The National Catholic Review

The U.S. bishops and the Catholic Health Association attempted to put difficult disagreements over the past year behind them in a recent series of phone conversations and an exchange of letters in January. According to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, “In response to questions raised about the authority of the local bishop in the interpretation and implementation of the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services [E.R.D.s],” conversations took place that included C.H.A. President Sister Carol Keehan, D.C., U.S.C.C.B. President Archbishop Timothy Dolan of New York and Bishop Robert Lynch of St. Petersburg, Florida, a member of the CHA Board of Directors.

In a Jan. 18 letter, the U.S.C.C.B. reports that “Sister Keehan affirmed to Archbishop Dolan C.H.A.’s acknowledgement of the role of the local bishop as the authoritative interpreter of the E.R.D.s in such Catholic facilities.” And in a January 26 response, Archbishop Dolan thanked Sister Keehan for “making clear that C.H.A. and the bishops share this understanding of the church’s teaching.

“As you, Bishop Lynch and I discussed, any medical case, and especially one with unique complications, certainly requires appropriate consultation with medical professionals and ethical experts with specialization in the teaching of the church. Still … it is the diocesan bishop’s authentic interpretation of the E.R.D.’s that must then govern their implementation. Where conflicts arise, it is again the bishop who provides the authoritative resolution based on his teaching office. Once such a resolution of a doubt has been given, it is no longer a question of competing moral theories or the offering of various ethical interpretations or opinions of the medical data that can still be legitimately espoused and followed. The matter has now reached the level of an authoritative resolution.”

Sister Keehan told America that she was not aware that the U.S.C.C.B. intended to release the exchange of letters to the public and “write a story about it,” that her understanding was the exchange was intended for distribution within the conference. She reiterated the main theme of her letter to Dolan, that the C.H.A. has never challenged a local bishop’s right to interpret or address ethical and religious directives within his diocese. “The C.H.A. has said and has always said that a bishop in his local diocese has the right to promulgate [the directives] and to interpret the E.R.D.s.,” Sister Keehan said. “He can even write his own E.R.D.s if he wants.

“We have never questioned that,” she said. “But can we have a difference of opinion? Absolutely.” Sister Keehan said part of the mission of the C.H.A. has always been to assist hospitals and U.S. bishops make practical sense of the church’s ethical and religious directives. She said, “The C.H.A. will continue to contribute its reflections and its input both on the pastoral and clinical needs of patients to the bishops and to the individual bishops within their dioceses.”

The U.S.C.C.B. and C.H.A. had a rough run in 2010. The C.H.A.’s qualified support for the health care reform legislative package in March proved pivotal to its eventual passage. This very public divergence with the position of the U.S. bishops was described by then U.S.C.C.B. President Chicago Archbishop Francis George as a “wound to church unity.” That wound opened a little further later in the year when the C.H.A. issued a statement of support for Arizona’s St. Joseph’s Hospital after Phoenix Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted decreed Dec. 21 that it could no longer describe itself as a Catholic hospital, charging that he could not verify that St. Joseph’s provided health care consistent with “authentic Catholic moral teaching.”

The hospital and its parent system, Catholic Healthcare West, had reached an impasse with Bishop Olmsted over whether a November 2009 procedure was a violation of Catholic moral teaching and church law. The hospital had intervened, its administrators said, to save the life of a mother of four who was near death because of extreme pulmonary hypertension. In doing so they terminated an 11-week pregnancy. Bishop Olmsted determined that the procedure represented a direct abortion, and said Sister Margaret McBride, a senior administrator at St. Joseph’s and part of the ethics committee which approved the procedure, was excommunicated by that decision.

Sister Keehan said she acknowledged the right of Bishop Olmsted to “kick them out of the diocese,” but said she, like many Catholic theologians, still believed St. Joseph administrators were properly following Catholic directives in the difficult decision. The hospital remains a C.H.A. member institution.

In the U.S.C.C.B. response to Sister Keehan’s correspondence, Archbishop Dolan acknowledges that “there are many moments on the horizon that could present a challenge to both Catholic health care and to the U.S.C.C.B. But these are also opportunities for us, as a church, to reaffirm our commitment, especially to the poor and needy, as well as to our Catholic respect for the right to life and for religious liberty. It will be very important for the church to speak with one voice on those occasions, and I would welcome the continued support of the CHA for these issues.”

Specifically Archbishop Dolan expressed his gratitude for C.H.A. collaboration on the Pitts-Lipinski Bill, which would “definitively resolve the outstanding questions about [the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act's] inclusion of funding for abortion services and for plans that include abortion” and other pending legislation related to clarifying and improving health care reform in the future.

 

For more: 

The Sisters' Witness

Complications

Comments

Robert Dean | 2/9/2011 - 11:15am
I mean this not at all sarcastically:  God save us from hospitals where bishops are the final arbiter of emergency medical practice.

(But, you know, I really don't know why I bother to comment: Those who agree will agree; those who don't wont (usually-but not always-in a bruising way full of snark and sarcasm.  It's beginning to seem pointless, and I don't think I'll do it anymore.)
David Schnelly | 2/8/2011 - 9:42pm
So, if I understand Sister Keehan's comments; if her committment to respect the authority of Bishops hadn't been made public, she would have...what ignored it much as she did in Phoenix. So her comittment to the authority of Bishop to authoritatively interpret and articulate Catholic teaching is kinda like smoke in the wind...now you see it, now you don't.

God save us from minimalist Catholics...how much Catholic teaching can I reject before I'm a heretic? Catholic Helthcare West, where this abortion took place has been funding vasrious affiliates of Planned Parenthood for several years so fidelity isn't one of their strong points.
Michael Barberi | 2/3/2011 - 4:13pm
Most Catholics do not embrace this Church's teaching or its decision in the Phoenix case.

However, I find it contradictory when Archbishop George asserts "the C.H.A.'s very public support for the March health care legislatiion....was described by then U.S.C.C.B. President Chicago Archbishop Francis George as a “wound to church unity.”

How would Archbishop George describe the U.S.C.C.B's 1968 statement "Human Life in Our Day" regarding Humanae Vitae? The U.S.C.C.B. said that it was possible that Catholics migth be compelled in conscience to oppose the supreme but not infallible authority of the Pope! Was this not a "wound to Church unity?

A Church divided on sexual ethical teachings wounds itself. Let's pray for solidarity.
Mark Harden | 2/3/2011 - 5:55pm
"Most Catholics do not embrace this Church's teaching or its decision in the Phoenix case."

That's a rather bold assertion. Any citation for it? Or just <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauline_Kael#Nixon_.22quote.22">anecdotal</A>? 

 "Plainly and simply:  I'm not allowed to let any layperson (including a bishop) tell me how to practice."

Medicine without ethical oversight. Wonderful. And people wonder why the white coat mystique is no longer credible to patients today.
Robert Dean | 2/3/2011 - 1:48pm
Mr. Smith, I couldn't agree with you more, and this kind of silliness just drives me nuts.  I'm a healthcare provider, and I recall that, during the heyday of managed care, there were bachelor's-level functionaries, who had never laid an eye on the patient, presuming to tell physicians what and how to treat and prescribe.  It was a debacle then, and it's a debacle now.

Plainly and simply:  I'm not allowed to let any layperson (including a bishop) tell me how to practice.  To do so would be an abrogation of my clinical, ethical and legal responsibilities.  Doing that could also get me (quite-rightly) sued, which is its own sort of catastrophe.

To put it bluntly: my state licensing board could absolutely care less about what some bishop says, and if I don't do my job to the best of my ability, the licensing board and the family (with their lawyer in tow, chuckling to him- or herself about what an easy, open-and-shut case this one's going to be) aren't going to go looking for the bishop.  They'll be coming after me.

Last I checked, a court of law trumps the diocese in these cases.  So does a malpractice panel.

Last I checked, ''The bishop said I had to do it'' makes for a laughably-lousy malpractice defense.  (Actually, worse than that: when I just now typed that buck-pass, I heard echoes of ''I was just following orders.'')

Last I checked, the bishop isn't expected to take care of my patients; I am.