Tag Archives: catholic

CNN’s Velshi: Ban Catholic Churches From Oklahoma City Because of McVeigh?

CNN’s Ali Velshi engaged in moral relativism on Wednesday’s Newsroom as he editorialized on the controversial planned mosque near Ground Zero. Velshi worried about the precedent that might be set if a government “assisted” in moving its site: ” Timothy McVeigh was raised Catholic. Do we then entertain petitions of moving Catholic churches away from the Oklahoma bombing site? ” The anchor, a Canadian Shia Muslim of the minority Ismaili sect , closed out the 2 pm Eastern hour of Newsroom with his regular “XYZ” commentary, which he devoted to the controversy. Velshi began by stating that it was “an emotional topic, and one I wasn’t sure I should bring up in these last few minutes.” He then launched into a short explanation of the 1st Amendment’s protection of religious liberty, echoing, in a way, his colleague Roland Martin’s constitutional defense of the mosque on Tuesday night : VELSHI: Did you know that, as an American citizen, you have two freedoms granted by the First Amendment of the Constitution, when it comes to religion? The first part is known as the Establishment Clause. The Establishment Clause essentially says the government can’t pass laws that will establish an official religion. This is commonly interpreted as the separation of church and state. The second one is the Free Exercise Clause, and it prevents the government from interfering with or controlling a person’s practice of his or her religion. Religious freedom is an absolute right in this country, and it includes the right to practice any religion, or no religion at all, for all Americans. After briefly touching on how many of the early American colonists came to North America for religious freedom, the CNN anchor moved on to his morally relativistic argument: VELSHI: Suppose our government leaders or New York state leaders do step in, in some capacity, whether official or non-official, and assist in moving the mosque elsewhere. Then what? What kind of precedent does that set? Timothy McVeigh was raised Catholic. Do we then entertain petitions of moving Catholic churches away from the Oklahoma bombing site? I’m sure you’re thinking it sounds ridiculous, but ask yourself, is it ridiculous because Catholicism is familiar to you, or, is your argument that what he did was different, or is your argument that Timothy McVeigh didn’t kill in the name in Allah? Actually, the comparison is ridiculous, because, as his own network acknowledged the morning after McVeigh’s execution , that the murderer was ” baptized in the Catholic Church as a boy, but had stopped practicing and recently described himself as agnostic .” Moreover, as the terrorist himself admitted , he bombed the Oklahoma City federal building as a ” retaliatory strike; a counter attack, for the cumulative raids (and subsequent violence and damage) that federal agents had participated in over the preceding years ( including, but not limited to, Waco ).” McVeigh did not carry out the attack in the name of the Christian God or in the name of the Catholic Church. On the other hand, Al Qaeda issued a fatwa in 1998 , which declared that killing “Americans and their allies…is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it… in accordance with the words of Almighty God .” Velshi concluded his commentary by stating that it didn’t matter whether Americans were for or against the planned mosque: ” If you’re an American citizen and choose to remain in this country, then whether you are against or you are for the Islamic center and mosque should be irrelevant. I say ‘should be,’ in an ideal world, because, as an American citizen- well, we should all be for the Constitution that so many have fought, lived, and died for , including the 2,976 souls who died on September 11th at Ground Zero, at the Pentagon, and in a field in western Pennsylvania.” The anchor wasn’t the first CNN personality to bring in the Catholic Church into the mosque controversy. A week earlier, Rick Sanchez bizarrely wondered whether nvestigating the funding behind the planned mosque near Ground Zero would lead to investigations into Catholic and/or Mormon funding: ” If you start going into who is giving money…you’ve got to go to Rome and start asking where the money is going into Rome….and you have to go the Mormons and ask…what are they doing with their money? ” The full transcript of Ali Velshi commentary from Wednesday’s Newsroom: VELSHI: Time now for the ‘XYZ’ of it. It’s a controversial topic: the Islamic center and mosque near Ground Zero. It’s an emotional topic, and one I wasn’t sure I should bring up in these last few minutes with you, but you’ve talked about it with me on Facebook and Twitter, so here goes. Did you know that, as an American citizen, you have two freedoms granted by the First Amendment of the Constitution, when it comes to religion? The first part is known as the Establishment Clause. The Establishment Clause essentially says the government can’t pass laws that will establish an official religion. This is commonly interpreted as the separation of church and state. The second one is the Free Exercise Clause, and it prevents the government from interfering with or controlling a person’s practice of his or her religion. Religious freedom is an absolute right in this country, and it includes the right to practice any religion, or no religion at all, for all Americans. The founders of this country crossed the ocean in the early 1600s, seeking freedom of religion from an oppressive church and government. I don’t know how the situation in downtown New York will play out, but I know these are potentially dangerous times for our freedoms. Suppose our government leaders or New York state leaders do step in, in some capacity, whether official or non-official, and assist in moving the mosque elsewhere. Then what? What kind of precedent does that set? Timothy McVeigh was raised Catholic. Do we then entertain petitions of moving Catholic churches away from the Oklahoma bombing site? I’m sure you’re thinking it sounds ridiculous, but ask yourself, is it ridiculous because Catholicism is familiar to you, or, is your argument that what he did was different, or is your argument that Timothy McVeigh didn’t kill in the name in Allah? For every religion under the heavens, there will always be extremists. The key is to understand that the extremist do not make up the masses. Linda Lee on Facebook wrote to me today, ‘Islam and terrorism are not synonymous. By fighting for the mosque [sic] for those reasons, you are supporting bin Laden’s idea that the West is at war with Islam. Please don’t be the cause of what you are so desperately trying to fight,’ end quote. If you’re an American citizen and choose to remain in this country, then whether you are against or you are for the Islamic center and mosque should be irrelevant. I say ‘should be,’ in an ideal world, because, as an American citizen- well, we should all be for the Constitution that so many have fought, lived, and died for, including the 2,976 souls who died on September 11th at Ground Zero, at the Pentagon, and in a field in western Pennsylvania. That’s my ‘XYZ.’

View original post here:
CNN’s Velshi: Ban Catholic Churches From Oklahoma City Because of McVeigh?

Mel Gibson’s Dad: The Pope is Gay!

Another day, another offensive Gibson rant … this time not by Mel, though! Mel Gibson’s controversial father, Hutton Gibson, told Liberty News Radio that “half the Vatican” is gay and that Pope Benedict XVI is a homosexual too. Asked by Radar Online to confirm those remarks, the elder Gibson, 91, did so and then some, saying: “That is correct – I stand by my statements.” “The Vatican is full of all these child molesters, that is all there is to it.” Hutton Gibson shocked listeners on the Political Cesspool Radio Program with his take on why the Catholic Church has failed to tackle homosexuality. He calls Pope Benedict was “a homosexual” and “a slippery character” involved in a Masonic conspiracy out to destroy the Catholic Church from within. Hutton Gibson is not a huge fan of the Pope. Mel Gibson’s father attends his alternative Catholic Church in Malibu and has so far not spoken about the actor’s alleged abuse of Oksana Grigorieva . This is a rant that gives Mel a run for his money, though. The outspoken critic of the Catholic Church questioned in a 2003 interview how Nazis had disposed of six million bodies during the Holocaust, and claimed that the September 11, 2001, attacks were perpetrated by remote control. Now, Hutton Gibson claims the Catholic Church isn’t fighting the repeal of Proposition 8 “because half of the people there in the Vatican are queer.” “They have not handled the horrible situation in the church. In fact they have fostered it because as I say they are trying to destroy the church.” Asked if he thinks the Pope is gay, Hutton replied, “I certainly do. Why else would he put up with this? He was in charge of stamping it out.”

Go here to read the rest:
Mel Gibson’s Dad: The Pope is Gay!

Leftist AOL Contributor Attacks Pope, Equates Him With Hezbollah Leader

AOL News contributor Paul Wachter launched an inflammatory attack on Pope Benedict XVI in a Thursday post where he also defended recently-fired CNN editor Octavia Nasr for her eulogy of Hezbollah’s spiritual leader. After hinting that the network “overreacted,” Wachter suggested that CNN should also fire “anyone who speaks highly of the pope, who…has contributed to the deaths of millions from AIDS.” Wachter began his commentary, ” Octavia Nasr Firing: Should CNN Also Ax Anyone Who Praises the Pope? ,” by recounting the former Middle Eastern affairs editor’s Tweet where she expressed how she was “sad to hear of the passing of Sayyed Mohammad Hussein Fadlallah.. One of Hezbollah’s giants I respect a lot.” He then echoed Nasr’s own synopsis of the Hezbollah spiritual leader: “Fadlallah left a complex legacy. He was staunchly anti-Zionist, a defender of suicide bombings and approved of the suicide attacks on American barracks in Beirut during the United States’ ill-fated intervention in Lebanon during the country’s civil war. But he also championed women’s rights under Islam and spoke out against honor killings.” The writer, who also contributes to left-leaning publication such as New York Time Magazine, The Atlantic, and The Nation, then launched his attack on the Pope, and lumped in Jerry Fallwell for good measure at the end: An argument can be made that CNN has overreacted here , but if Nasr must go, is it too much to ask that the network at least be consistent going forward? Should it, for instance, also fire anyone who speaks highly of the pope, who covered up the clerical rape of young boys and whose anti-contraception proselytization has contributed to the deaths of millions from AIDS? Or anyone at the network who had a kind word for Jerry Fallwell, who said the United States was getting its just deserts with the 9/11 attacks and that the anti-Christ was among us, disguised as a Jewish man? So Wachter believes it’s a matter of established fact that the pontiff “covered up the clerical rape of young boys”? That’s not surprising, given the secular anti-Catholic company he keeps. As for the wild accusation that Benedict contributed to the deaths of millions from AIDS, it was CNN itself that came out on Wachter’s side last year after the Pope stated that condoms “increases the problem” of AIDS during his first trip to Africa. Correspondent Zain Verjee couldn’t seem to find any health “experts” who agreed with the Catholic leader during a March 17, 2009 report . CNN commentator Jack Cafferty condemned the pontiff’s remarks a day later , concluding that “it is past time for the Catholic Church to enter the 21st century, or at least try to drag itself out of the 13th century.” All of this came despite the fact that Dr. Edward Green of Harvard’s AIDS Prevention Research Project cited how the ” the best evidence we have supports the pope’s comments .” In any case, there’s little risk of Wachter’s hypothetical situation of a CNN employee praising the Pope happening any time soon, given the network’s slanted coverage of the priest sex abuse scandal so far during 2010 .

Read more here:
Leftist AOL Contributor Attacks Pope, Equates Him With Hezbollah Leader

MRC-TV: The June 24 ‘Media Mash’ on Hannity

“The media, for like five seconds, those with thrill up and down their legs, they were a little critical of the Anointed One and what was one of the worst speeches in the Oval Office… but as soon as he fired McChrystal and hired Petraeus, they went nuts,” Sean Hannity observed last night at the beginning of his recurring “Media Mash” segment with NewsBusters publisher Brent Bozell. The Fox News host then rolled a montage compiled by Media Research Center (MRC) analyst Kyle Drennen which showed the mainstream media hailing Obama as “brilliant” for the personnel move. After the montage, Bozell noted that the same media that proclaimed Obama sacking McChrystal as “brilliant” were claiming that the president really had no choice but to fire the Afghanistan commander. “If he had no choice, then it really wasn’t really altogether all that brilliant,” the MRC president observed. Bozell and Hannity also discussed  the media’s double standard in bashing BP CEO Tony Hayward — who had been relieved of duty for overseeing the cleanup operation — for yachting over the weekend, while ignoring President Obama’s weekend golfing excursion and MSNBC’s Mika Brzezinski admitting she was parroting White House talking points to defend the administration’s handling of the ongoing crisis. For the full MP3 audio of the “Media Mash” segment, click here . For video click here for the WMV file or watch the video embed above.

Go here to see the original:
MRC-TV: The June 24 ‘Media Mash’ on Hannity

WaPo’s Stevens-Arroyo Calls for Catholics to ‘Embrace a Redistribution of Wealth’

The Washington Post’s really should consider renaming Anthony Stevens-Arroyo’s column in its “On Faith” blog. “Catholic America” should be “Liberal Democrat Catholic America,” just for the sake of truth in advertising. On June 23, left-wing hack Stevens-Arroyo again injected his politics into the ostensibly religious column. In “ Common good v corp. profits ,” he actually wrote that Catholics should “embrace a redistribution of wealth.” The column sought to explain how Catholics and others should view Judge Martin Feldman’s ruling overturning the Obama moratorium on off-shore drilling. Why, the reader may ask, should this event have Catholic significance, beyond the fact that a liberal writer whose column has “Catholic” in the title was upset about it? It doesn’t. But Stevens-Arroyo gamely offered that, “There may not be a ‘Catholic’ position about the immediate politics of off-shore drilling, but there is an on-going Catholic approach to resolving the competing interests.” Not surprisingly, that approach vindicates the left. To Stevens-Arroyo, the issue came down to “common good,” which led him to make this puzzling statement: “While we have considerable freedom about our personal political choices in the application of principles, Catholics in America are bound to embrace a redistribution of wealth, even if it goes contrary to ranting from groups like the Tea Party or Wall Street.” He never explained where exactly it states Catholics are bound to encourage the government to confiscate legally earned private property to give it to whomever it deems more worthy. Catholics are bound to assist others through charity, not compulsory redistribution. This isn’t the first time Stevens-Arroyo has conflated socialism with faith. Last year he declared that “ the most Catholic ” part of Ted Kennedy’s funeral was the senator’s grandchildren pleading for nationalized health care. But, not content being an arbiter of what is Catholic and what isn’t, Stevens-Arroyo set himself up as a law scholar, hypothesizing that the “Reagan-appointed judge” Feldman’s ruling could be seen as the work of an “activist court.” He ranted that, “a judge is supposed to be limited to matters of constitutionality — and not to impose his jobs’ policy. There can be no doubt that a presidential moratorium falls within the powers of the White House, so stopping this legitimate executive order on questions about its consequences constitutes activism.” Even the Associated Press explained that the moratorium was overturned because the “Interior Department failed to provide adequate reasoning for the moratorium.” Stevens-Arroyo has a history of being unable to hide his liberal viewpoints. Just last March he claimed that Fox New’s Glenn Beck was using “the same strategy of the Hitler Youth and the Polish Communist Party … ” In December he also attempted to compare Ft. Hood shooter Hidal Hassan to World War 1 hero Alvin York and General Patton.

See the original post:
WaPo’s Stevens-Arroyo Calls for Catholics to ‘Embrace a Redistribution of Wealth’

Adriana Lima Topless for V Magazine of the Day

Adriana Lima was more fun when she was a crazy Catholic girl from Brazil who claimed she was a virgin, but spent her days getting paid stupid money to model naked. It was like this confusing shit I couldn’t get my head around but I knew it was hot…way hotter than when crazy Catholic girls become whores and fuck everyone…because 25 year old hot virigns is just on another level…I am convinced shit was a lie to begin with, it just made her that much more exciting to jerk off to. It was probably a language barrier issue and she was really trying to tell people that because she was a crazy Catholic girl she respects virgins, but she’s too busy to care, because she’s out practicing getting knocked up, which unfortunately, she got good at, and now has to live with for the rest of her life…but she’s still looing good to me.

Read the original here:
Adriana Lima Topless for V Magazine of the Day

HuffPo Gives Catholic-Insulting Lady Gaga Music Video a ‘Thumbs Up’

Pop music sensation Lady Gaga recently released a music video for her popular song, “Alejandro,” but the music video was so controversial that it was denounced as being blasphemy. Despite the video’s clear inappropriate sexual content and profane misuse of Catholic religious symbols, the liberal blogspot Huffington Post joined with the rest of the media in praising the video. Author Michele Somerville wrote in her June 14 article, “ Holy Gaga! A Catholic’s Defense of ‘Alejandro ’” that she, “gives ‘Alejandro’ a thumbs ups. It’s pop culture tour de force.” According to Somerville, “the only sin” she found with the video is that it is a, “possible transgressions against Madonna.” In the music video Lady Gaga swallows a rosary while dressed as a nun, stimulates intercourse, and features half-naked men dancing in high heels. Catholic League president Bill Donohue denounced the video . “Lady Gaga is playing Madonna copy cat, squirming around half-naked with half-naked guys, abusing Catholic symbols — they’re always Catholic symbols — while bleating out ‘Alejandro’ enough times to induce vomit,” Donohue explained. “That she is confused is an understatement. In any event, we hope she finds her way back home.” Somerville, however, gushed about the video. She explained that she’s a fan of Lady Gaga and she even showed the video to her three children because she “knew they would soon see it.” Somerville compared Lady Gaga to Madonna and explained that Madonna’s once controversial music video for “Like a Virgin” created a “religious outcry” as well. But then she took it a step further and wrote that Michelangelo’s The Last Judgement was once labeled “obscene.” She explained, “Many of the same Catholics who would see putting pants on Michelangelo’s angels as anathema were quick to chastise Madonna for performing on a giant cross.” Somerville continued attempting to compare Michelangelo with Lady Gaga.  She wrote, “It’s safe to assume that a naked penis in church was as offensive to many Catholics 500 years ago as Lady Gaga deep-throating all five decades of the rosary is today. We have no idea what Jesus would think of ‘Alejandro’…” He probably wouldn’t think too much of someone using a God-given talent to mock some of His most devout followers and their beliefs. Somerville, however, mused, “Is it not possible that God likes a laugh?”

Go here to read the rest:
HuffPo Gives Catholic-Insulting Lady Gaga Music Video a ‘Thumbs Up’

Kyra Phillips Falsely Claims Pope Benedict XVI Hasn’t Said He’s Sorry

CNN’s Kyra Phillips completely got it wrong on Friday’s Newsroom as she reported on Pope Benedict XVI’s latest apology for the priestly sex abuse scandal. Even after she reported that Pope was ” begging for forgiveness ,” Phillips repeatedly claimed that ” there are two simple words we haven’t heard: I’m sorry .” The Pope has actually used those words and has made multiple apologies. The CNN anchor led the 9 am Eastern hour with the pontiff’s request for forgiveness, which he made at a Mass in St. Peter’s Square to close out the Catholic Church’s Year for Priests, which began on June 19, 2009 and ends June 19 this year: “Here’s what we’re working on right now. Sex abuse in the Catholic Church- the Holy Father begs forgiveness, promises never again . But why is it that being Pope means never having to say, I’m sorry .” Despite the continuing the oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico and other top stories, Phillips highlighted the Pope’s comments, along with the teenager stranded at sea and the opening of the World Cup in South Africa. After her promos for those three stories, the anchor introduced a live report from CNN correspondent Paula Newton and included a clip from Benedict XVI’s homily: PHILLIPS: We begin with Pope Benedict XVI is begging for forgiveness. Today, he told thousands of his followers gathered at the Vatican that he will never allow priests to abuse children ever again. But is this plea for forgiveness enough? Well, not for critics. Here’s what the Pope said. POPE BENEDICT XVI (through translator): We too insistently beg forgiveness from God and from the persons involved, while promising to do everything possible to ensure that such abuse will never occur again. And that in admitting men to priestly ministry and in their formation, we’ll do everything we can to weigh the authenticity of their vocation. PHILLIPS: Okay. As you just heard, the Pope is asking for forgiveness, but still, there are two simple words we haven’t heard: I’m sorry . CNN’s Paula Newton, live in Rome- so Paula, why can’t the Pope just say, I’m sorry for this global sex scandal? Actually, Kyra, Benedict XVI did use those “two simple words” in his March 19 pastoral letter to the Catholics of Ireland , and added an extra word when he directly addressed those who were abused by priests: “You have suffered grievously and I am truly sorry . I know that nothing can undo the wrong you have endured….It is understandable that you find it hard to forgive or be reconciled with the Church. In her name, I openly express the shame and remorse that we all feel .” Moreover, isn’t “begging for forgiveness” another way of saying “sorry”? The Pope also met with some of the victims of abuse during his April 2008 visit to the U.S., and addressed the scandal during a homily in New York City . Later that year, he apologized again , this time for the sex abuse in Australia while he visited that country. Phillips’s colleague Jessica Yellin made the same false claim nearly two months earlier during a April 16 segment . Yellin asked, “Why is he [the Pope] having such a hard time saying he’s sorry?” Newton then compounded Phillips’s falsehood by answering, “Centuries of theology says that he can’t. A very formal mea culpa was really not going to happen here, Kyra, although that’s what victims’ groups said that they wanted.” She spent the rest of the report delivering the talking points of the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests (SNAP): NEWTON: You know, in listening to what the Pope said, victims’ groups we spokes to said- look, they were gratified that at least he was speaking about it openly. And he said- he asked for forgiveness in a way that he has done privately, but not so publicly, in front of the audience of priests the way he did.   But, you know, I spoke with a Barbara Doris, of the survivors’ network SNAP, and she was quite critical. I want you to listen to this, Kyra. She said to me, ‘This was not very meaningful without the reform. The words ring hollow. It’s like I slapped you, I say I’m sorry, and I continue to slap you.’ Her bottom line, Kyra: not one child is any safer today because of those words. Her point is that reform- true reform at the Vatican has not been started. What she wanted to hear was the Pope address- say I’m sorry, do the mea culpa, which would have been historical, and then also, tell priests- look, if you know of anyone who has abused children around the world, turn them in right now, whether it was in the past or going on right now. Beyond that, they believe the Vatican has a corrupt bureaucracy, and they want that reformed. They say the Pope is a long way from doing that. Kyra? PHILLIPS: Corruption that has to be dealt with- Paula Newton, thanks. Phillips has made no secret that she supports left-wing changes to the Catholic Church. During a March 26, 2010 segment , she brought on three heterodox Christians who advocate the acceptance of homosexual behavior and the ordination of women without anyone from the opposing side and endorsed their agenda: “I think all three of you need to head to the Vatican and institute some change.” The anchor brought back two of those guests nearly a month later on April 21.

Visit link:
Kyra Phillips Falsely Claims Pope Benedict XVI Hasn’t Said He’s Sorry

Lady Gaga’s ‘Alejandro’ Video: German Expressionism With A Beat!

Dark, arty clip is about as far from ‘Telephone’ video as she could get. By James Montgomery Lady Gaga in the “Alejandro” music video Photo: Interscope Records At this point in her career, Lady Gaga can do whatever she wants, whenever she wants. She is unbound, unbridled, and completely without fear … and “Alejandro” is proof of that. It is a very glamorous, very art-y thing — and anyone expecting a video like her last one should give up that hope right now. Because, having already run roughshod through the pulpy pop culture of yesteryear with Beyonc

Nun at St. Joseph’s Hospital (Phoenix) "Rebuked" Over Abortion Decision to Save Woman

Nun at St. Joseph's Hospital rebuked over abortion to save woman by Michael Clancy – May. 15, 2010 12:00 AM The Arizona Republic Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/12news/news/articles/2010/05/15/20100515phoenix-catholi… A Catholic nun and longtime administrator of St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center in Phoenix was reassigned in the wake of a decision to allow a pregnancy to be ended in order to save the life of a critically ill patient. The decision also drew a sharp rebuke from Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted, head of the Phoenix Diocese, who indicated the woman was “automatically excommunicated” because of the action. Neither the hospital nor the bishop's office would address whether the bishop 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 actions involving the administrator, mostly taken within the past couple of weeks, followed a last-minute, life-or-death drama in late 2009. The patient had a rare and often fatal condition in which a pregnancy can cause the death of the mother. Sister Margaret McBride, who had been vice president of mission integration at the hospital, was on call as a member of the hospital's ethics committee when the surgery took place, hospital officials said. She was part of a group of people, including the patient and doctors, who decided upon the course of action. The patient was not identified, and details of her case cannot be revealed under federal privacy laws. The Catholic Church forbids abortion in all circumstances and allows the termination of a pregnancy only as a secondary effect of other treatments, such as radiation of a cancerous uterus. The hospital defended the ethics committee's decision. In a statement, Suzanne Pfister, a hospital vice president, said that the facility adheres to the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services but that the directives do not answer all questions. “In this tragic case, the treatment necessary to save the mother's life required the termination of an 11-week pregnancy,” Pfister said. Pfister issued the four-paragraph statement on behalf of the hospital, its parent company Catholic Healthcare West, and the Sisters of Mercy, McBride's religious order. McBride was part of the discussion about the surgery, described as urgent. It involved a serious illness, pulmonary hypertension. The condition limits the ability of the heart and lungs to function and is made worse, possibly even fatal, by pregnancy. In a statement issued to The Republic late Friday, the diocese confirmed that Olmsted learned of the case after the surgery. “I am gravely concerned by the fact that an abortion was performed several months ago in a Catholic hospital in this diocese,” Olmsted said. “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. Excommunication forbids the person from participating in church life. Remedies are available through an appeal to the Vatican or confession. “The Catholic Church will continue to defend life and proclaim the evil of abortion without compromise, and must act to correct even her own members if they fail in this duty,” the bishop said. It is unknown whether the bishop took action against the others who were involved in the matter, and Pfister would not answer questions about the physicians involved in the surgery. Neither Olmsted nor his spokesman at the Phoenix Diocese would answer additional questions. Although Olmsted does not have direct control of the hospital, his authority as bishop over Catholic institutions is substantial. For one thing, religious orders work in the Valley at his invitation. In an e-mail, Pfister said McBride has been transferred “to another position in the hospital to focus on a number of new strategic initiatives.” According to the medical directives that the hospital follows, abortion is defined as the directly intended termination of pregnancy, and it is not permitted under any circumstances – even to save the life of the mother. On the other hand, a second directive says that “operations, treatments and medications that have as their direct purpose the cure of a proportionately serious pathological condition of a pregnant woman are permitted . . . even if they will result in the death of the unborn child.” A letter sent Monday from Catholic Healthcare West, signed by Sister Judith Carle, board chairwoman, and President and CEO Lloyd Dean, asks Olmsted to provide further clarification about the directives. Agreeing that in a healthy mother, pregnancy is “not a pathology,” it says this case was different. 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.” James J. Walter, professor of bioethics at Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles, a Catholic university, said that is a tough argument to make. He said a pregnancy may be terminated only in limited, indirect circumstances, such as uterine cancer, in which the cancer treatment takes the life of the fetus. Catholic teaching, he said, is that a pregnancy cannot be terminated as a means to an end of saving the life of a mother who is suffering from a different condition. Asked if the church position prefers the mother and child to die, rather than sparing the life of one of them, Walters said the hope is that both would survive. Not all faith groups see things the same way. The Jewish tradition, the Mormon Church and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America are among the groups that frown on abortion on demand but permit it when the life of the mother is at stake or if the mother is impregnated by rape or incest. McBride declined to be interviewed. She was the highest-ranking member of the Sisters of Mercy at the hospital, which the order founded in 1895. Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/12news/news/articles/2010/05/15/20100515phoenix-catholi… http://www.stjosephs-phx.org/Who_We_Are/188732 added by: EthicalVegan