A Closer Look at CHAUSA's "Alternative Magisterium"

"Choose Life"?
"Hospital Administrators Now 'Shop' for Theologians Who Will Support Their Decisions"

As per a 2010 Wall Street Journal article,

"Rev. Thomas Olmsted, bishop of the Phoenix Diocese, was the first to explicitly point to the role played by Catholic theologians in providing theological cover for 'a litany of practices in direct conflict with Catholic teachings'....Many theologians...write that theologians comprise 'an alternative magisterium'....the alternative magisterium often trumps the true Magisterium of the church....hospital administrators now 'shop' for theologians who will support their decisions" (Catholic Hospitals vs. the Bishops: Administrators shop for theologians to support practices that conflict with church teachings, 12/31/10).

In 2010, average pay for theologians was $62,050 (cf, Bureau of Labor Statistics).  As a senior director of ethics for the Catholic Health Association of the USA, Ronald Hamel, Ph.D. received total compensation of $219,088 (See IRS Form 990).  The Franciscans received $194,947 on behalf of Rev. Thomas Nairn, OFM, Ph.D., also a CHAUSA senior director of ethics (See IRS Form 990).  As per Hamel:

"Upholding the church's teaching can at times be very difficult because real people are affected, sometimes quite negatively....In the last 30 years or so....There's been almost an obsession with orthodoxy, almost an eagerness to exclude those who don't adhere perfectly to the orthodoxy litmus test, a harsh judgmental attitude and a general nastiness. I see a preoccupation among some with trappings that seem to return the church to Renaissance times" (Ethics director helps make tough calls for Catholic Health Association, National Catholic Reporter, 7/23/13). 

Is $200K Hamel's price to deal with the supposed "harsh judgmental attitude and...general nastiness" of those who do not approve of CHAUSA's "alternative magisterium"?

Does Hamel Believe that the Church is Guardian of the Truth, Which Will Set us Free?

In Tip of the Iceberg for Church-Backed Hospitals?‎ (National Catholic Register, 2/26/10), it was posited that an article by Hamel gave cover to the illegitimate practice of direct sterilizations in Catholic hospitals:

"According to Ron Hamel’s article 'In the Name of God and Truth: The Catholic Ban on Sterilization' in the January 1994 issue of the bioethics journal Second Opinion, 'Most Catholic hospitals that permit tubal ligations do so without the knowledge of local Church authorities. Their practice is in some ways covert.'

"Hamel took the Church to task for cautioning against the 'scandal that might result from Catholic hospitals’ performing tubal ligations' and stated, 'the scandal really lies in the Catholic church’s [sic] refusal to permit direct sterilizations in the face of human tragedy and suffering'....

"In an e-mail response to the Register, Hamel said, 'I do think there is validity to many of the points I make in the [Second Opinion] article, although I would probably word things differently today.'"

Tip of the Iceberg for Church-Backed Hospitals?‎ went on to cite several other of Hamel's works as potentially promoting misunderstanding of Catholic teaching.

"Talking Points"

Also with potential to sow seeds of misunderstanding is CHAUSA's "Talking Points on Dignitas Personae."  On 9/8/08, the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith released its beautiful Instruction Dignitas Personae on Certain Bioethical Questions:

"Dignitas Personae proclaims
1. ) human dignity from the first moment of fertilization until natural death and
2. ) the right of everyone to originate in the loving embrace of a mom and dad, who are wife and husband.

"Dignitas Personae screams that each human being is owed uncompromising respect, no matter how she came to be, and that we must stand with the weak and powerless against exploitation....

"Recent years have seen a vast increase in reports of infertility and interest in reproductive technology. When employed by a husband and wife, Dignitas Personae says assistance to AID the 'marital act' toward procreation can be moral. However, even when used by a husband and wife, Dignitas Personae says that methods REPLACING the marital act - such as IVF - are immoral. Exacerbating IVF’s immorality is the discarding or freezing of 'extra', unwanted embryos. Dignitas Personae
forbids using these new humans as research material or implanting one in the womb of a woman other than her mom. Also recognized as immoral are
• human cloning,
• the mixing of human with animal genetic material (Yup, some 'scientists' are doing that!),
• germ line cell therapy,
• 'genetic engineering for purposes other than medical treatment' (# 27), and
• research using illicitly obtained cell lines. 

"Yet, it would be an absolute mistake to dismiss Dignitas Personae as a laundry list of prohibitions.

"Dignitas Personae beautifully declares, 'Behind every "no" in the difficult task of discerning between good and evil, there shines a great "yes" to the recognition of the dignity and inalienable value of every single and unique human being called into existence [# 37].'

• NaProTechnology (www.fertilitycarefriends.org/) strikes me as a 'great yes' – a fabulous alternative to the immorality of IVF, as well as IVF’s incredible expense and low 'success' rate.
• Another 'great yes' is that stem cells can be obtained in manners, which are not morally objectionable! Obtaining stem cells from embryos results in the death of the embryo....

"Section 23 of Dignitas Personae appears to require change at Catholic hospitals, regarding treatment of women identified as victims of sexual assault....NO guidelines are offered for supposed 'moral' use of a potential interceptive or contragestative" (Welcome Guideline for Couples: A 'Yes' Behind Every 'No', Bucks County Courier Times, 1/29/09).

It was apparently on the watch of Hamel and Father Nairn that the CHAUSA released "Talking Points on Dignitas Personae" (While no longer on CHAUSA's web site, a condensed version can  be found on pages 6 and 7 of the January 2009 newsletter of the Catholic Health Association of Minnesota.  The images below were previously accessed through Google's "cache" feature.).  I would like to point to a few areas, where it holds great potential for sowing misunderstandings.

• "Comments in S 23 may raise some questions....implementation of Directive 36 of the Ethical and Religious Directives remains unchanged.  Plan B, the medication of choice for emergency contraception does not appear to have a post-fertilization effect, given the results of repeated scientific studies": CHAUSA's hasty dismissal of Section 23 of Dignitas Personae (and inherently of the Vatican's 2000 Statement on the So-Called "Morning After Pill" ) is even less defensible now. Fr. Juan Vélez is an Opus Dei priest with a doctorate in dogmatic theology and an M.D.  Along with Rebecca Peck, M.D., Fr. Juan writes:
"All physicians who value life, and especially Catholic healthcare institutions, have a duty to re-examine the available scientific information on Plan B. We think the data shows a small anovulatory effect and suggests a significant post-fertilization or abortifacient effect. Given this information, the Peoria Protocol, and other rape-based protocols should be abandoned, as use of Plan B during the critical fertile period, would not be expected to prevent ovulations in a majority of cases, and in fact, would lead to a significant possibility of post-fertilization effect.
"Moreover, as newer emergency contraceptives with better efficacies emerge, the precedent has been set for allowing agents with abortifacient mechanisms of action" ("Plan B’s Main Mechanism of Action: The Case for a Post-Fertilization Effect," Human Life International).
In the words of Human Life International, I pray "that Catholic bishops and those who advise them in these issues will see the urgency of revisiting the approval of Plan B for treatment of women who have been raped. These women deserve the absolute best life-affirming care possible, and this care should not include drugs that only compound the violence already suffered by causing abortions."

• "The document is unlikely to have much of an impact on Catholic hospitals because these hospitals do not employ the procedures addressed in the document": Catholic hospitals allow "privileges" to those who engage in procedures condemned in Dignitas Personae, as long as those individuals promise that such practices will be on their own time and dime.  Such casuistry is NOT in keeping with Dignitas Personae.

• "The document does not pretend to be science":  Other than to discredit Digntias Personae, that sentence holds no purpose.  As per William Strunk, Jr, Cornell's late professor of English stylistics, "A sentence should contain no unnecessary words, a paragraph no unnecessary sentences, for the same reason that a drawing should have no unnecessary lines and a machine no unnecessary parts."  One simply cannot read Dignitas Personae and not come away with the realization that scientific experts had been intensely consulted. 

For all the reasons recently cited by Pat Archbold in the National Catholic Register, the CHAUSA does not deserve the name "Catholic."  Please consider signing the petition: "If we are to save truly Catholic healthcare in this country, we must amputate the rotting limbs immediately or risk losing the patient" (http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/if-we-are-to-save-truly-catholic-healthcare-in/).