? Does the pandemic of cultural ills born of father-less-ness in so many of our homes teach us nothing? Is it really all that difficult to fathom that God had a plan for marriage, which He wove into the very fabric of human nature? This plan is so deeply embedded in our human nature that every culture in history has recognized it and enshrined and protected it in law and custom. Marriage being exclusively between a man and a woman was not an idea created by these cultures but, rather, a truth received by them as something handed down from a higher authority.
Is ours an enlightened age that is wiser than previous ones? Are activist judges helping us finally to rise up and overthrow the “hang ups” of billions of people who have gone before us and to free us from the shackles of religion? Or is another explanation not possible: that these activist judges are products of the ideology of the sexual revolution who are now imposing their ideology upon our society?
Courage in taking up the Cross
We need to again recall the key distinction, when considering homosexuality, between the homosexual inclination on the one hand and homosexual acts on the other. Whoever engages in homosexual acts commits serious sin, as both the Old Testament and New Testament teach (Cf. Genesis 19:1-29, Romans 1:18-32, I Timothy 1:10) and as Christian Tradition has consistently affirmed (Cf. Catechism, #2357). However, persons with homosexual inclinations but who do not engage in homosexual acts are not guilty of sin at all. No more or less than other persons, Christ calls them to holiness of life, inviting them as He invites us all to take up our cross each day and follow after Him. All who follow Christ are given the grace to live the virtue of chastity; and they can joyfully do so with a clean heart.
Love and truth go hand-in-hand. Everyone who experiences true love knows this — we want those we love to know the truth. As Catholics, we want to love people authentically and not in a mediocre way that would ignore dangers in a person’s life out of a shallow concern for political correctness. We need never worry that speaking the truth clearly and charitably is a violation of love.
Both Church teaching and the study of reality, the natural law, show that homosexuality is an objective disorder — that is, it does not correspond to the God-given reality of the sexually differentiated human being. Therefore, to condone the homosexual lifestyle is never a move in favor of a person’s true happiness. Moreover, to change the legal and societal definition of the fundamental institution of marriage in order to suit an adult sexual preference is a selfish and irresponsible corruption of the truth. The truth is that the reason why the state cannot redefine marriage is because it never defined it in the first place; it is a truth received, not created. It is God who defined marriage. For the state to redefine marriage will certainly have a negative impact on love, especially for children, who suffer most when marriage is weakened.
Upholding the truth about marriage
We have great need to rediscover the good news of God’s plan for marriage; and we need to resist in the public square all efforts to label this plan as a “hang up” of the past. Labeling homosexual “marriage” as “a right” is not an enlightened idea of the 21st century. It is a novel form of a resurrected falsehood from more than 2,000 years ago. It will not stand the test of time, just as it cannot withstand popular opinion now.
In every state in our nation where this issue has been put to a vote of the people (31 of the 50), traditional marriage has won. It is only some activist judges, exercising raw judicial power over and against the will of the people, who have pushed their agenda of so-called “homosexual marriage” on the people.
The Lord calls us to love our enemies and to pray for their conversion. Let us do that. He calls us to affirm the human dignity of every human person, including those who struggle with homosexual tendencies. We gladly do that. He also gives us the grace and responsibility to stand up for the truth in the public square, especially the truth about the fundamental institution of society, marriage. Let us do this with courage and compassion, while speaking the truth in love. Let us keep in mind the words of our Savior: Do not be afraid; I am with you always.
“To Remain Silent Is Not An Act of Charity”
LifeSiteNews-Those who refuse to take Catholic pro-abort politicians to task for their words and actions not only fail the standards of fraternal charity, but embolden such individuals to commit even greater acts of evil against human life and dignity, according to Bishop Thomas Olmsted of Phoenix.
 The remarks appeared in a short exposition of the nature of scandal in a column for the Catholic Sun of Phoenix last month. In the article Olmsted, one of the strongest defenders of the unborn among U.S. Catholic hierarchy, explained the need to correct public figures who profess to reconcile their Catholic faith and pro-abortion agenda, as well as other individuals who give public scandal.
“A failure to call evil by its name inevitably leads to more evil acts in the future,” wrote Olmsted. “Evil acts, in themselves, are the greatest source of scandal. When the perpetrators are not called to account, then they are emboldened to do even worse deeds.”
The prelate quoted Archbishop Raymond Burke, Prefect of the Apostolic Signatura, who noted that, “it is particularly insidious that our society which is so profoundly confused about the most basic goods also believes that scandal is a thing of the past.”
The bishop pointed out the greater impact of scandal from public figures, who “fulfill an office of greater authority, enjoy more popularity or prestige, or [are] in a position to exercise political, economic or spiritual power or to make decisions that impact a large number of people.” “The greater their influence the greater their ability to inspire what is right and good but also the greater their ability to give scandal,” he said.
Thus when public officials “claim to be Catholic” but fail to promote the dignity of the human person, true marriage, and religious freedom, said the bishop, they give “grave scandal” – especially when justifying their stance “by claiming they cannot ‘impose their religious views on others.’”
“Their words and actions allow such fundamental evils as abortion and embryonic stem cell research to continue to kill thousands of the littlest and most innocent members of the human family,” wrote Olmsted. “Their false argumentation also gives the mistaken impression that abortion is just a matter of religious opinion,” whereas life is “a basic human right inscribed in every human heart.”
“Since some scandals are more grievous than others, remaining silent about the scandal given by those with greater influence in the Church or society has far more toxic effects than silence about other scandals.”
Olmsted emphasized that “to remain silent about scandalous activity is not an act of charity; for charity is inauthentic if it is not linked with truth.”
“Fraternal correction is not an act of presumed superiority,” he wrote. “It is an act of fraternal love that desires our brother to see and admit his mistake, to repent and find new life in the rich mercy of God. It is also an act of love for all those who might otherwise be led astray if the scandalous behavior were not publicly confronted.”
The bishop quoted the “quite emphatic” words of Jesus in the Gospel of Luke: “Scandals inevitably arise, but woe to him through whom they come. He would be better off thrown into the sea with a millstone around his neck than giving scandal to one of these little ones. Be on your guard. If your brother does wrong, correct him.’”
Olmsted also pointed out the grievous effect on the laity that arises from misconduct on the part of Catholic clergy, which he said causes “great harm within the Church and society.”
“Sadly, the sexual abuse of children and youth by a small percentage of the clergy has reminded everyone of the devastating results of such scandalous behavior, and the need to decisively address this scandal,” he wrote.
By: Kathleen Gilbert
“Pulmonary Hypertension Is Not A Condition Where Abortion Would Be Curative.”
“Successful Inventions Performed In the Past Have Enabled Mother and Child To Survive.”
LifeSiteNews-The Doctrinal Committee of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) published a document this week to clarify misunderstandings about the case of an abortion that took place in a Catholic hospital in Phoenix.
A media frenzy erupted in May after Phoenix Bishop Thomas Olmsted announced the automatic excommunication of a nun who contributed to the decision to go ahead with the procedure. The nun in question, Sister Margaret McBride, had claimed that the abortion was necessary to save the life of the mother, who was suffering from pulmonary hypertension.
However, while various media gave the impression that pulmonary hypertension is a condition where abortion would be curative, Catholic medical experts pointed out that this is not the case.
In fact, neonatologist Dr. Paul Byrne explained to LifeSiteNews that with pulmonary hypertension, an abortion, although it may relieve some of the stress on the heart, may also make the situation worse due to the stress of the abortion procedure. Dr. Byrne also explained that the literature on the condition indicates that there have been successful interventions for pregnant women with pulmonary hypertension that have enabled both mother and child to survive.
In its statement, the USCCB Committee presents two scenarios that distinguish “between medical procedures that cause direct abortions,” which it says are “never morally permissible,” and those “that may indirectly result in the death of an unborn child,” which in certain extreme situations can be permissible.
The first scenario – that involving an illicit direct abortion – approximates the situation at the Phoenix Catholic hospital.
“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.” The abortion, according to the example, “is likely to improve the functioning of the organ or organs, but only in an indirect way, i.e., by lessening the overall demands placed upon the organ or organs, since the burden posed by the pregnancy will be removed.”
Although the bishops admit that in the scenario “the abortion is the means by which a reduced strain upon the organ or organs is achieved,” they nevertheless explain that this amounts to “direct abortion” and is “never permissible because a good end cannot justify an evil means.”
“The surgery directly targets the life of the unborn child. It is the surgical instrument in the hands of the doctor that causes the child’s death. The surgery does not directly address the health problem of the woman, for example, by repairing the organ that is malfunctioning,” they explain.
In the second scenario they present a case where a surgery to save the life of the mother can be legitimate even if it causes the death of an unborn child.
“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,” explains the document.
“The second scenario describes a situation in which an urgently-needed medical procedure indirectly and unintentionally (although foreseeably) results in the death of an unborn child. In this case the surgery directly addresses the health problem of the woman, i.e., the organ that is malfunctioning (the cancerous uterus). The woman’s health benefits directly from the surgery, because of the removal of the cancerous organ. The surgery does not directly target the life of the unborn child.”
While the Bishops Committee document does not discuss excommunication, the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches: “Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life.”
Sister Margaret McBride Could Be
Dismissed From Religious Order
- Bishop Thomas Olmsted is helping St. Joseph’s Hospital and Medical Center to realize what a Catholic Hospital really is.
(CNA/EWTN News) Phoenix - A religious sister who was on a Catholic hospital panel that approved a direct abortion has excommunicated herself, the Diocese of Phoenix said on Tuesday. According to the diocese, Sr. Margaret McBride told Bishop Olmsted that she believed performing an abortion in a specific case from 2009 “was a morally good and allowable act according to Church teaching.”
 Sr. Margaret McBride, RSM The abortion took place late last year at St. Joseph’s Hospital and Medical Center in Phoenix. The mother was 11 weeks pregnant and was seriously ill with pulmonary hypertension, a condition worsened and possibly made fatal by pregnancy, according to the Washington Post.
An ethics committee which included doctors and hospital administrator Sr. Margaret McBride ruled that the abortion was necessary. Sr. McBride has been reassigned from her job as vice president of mission integration at the hospital.
In a Tuesday “Questions & Answers” document, the Diocese of Phoenix’s Office of Communications explained that Sr. McBride “held a position of authority at the hospital and was frequently consulted on ethical matters.”
The diocese stated that she was excommunicated because “she gave her consent that the abortion was a morally good and allowable act according to Church teaching. Furthermore, she admitted this directly to Bishop Olmsted. Since she gave her consent and encouraged an abortion she automatically excommunicated herself from the Church.”
The diocese added that canon law requires an excommunicated member of a religious community be dismissed from religious life unless his or her superior decides that dismissal is not completely necessary and that correction, restitution of justice and reparation of scandal can be sufficiently resolved in another way.
In addition, the diocese said that in this situation it was “clear” that St. Joseph’s Hospital was “not faithful to Catholic moral teaching” as outlined in the Ethical and Religious Directives (ERDs). Catholic Healthcare West, the hospital system of which St. Joseph’s is a part, has not followed the ERDs in at least one of their institutions, Chandler Regional Hospital.
According to the diocese, Bishop of Phoenix Thomas Olmsted is attempting to work with the hospital to help them fulfill requirements of self-identified Catholic institutions.
Shockingly, A Mother Has An Abortion
In A Catholic Hospital Because Of
The Advice Of A Catholic Nun
- Sister Margaret McBride Resigns
- St. Joseph’s Hospital and Medical Center Defends Their Actions
AP
PHOENIX — A nun and administrator at a Catholic hospital in Phoenix has been reassigned and rebuked by the local bishop for agreeing that a severely ill woman needed an abortion to survive.
 Sister Margaret McBride was on an ethics committee that included doctors that consulted with a young woman who was 11 weeks pregnant late last year, The Arizona Republic newspaper reported on its website Saturday. The woman was suffering from a life-threatening condition that likely would have caused her death if she hadn’t had the abortion at St. Joseph’s Hospital and Medical Center.
Hospital officials defended McBride’s actions but confirmed that she has been reassigned from her job as vice president of mission integration at the hospital. They said in a statement that saving the mother required that the fetus be aborted.
“In this tragic case, the treatment necessary to save the mother’s life required the termination of an 11-week pregnancy,” hospital vice president Susan Pfister said in an e-mail to the newspaper. She said the facility owned by Catholic Healthcare West adheres to the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services but that the directives do not answer all questions.
Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted, head of the Phoenix Diocese, indicated in a statement that the Roman Catholic involved was “automatically excommunicated” because of the action. The Catholic Church allows the termination of a pregnancy only as a secondary effect of other treatments, such as radiation of a cancerous uterus.
“I am gravely concerned by the fact that an abortion was performed several months ago in a Catholic hospital in this diocese,” Olmsted said in a statement sent to The Arizona Republic. “I am further concerned by the hospital’s statement that the termination of a human life was necessary to treat the mother’s underlying medical condition.
“An unborn child is not a disease. While medical professionals should certainly try to save a pregnant mother’s life, the means by which they do it can never be by directly killing her unborn child. The end does not justify the means.”
Olmsted added that if a Catholic “formally cooperates” in an abortion, he or she is automatically excommunicated.
Neither the hospital nor the bishop’s office would say if Olmsted had a direct role in her demotion. He does not have control of the hospital as a business but is the voice of moral authority over any Catholic institution operating in the diocese.
The patient, who hasn’t been identified, was seriously ill with pulmonary hypertension. The condition limits the ability of the heart and lungs to function and is made worse, possibly even fatal, by pregnancy.
“This decision was made after consultation with the patient, her family, her physicians, and in consultation with the Ethics Committee, of which Sr. Margaret McBride is a member,” the hospital said in a statement issued Friday.
A letter sent to Olmsted Monday by the board chairwoman and the president and CEO of CHW asks Olmsted to provide further clarification about the directives. The pregnancy, the letter says, carried a nearly certain risk of death for the mother.
“If there had been a way to save the pregnancy and still prevent the death of the mother, we would have done it,” the letter says. “We are convinced there was not.”
McBride declined to comment.
|
|
