Is St. Mary's following Directives 44, 52, & 53 of the USCCB's Ethical & Religious Directives?

I appreciate that you have left phone messages for me. However, they do not address my concern - Why on earth is St. Mary's involved with "Women's Health Associates of Bucks County" and NOT promoting NaProTechnology!

As per the USCCB's Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services, Fourth Edition,

• "44. A Catholic health care institution should provide prenatal, obstetric, and postnatal services for mothers and their children in a manner consonant with its mission."

Is the spirit of this directive truly being observed, or is there an attempt to "finesse" it by saying that hospital-affiliated staff are not acting in a hospital-affilated capacity?


St. Mary's should absolutely NOT be associated with promoters - or even condoners - of contraceptives:

• "52. Catholic health institutions may not promote or condone contraceptive practices but should provide, for married couples and the medical staff who counsel them, instruction both about the Church's teaching on responsible parenthood and in methods of natural family planning."

It is deeply disturbing that St. Mary's fails to provide NaProTechnology specialists & associates itself with the "Women's Health Associates of Bucks County."


Are any of your practitioners or affiliates involved with sterilization?

• "53. Direct sterilization of either men or women, whether permanent or temporary, is not permitted in a Catholic health care institution. Procedures that induce sterility are permitted when their direct effect is the cure or alleviation of a present and serious pathology and a simpler treatment is not available.34" <www.usccb.org/bishops/directives.shtml>.

Can you provide assurances that neither St. Mary's practitioners nor its affiliates are involved in sterilizations?

Inappropriate event at Catholic hospital (6/18/09 email to the president & CEO of St. Mary Medical Center)

As advertised in yesterday's Bucks County Courier Times, St. Mary today hosted "Healthy Ladies, Healthy Lives: Women's Health Associates of Bucks County Open House" as part of its "Healthy Living" community education program.

When I contacted the phone number to register, I inquired whether information about contraceptives would be available. I was advised that such information would NOT be available today, because St. Mary's is a Catholic hospital. When I inquired whether such information would be available at other times, the reply was "Absolutely." When I inquired whether information about NaProTechnology would be available, there seemed to be no understanding of what I was talking about (See my below, earlier communication with St. Mary's on this matter.).

Yesterday, I tried to phone you directly, to express my concerns. I was directed to your assistant, whose voice mail in turn directed me to another number. Though I was eventually able to leave a voice message, my call was not returned. My concern is simple - Why on earth is St. Mary's involved with "Women's Health Associates of Bucks County" and NOT promoting NaProTechnology!

Catholic colleges/universities & their public witness

• Pennsylvania's "Catholic" colleges/universities & the 3/25/09 "Dear Abby"
• Jesuit Universities Continue to Shame Their Alumni
• Re: Cabrini College and Cokie Roberts' Ivy Young Willis Award

"This Book Needs 'the Church'"

"If you are looking for a condemnation of the eugenics which promote the abortion of pre-born children with Down Syndrome, you can find it here. Oh, wait a second! If you are looking for a defense of the bizarre, dopey notion of 'good eugenics,' you can also find it here! This collection finds room for truth and error!

"The Magisterium of the Catholic Church has been at the absolute forefront, in regard to the treatment of people with disabilities and bioethical concerns. Yet in spite of the title - 'Theology, Disability, and the New Genetics: Why Science Needs the Church' - there does not appear to be a single Catholic among the 16 contributors to this text. However, contributor Amy Laura Hall of Duke University should be commended for giving credit where it is due.

"In regard to early 20th century eugenics promotion in the United Sates, Professor Hall maintains that 'many mainline Protestant clergy, serving parishes and academe, in cities and in the country, did nohing less than capitulate....the Roman Catholic Church - with marked consistency from the grassroots to the Vatican resisted laws against sterilization as well as the mindset behind the movement....John Ryan is the figure who most clearly complicates Christine Rosen's suggestion that progressivism and eugenics were inextricably linked.' As explained in Catholics and Contraception: An American History, Msgr. John A. Ryan, Ph.D, was the veritable face of Catholic Social issues in the early 20th century. He readily took on the anti-human philosophy of eugenics pioneer (and Planned Parenthood founder) Margaret Sanger.

"One searches 'Theology, Disability, and the New Genetics: Why Science Needs the Church' in vane for references to Pope John Paul II. Concerns about people with disabilities and bioethics permeated his writings and talks. Citing the family as society's principal unit, the late Holy Father called for special concern for the families of people with disabilities in Familiaris Consortio. Recognizing that people with disabilites are especially vulnerable to unemployment and underemployment, he called upon society to ensure their dignity in the world of work (Laborem Exercens). In my own opinion, it was in Evangelium Vitae that he most magnificently wove all the undeniable connections!

"While the 2007 'Theology, Disability, and the New Genetics: Why Science Needs the Church' cannot be faulted for failure to include the Vatican's awesome 2008 Dignitas Personae (which addresses theology, disability-related issues, and bioethical concerns in an exquisite and exceedingly superior manner), overlooking the Vatican's Catechism, Charter for Health Care Workers, Declaration on Procured Abortion, Declaration on Euthanasia, & Donum Vitae (to cite just four examples) is evidence of a serious scholarly shortcoming to this collection - to say the least!"

"remote cooperation"

(For background, go to www.catholic.com/audio/2009/mp3/ca090611a.mp3 and listen to 20:00 to 25:30.)

We spoke on the radio earlier this evening, when I called with a question about pharmacy ads in parish bulletins & contacting the apostolic nuncio. While I cannot envision any pastor allowing Planned Parenthood ads to appear in his bulletin, plenty are allowing ads from pharmacies which sell contraceptives & abortifacients - even Plan B! This can result in an unintentional mixed message about our pro-life commitments, as well as the Church's teaching about the sanctity of conjugal relations in marriage.

In addressing my concerns to pastors, I have encountered some tragic ignorance. Even to one good, holy, absolutely-prolife priest, I needed to explain what the "morning after pill" is! I believe that there are also some serious deficiencies in regard to the understanding of moral theology.

Without a comprehensive understanding of the situation, you emphatically declared that what I described would indeed be "remote cooperation." You did not give me the opportunity to clarify or follow-up. I believe that you should have provided a much more thorough explanation of "cooperation" to your audience. As per the Pontifical Academy for Life,

• "we need to recall briefly the principles assumed in classical moral doctrine with regard to the problem of cooperation in evil, a problem which arises every time that a moral agent perceives the existence of a link between his own acts and a morally evil action carried out by others....
  
  "The first fundamental distinction to be made is that between formal and material cooperation. Formal cooperation is carried out when the moral agent cooperates with the immoral action of another person, sharing in the latter's evil intention. On the other hand, when a moral agent cooperates with the immoral action of another person, without sharing in the intention, it is a case of material cooperation.
  
  "Material cooperation can be further divided into categories of immediate -- direct -- and mediate -- indirect -- depending on whether the cooperation is in the execution of the sinful action per se, or whether the agent acts by fulfilling the conditions -- either by providing instruments or products -- which make it possible to commit the immoral act.
  
  "Furthermore, forms of proximate cooperation and remote cooperation can be distinguished, in relation to the 'distance' -- be it in terms of temporal space or material connection -- between the act of cooperation and the sinful act committed by someone else. Immediate material cooperation is always proximate, while mediate material cooperation can be either proximate or remote.
  
  "Formal cooperation is always morally illicit because it represents a form of direct and intentional participation in the sinful action of another person. Material cooperation can sometimes be illicit -- depending on the conditions of the 'double effect' or 'indirect voluntary' action -- but when immediate material cooperation concerns grave attacks on human life, it is always to be considered illicit, given the precious nature of the value in question.
  
  "A further distinction made in classical morality is that between active -- or positive -- cooperation in evil and passive -- or negative -- cooperation in evil, the former referring to the performance of an act of cooperation in a sinful action that is carried out by another person, while the latter refers to the omission of an act of denunciation or impediment of a sinful action carried out by another person, insomuch as there was a moral duty to do that which was omitted.
  
  "Passive cooperation can also be formal or material, immediate or mediate, proximate or remote. Obviously, every type of formal passive cooperation is to be considered illicit, but even passive material cooperation should generally be avoided, although it is admitted, by many authors, that there is not a rigorous obligation to avoid it in a case in which it would be greatly difficult to do so" <www.zenit.org/article-13676?l=english>.

As per the Pontifical Academy for Life, "even passive material cooperation should generally be avoided, although it is admitted, by many authors, that there is not a rigorous obligation to avoid it in a case in which it would be greatly difficult to do so."

• I cannot envision how it would be "greatly difficult" for a pastor to remove advertisements for a provider of abortifacients & contraceptives.
  
• There seems to be a genuine risk of scandal from accepting money for such advertisements and seeming to condone such grievously sinful matters.
• If a pastor knowingly allows advertisements for a provider of abortifacients and contraceptives, the situation certainly seems to merit intervention by the diocese.

I will certainly follow your counsel & contact the bishop directly, before contacting the apostolic nuncio.

"Orthodoxy - The Great Adventure!"

"The brilliance of Chesterton shines through, despite Steven Shroeder's lame introduction, which includes a backhanded compliment from a deeply confused 'Catholic': 'As Gary Wills has said, even when Chesterton is wrong the light of his reasoning illuminates the surrounding scenery' (pp. x - xiv).

"'These essays are concerned only to discuss the actual fact that the central Christian theology (sufficiently summarized in the Apostles' Credd) is the best root of energy and sound ethics' (p. 5).

"'Orthodoxy' is a hundred year old work. It requires that the reader look beyond some dated and inadequate language / notions, with regard to mental illness. The reader also needs to seek a more authentic understanding of 'mysticism', than what seems currently popular: 'The man who begins to think without the proper first principles goes mad....if this be what drives men mad, what is it that keeps them sane?....Mysticism keeps men sane....ordinary man has always been a mystic....The whole secret of mysticism is this: that man can understand everything by the help of what he does not understand....we may very well take the cross as the symbol at once of mystery and of health....the cross, though it has at its heart a mystery and a contradiction, can extend its four arms forever without altering its shape' (pp. 20, 21).

"Chesterton maintains that 'the chief modern fashions of thought...have this effect of stopping thought itself' (p. 26). He readily acknowledges that he is only providing a 'bald summary of the thought destroying forces' (p.28). Again keeping in mind that this hundred year old work embodies some dated and inadequate language / notions with regard to mental illness, Cheterton concludes that 'madness may be defined as using mental activity so as to reach mental helplessness; and they have nearly reached it' (p. 35).

"'These are my ultimate attitudes toward life; the soil for the seeds of doctrine....I felt in my bones; first, that the world does not explain itself....Second, I came to feel as if magic must have a meaning, and meaning must have someone to mean it. There was something personal in the world, as in a work of art....Third, I thought this purpose beautiful in its old design....Fourth, that the proper form of thanks to it is some form of humility and restraint....And last, and strangest, there had come into my mind a vague and vast impression that in some way all good was remnant to be stored and held sacred out of some primordial ruin....All this I felt and the age gave me no encouragement to feel it. And all this time I had not even thought of Christian theology' (pp. 55, 56).

"Even when he seems to slightly digress, Chesterton's writing is full of profound meaning: 'when you do love a thing, its gladness is a reason for loving it, and its sadness a reason for loving it more....Men did not love Rome because she was great. She was great because they had loved her....the only right optimisim is a sort of universal patriotism....We do not want joy and anger to neutralize each other and produce a surly contentment; we want a fiercer delight and a fiercer discontent....According to Christianity, in making it [the world], He [God] set it free. God had written, not so much a poem, but rather a play; a play he had planned as perfect, but which had necessarily been left to human actors and stage-managers, who had since made a great mess of it' (pp. 58 - 69).

"Thought matters - 'if some small mistake were made in doctrine,huge blunders might be made in human happiness....to have avoided them all has been one whirling adventure; and in my vision the heavenly chariot flies thundering through the ages, the dull heresies sprawling and prostrate, the wild truth reeling but erect' (pp. 92, 93).

"'All my Utopian friends look at each other rather doubtfully, for their ultimate hope is the dissolution of all special ties. But again, I seem to hear, like a kind of echo, an answer from beyond the world. "You have real obligations, and therefore real adventures when you get to my Utopia. But the hardest obligaion and the steepest adventure is to get there"' (pp. 114, 115).

"'The religions of the world do not greatly differ in rites and forms; they do greatly differ in what they teach....Insisting that God is inside man, man is always inside himself. By insisting that God transcends man, man has transcended himself' (pp. 121 - 126).

"Chesterton believes in Christianity because of 'an enormous evidence of small but unanimous facts....the ordinary agnostic has gotten his facts all wrong. He is an unbeliever for a multitude of reasons; but they are untrue reasons....my reason for accepting the religion and not merely the scattered and secular truths....[is that it] has revealed itself as a truth-telling thing' (pp. 135 - 149)."