|
Late last year, Sister Margaret McBride was on-duty at St. Joseph’s
Hospital and Medical Center in Phoenix, AZ. At the time, Sr.
McBride was the hospital’s Vice President of Mission Integration and
a member of its ethics committee. According to one physician at the
hospital, Sr. McBride is a “saintly nun…a kind, soft-spoken, humble,
caring, spiritual woman whose spot in Heaven was reserved years
ago.”
One fateful evening, however, the ingredients of a very troubling
moral dilemma began to unfold. Sr. McBride soon found herself
embroiled and in a complex moral decision-making process, one
dealing with the issues of life and death and, subsequently, at the
center of a maelstrom concerning the hospital’s
Catholic identity.
The facts of the case are that the mother of an unborn, 15-week-old
child had a rare and potentially fatal condition, pulmonary
hypertension, which limits the ability of the mother’s heart and
lungs to function. Pregnancy can exacerbate the condition,
perhaps even causing death. Once the woman was admitted to St.
Joseph’s, the immediate question confronting medical personnel was
whether they should terminate the pregnancy with the goal of saving
the mother’s life or to allow the mother to die in the hope
that they could save the unborn infant’s life. According to
one report, medical personnel described an abortion as “urgent.”
Before making a decision and acting upon it, the medical personnel
referred the question to Sr. McBride and the hospital’s ethics
committee. There was no doubt that the pregnancy was exacerbating
the woman’s pulmonary hypertension. And, in all likelihood, her
condition would prove fatal.
One of the hospital’s medical directives defines abortion as the
directly intended termination of pregnancy and does not allow for
abortion under any circumstances, even to save the mother’s life. In
practice, a pregnancy may be terminated in a Catholic hospital only
as a secondary effect of other treatments, such as radiation of a
cancerous uterus. This directive reiterates Scripture and Church
teaching.
Yet, a second hospital directive states 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.” This directive appears to contradict the
first, worded as it is in such a way that can be construed to permit an
abortion if the purpose is to cure a pregnant woman’s
“proportionately serious pathological condition.” According to
this directive, even pregnancy itself could be defined, for example,
as a “proportionately serious pathological condition” by a pregnant
woman desirous of an abortion.
In this particular moral dilemma, matters of life and death hung in
the balance. For the members of the ethics committee, there
was no doubt that the pregnant woman was in a serious pathological
condition. But, was her medical condition—which likely would
lead to her death and maybe also the death of her unborn
infant—“proportionately serious” enough to warrant an abortion?
The members of the ethics committee believed the mother’s condition
was proportionately serious enough and, using the second directive
as justification, they approved the abortion. The published reports
did not specify whether Sr. McBride directed that the decision be
implemented by the hospital’s medical personnel or whether she
merely allowed them to carry out the decision. What is clear is
that Sr. McBride neither vetoed the committee’s decision nor did she
stop its implementation.
Sr. McBride was subsequently removed from her position at the
hospital and reassigned to another role. Responding to this, many
hospital personnel were angry about how Sr. McBride’s
religious superiors
treated her by removing her from her job. The physician quoted
above stated, “True Christians, like Sister Margaret, understand
that real life is full of difficult moral decisions and pray that
they make the right decision in the context of Christ’s teachings.”
Many of us find ourselves in Sr. McBride’s position, although
typically we do not confront moral dilemmas dealing with life and
death issues but instead with moral dilemmas forcing us to make a
choice between good and evil. Theoretically, a choice between these
two opposites should present no problem, if only because in the
choice between good and evil, making the good choice is the only
option. What is more difficult, however, is when we have to make
choices between two goods, as Sr. McBride did, and as in today’s
gospel, the Samaritans and the man who wanted to be one of Jesus’
disciples did. For Sr. McBride, the choice involved preserving the
life of the mother or her unborn infant. For the Samaritans,
the choice involved learning from Jesus or being patriotic
and devoted to their national cause. For the young man, the choice
involved following Jesus or honoring his family.
The typical moral
dilemmas we confront raise similar choices:
·
Should I spend tonight
at home with my spouse and children or go out and have some fun with
my friends?
·
Should I complete the
chores my spouse has asked me to perform or do what I need to get
done?
·
Should I speak the truth
or remain silent so as not to hurt someone’s
feelings?
·
Should I say my prayers
or go to sleep?
·
Should I obey my parents
and do my homework or go play outside?
·
On tonight’s
date, should I be
chaste or engage in sex?
·
Should I read the Bible
or People magazine?
·
Should I be attentive to
my spouse and children or complete the paperwork I brought home from
work?
·
Should I go to Mass or
get some extra sleep?
·
Should I be my child’s
parent or friend?
In all of these choices between two goods, the challenge—and the
difficulty as well—is to choose the greater good, which oftentimes
requires bearing the very heavy weight of great personal sacrifice.
It could mean upholding unpopular principles rooted in Scripture and
Church teaching. It could mean
not
listening to what public opinion asserts that patriotism and
nationalism demand of citizens. Or, it could mean turning
one’s
back on family and kinship demands.
However, the failure to do so is a failure of discipleship—a sin—as
women and men who espouse themselves to be Jesus’ disciples feely
decide not to choose the greater good in the moral decision-making
process due to other worthy concerns or motives, and thus, by
default, choose the lesser good. For us, as for Sr. McBride as well
as the Samaritans and the young man in today’s
gospel,
the challenge is to make the best choice in moral dilemmas.
How? By saying “No” to a generic good and “Yes” to the greater good.
Concerning the moral dilemma confronting Sr. McBride, with the
almost certain death of the mother and her unborn infant, who could
disagree that preserving the mother’s life is a good? None of us,
to be sure. But, is that the greater good? In the worst
case scenario, even if nature dictates that both the mother and her
unborn infant die, who of us is to say that God could bring nothing
good out of what truly is a tragedy?
Concerning the moral dilemma in which the Samaritans found
themselves, who could disagree that patriotism and devotion to
national cause are good things in themselves? But, again, is that
the greater good? In the worst case scenario, nationalism
and ethnic sentiments can blind individuals and even an entire
nation—think of Nazi Germany, for example—to spiritual and eternal
realities. Yes, while the trains in Nazi Germany did run on time, why
didn’t the station masters and conductors inquire into where those
trains were taking all of those displaced and upset people?
Concerning the moral dilemma in which the young man found himself,
who could disagree that informing his parents about what he planned
to do is a good? As youngsters, most of our parents taught us to
inform them about our whereabouts and who we would be with. Even
more so with our life’s plans! Yet, when God calls us to act—to do
God’s will—is that not a greater good than family and kinship
concerns?
The simple fact is that when many of us must confront moral
dilemmas, we allow what is good to outweigh and shove to the
side of the decision-making process what is necessary. Yes,
in defense of ourselves, it is true that we chose what is good.
But, at the same time, we failed do what God required...what is
necessary.
In this regard, Jesus said to his disciples: “No one who puts a hand
to the plow and looks back is fit for the kingdom of God” (Luke
9:62). What does Jesus mean? When we look back to the
past, we in order see what has been proven itself to be good or to
understand better how other people define the good is good, we turn
our backs on the future. Yes, there is such a thing as the collective wisdom of the
centuries and we should be aware of that. But, as good as that
wisdom is, it is not what is
necessary: to look forward in order to walk along the pathway with
God leading us.
Like Sr. McBride, when events and circumstances conspire in such
ways that we are forced to confront moral dilemmas, Scripture and
Church teaching provide the first, bedrock principles that those who
look forward to the kingdom of God use to guide the decision-making
process. As Catholics, the failure to do so carries immense
consequences, as our spiritual and moral identity disintegrates and
we become Catholic in name only.
Sadly, there is so much evidence of this today. It happens not
just in Catholic healthcare where professional medical opinions and
emotions are allowed to outweigh and shove to the side what
Scripture and the Church teach. It also is happening in
Catholic education—and in Catholic colleges and universities, in
particular—where secular and atheistic philosophies are preached in
classrooms, oftentimes unfettered by any critique, even Scripture
and Church teaching. And it also happens in our marriages, in
our families, and at our workplaces.
That Catholic hospitals, Catholic education, and all Catholics must
uphold Scripture and Church teaching should be, in principle, a
“no-brainer.” And when voices assert contrary principles, this
the precise moment when the Sr. McBrides of Catholic healthcare, the
leaders of Catholic education, and every Catholic need to come
forward to uphold and defend Scripture and Church teaching.
Putting their hands to the plow, all too many Catholics today would rather look
backwards at circumstances in their lives and the lives of other
people from a purely human perspective rather than from God’s
perspective. Furthermore, all
too many Catholics today allow sophistical arguments and
highly-charged emotions to guide the moral decision-making process
instead of seeking guidance from Scripture and Church teaching to
examine critically the circumstances of life as God views them so as
to move forward into the future.
In instances like these, when we put our hands to the plow and look
backwards to ascertain what everyone else is thinking, we are the
Sr. McBrides, the Samaritans, the young man, and all of those
Catholic leaders who allow what is good to keep us from doing
what is necessary. When we fail to “do this in memory
of me” meaning do what is necessary—don’t neglect the
Eucharistic overtones—not only do we fail to determine God’s purpose
for our lives and to live them accordingly by doing what is
necessary rather than simply what is good, but we also
allow the Catholic identity of many of Church institutions—hospitals
and, yes, even its educational institutions, like our nation’s
Catholic colleges and universities—to erode and weaken until, like
us, all of these institutions end up being Catholic in name only.
How does this happen? Because Catholics choose what is good, not
what is necessary.
As Jesus’
disciples, each of us is called to uphold Scripture and Church
teaching in dilemmas having to do with spiritual and moral issues of
life and death.
Let us ask the Lord this day to strengthen us so that, as we
confront the moral dilemmas arising in our lives, we will look
forward to the coming of God’s
kingdom and do not only what is good but also what is
necessary.
|
HOMILY
