Joe is off on a much deserved break, so I’m helping out along with our web/video crew to continue documenting things Fr. Bryan Hehir has said that we here at the blog see as objectively problematic. No one in an official capacity from the archdiocese has responded to us about the last post and video of Fr. Hehir saying the doctrinal questions around women priests need to be worked through by the Church—a contradiction of the infallible teachings of the Catholic Church. So today we move to the topic of Catholic conscience protections and abortion.
We considered reporting on this back in April after Fr. Hehir spoke at Boston College on “A Matter of Conscience,” though Diogenes, the long-term anonymous blogger at CatholicCulture, and Throwthe BumsOutin2010 covered it very nicely at the time. But since abortion is a key issue of our time—especially in light of the healthcare debate and pending sale of Caritas Christi—we are revisiting it. And since this blog has come under criticism by the Archdiocese of Boston for saying things they feel are untrue, degrading, and defamatory about Fr. Hehir which we feel are in fact accurate, we hope that the video footage documenting exactly what was said will make it easy to find common ground with our critics with the objective truth.
If you feel you know everything you need to know about conscience clauses, skip down to the video. For anyone who wants a refresher on the Catholic teaching regarding conscience clauses, the Catechism of the Catholic Church says,
1782 Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions. “He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters.
Here’s the USCCB’s resource page on conscience protection. Here’s an excerpt from a 2009 letter from the USCCB that lays out the case very nicely:
The first recorded claim of conscience rights for medical personnel is the 4th Century B.C. Hippocratic Oath: “I will follow that system of regimen which, according to my ability and judgment, I consider for the benefit of my patients. … I will give no deadly medicine to any one if asked, nor suggest any such counsel; and in like manner I will not give to a woman a pessary to produce abortion.”
The right of conscience is recognized in the U.S. Constitution, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the World Medical Association’s Code of Medical Ethics, and in 47 states, laws protect the conscience rights of healthcare providers.
Here are statements by various U.S. bishops on the same issue.
So Fr. Hehir participated in a panel discussion at BC on April 10, 2010 called “A Matter of Conscience: Religious Exemptions and the Healthcare Debate.” You can watch the whole event here. (Fr. Hehir’s comments are between about 6:45 and 25:00)
Below is about 5 minutes of video footage, including opening comments excerpted from the moderator (Eric) where he defines a conscience excemption, excerpts from what Fr. Hehir said, and brief commentary from a representative of the “Catholic militants of Boston.” (Video credit to BHE team member LastCatholicinBoston). The most controversial part of Fr. Hehir’s comments starts at around 2:40 and runs to around 4:30.
Before we review Fr. Hehir’s comments, we should note that next to him on the panel was Mass General Hospital Director of Obstetrics, Dr. Michael Greene, who is on the record as working around the legal ban on partial-birth abortions by “injecting fetuses with lethal drugs before procedures” to avoid any chance of partially delivering a live fetus. The Boston Globe quoted Dr. Greene in “Shots Assist in Aborting Fetuses: Lethal Injections Offer Legal Shield” saying “No physician even wants to be accused of stumbling into accidentally doing one of these procedures…in the experienced hands of hospital staff, the injections add no risk and are “trivially simple.” To avoid partially delivering a live fetus, then intentionally causing its death and violating the law, now for abortions done after 18-20 weeks gestation, a lethal injection of digoxin or potassium chloride (a potentially poisonous salt also used in state executions) is done beforehand and is carefully documented so as to preclude an accusation and prosecution. Patients ”all are appreciative of what we do for them and understand the circumstances under which we work,” Greene said in the Globe. But I digress–this was never mentioned during the panel and Fr. Hehir did not mention “abortion” by name, so allow me to get back on topic.
As Joe said in the last post, what Fr. Hehir did not say is almost as important as what he did say. To be fair, Fr. Hehir started out by paraphrasing what the moderator, Eric, said in defining what a Catholic conscience exemption is—namely a “standard of civil law which protects the right of a professional or institution from performing a legal act because of either personal, moral , or religious conviction.” He said it was fair to argue there are deep cultural moral fragmentations in American society.
At about 2:40, Fr. Hehir says,
“There are tensions when you try to provide public service but don’t always live under laws you necessarily agree with. In terms of choosing our future, we need to ask the question what could be lost if we can’t find a fair adjudication of this issue? The issue by definition is shot through with tension. If you think of the conscience clause protecting the professional, then you have to think about access to service on the part of clients of various kinds, patients, or clients of social service agencies.
Just to be clear, this “access to service” described by Fr. Hehir means abortion, but for some reason, he never states that. The Catechism, Pope, and teaching authority of the Catholic Church are clear that the Catholic Church opposes killing the unborn. So, it’s troubling to this writer and others faithful Catholic who watched the video to hear from a senior Archdiocesan official that Catholics should “have to think” about how the woman will get access to abortion services.
Fr. Hehir continued saying,
My sense is what could be lost is on one hand is damage to profession involved, what also could be lost is this characteristic of social system where it is pervaded by non-profits, using a pluralism of actors in the system. Unless we choose well on this, we could harm the profession, the social system. And clearly, if we don’t choose well, we could harm the individual who needs precisely the service.
Not to be redundant, but once again, “service “means abortions. Was Fr. Hehir concerned about harming the woman who needs the abortion service to have her unborn baby killed? Or was he concerned about harming the baby who needs the service to be aborted? He emphasizes the possible harm to the profession, the pluralism of actors in the social system and the individual who needs the abortion service, but says nothing about the risk to the individual conscience of the medical professional.
Near the conclusion we get Fr. Hehir’s own redefinition of the conscience clause, which is objectively nothing like what Eric the moderator or Fr. Hehir said earlier. A conclusion of a talk is usually what the speaker wants to drive home, to have the audience remember most. The takeaway. The “whole Enchliada” as it were, summed up in the bottom line:
My basic position is, conscience clauses provide an essential political legal component to adjudicate deeply held convictions and positions in this pluralistic society. I think the resolution requires defining the issues broadly. You’ve got to pay attention to all the actors, their beliefs, their interests, and the duties involved and recognize that conscience clauses will limit the rights of others to some degree.
After hearing Fr. Hehir’s comments, a listener does not come away with the conclusion that Catholics should focus our attention and efforts in public policy on lobbying to limit the availability of abortion, to limit government funding of abortion or to ensure Catholic healthcare professionals can be exempt from taking part in the moral evil of abortion. Instead, the average listener will likely come away hearing that we should pay attention to ALL the actors and our duties to provide these services, lest we compromise the social service system.
In Fr. Hehir’s final conclusion, he asked:
How do you deal with that tension. Conscience clauses should be claimed only for essential issues – not capaciously. If conscience clauses were eroded, the effect could be that you use the power of the law to drive a wedge between professionals deepest convictions and their ability to provide effective public service on the other.
After listening several times, our team found it difficult to understand what Fr. Hehir believes, what he wanted the audience to conclude, or what he wanted the Church, citizens and the government to do. Carol McKinley at ThrowtheBumsOutin2010 raised a similar question. “You have the State take away the rights of the individual person to make a judgment about a moral evil and assert their constitutional rights themselves–and replace it with public policies that make decisions for the individual about what moral evils are protected with conscience clauses and which ones are not. But then you can’t have it both ways, can you? Either every person whose conscience is formed has the right to make a judgment on their own and assert their rights to make decisions about their salvation, or they have a society that takes those judgments away. What form of governance takes away individual rights to make decisions about your salvation? It isn’t democracy.”
As fraternal correction, I would offer that Fr. Hehir should have mentioned the word “abortion” and said clearly that it was considered a gravely moral evil by the Church. Fr. Hehir said nothing about how an erosion in conscience clauses would result in many medical professionals abandoning their profession, thus limiting the quality of medical care for everyone. As the Cardinal’s Cabinet Secretary responsible for pro-life programs, he should have offered a strong pro-life voice. The USCCB has posted on their website, comments from bishops including Archbishop Hughes of New Orleans who said, “It is imperative that the rights of doctors, nurses and all medical professionals be protected and free from discrimination based upon their religious beliefs, morals and ethics.” Or, he could have cited Archbishop O’Brien of Baltimore who said healthcare professionals must exercise their consciences regularly in matters of life and death. “They are called to be guardians and servants of human life. This noble vocation invites moral, cultural, and legal pressures into its everyday practice. Freedom of conscience is essential to facing these pressures and responding to them “with an impassioned and unflinching affirmation of life,” as Pope John Paul II called for in The Gospel of Life.”
Diogenes at CatholicCulture sounded similar criticism of Fr. Hehir when he commented on a Boston College Magazine article about the event, saying: “…we put at risk the health-care profession, the patient requesting the services, and the role of non-profits in the social welfare system,… What’s missing from that list of endangered values? The individual conscience: which was, you may recall, the subject of the evening’s panel discussion. Father Hehir’s concern about health-care institutions and non-profit agencies was expressed clearly enough to make an impression on the Boston College Magazine reporter. His concern for individual Catholics who might be compelled by law to perform immoral actions wasn’t so memorable.”
We know we sound like a broken record on this but we have to keep coming back to the comment by Cardinal O’Malley on his blog back on April 30. Fr. Hehir “has brought a vast understanding of the important place our Church has in society and inspires us with his compassion, vision and fidelity to the work of the Church. His voice brings clarity to our message and mission in serving the Catholic community here in Boston.”
Does someone else objectively see and hear in this Boston College video (or in Fr. Hehir’s other public comments or actions) what Cardinal said he sees?
Thanks for cutting to the chase.
Many of us could be lost in the gobbledegook of Father Hehir’s abstract phrases and miss these very important points:
Just what “services” are participants talking about in this conscience clause discussion – and why would a Church spokesman be concerned that access to abortion “services” would be limited?
If Fr. Hehir really possesses the moral qualities of “compassion,vision and fidelity to the work of the Church”, as Cardinal O’Malley claims, then why didn’t Fr. Hehir speak up when he was sitting right next to Dr. Phillip Green and question Dr. Greene about his decision to use the lethal injections to kill babies in the womb at around 20 weeks gestation?
Even Dr. Phillip Darney,chief of obstetrics at San Francisco General Hospital, who, when asked about performing this action, said:”We do not believe that our patients should take a risk for which the only clear benefit is a legal one to the physicians.”(“Shots assist in aborting fetuses,lethal injections offer legal shield”,Globe,8/10/07). Certainly Fr. Hehir had knowledge of Dr. Green’s determination to kill these babies inn the womb with “digoxin or potassium chloride, a potentially poisonous salt also used in state executions.”(Ibid). In fact, why didn’t Fr, Hehir express revulsion at what Dr. Green,director of obstetrics at Mass. General Hospital, was requiring his staff to do at the time this action was revealed in the Boston Globe? To my knowledge,there were no comments from anyone from the Boston Archdiocese when this action was revealed. Why the silence? Did Fr. Hehir know the background of Dr. Phillip Green? Did the person(s) who invited Dr. Phillip Green to the forum at Boston College know the background of Dr. Phillip Green? Did anyone care about what is happening to babies in the womb in the name of “health” and “medical care”?
Alice,
Excellent points. Indeed Fr. Hehir certainly should have known who he was appearing with. There’s one thing your comment reminded us indirectly of that I forgot to mention. Fr. Hehir is also on the Board of the Boisi Center. So, he would be in a position to advise and impact their overall direction, and no doubt the Board members also have some ability to influence selection of topics and speakers. One might also ask why the Boisi Center, with Fr. Hehir on their Board, featured a partial-birth abortionist as a speaker.
Very well done video, though tragic in terms of what Fr. Hehir said. Paul Melanson at LaSalette Journey has expanded on this matter with some additional theological points:
Pope John Paul II, in his Encyclical Letter Evangelium Vitae (The Gospel of Life) teaches that, “Abortion and euthanasia are crimes which no human law can claim to legitimize. There is no obligation in conscience to obey such laws; instead there is a grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection. …”we must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29).’ (Evangelium Vitae, n.73).
And again, “The passing of unjust laws often raises difficult problems of conscience for morally upright people with regard to the issue of cooperation, since they have a right to demand not to be forced to take part in morally evil actions. Sometimes the choices which have to be made are difficult; they may require the sacrifice of prestigious professional positions or the relinquishing of reasonable hopes of career advancement. … In order to shed light on this difficult question, it is necessary to recall the general principles concerning cooperation in evil actions. Christians, like all people of good will, are called upon under grave obligation of conscience not to cooperate formally in practices which, even if permitted by civil legislation, are contrary to God’s law.’ (Evangelium Vitae, No. 74).
And in No. 89 of Evangelium Vitae, the Holy Father says that, “A unique responsibility belongs to health care personnel: doctors, pharmacists, nurses, chaplains, men and women religious, administrators and volunteers. Their profession calls for them to be guardians and servants of human life. … Absolute respect for every innocent human life also requires the exercise of conscientious objection in relation to procured abortion and euthanasia.(Evangelium Vitae, n.89)
Father Hehir is really suggesting that we need to consider not only the right of the health care professional not to cooperate in practices which are contrary to God’s law, but the “right” of patients to have access to abortion. This is merely a variation of the “personally I’m opposed but…” argument. Some Catholics insist that while abortion is morally wrong it would also be wrong to allow personal religious convictions to prohibit access to abortion. This argument is, of course, rejected by the Church. Most notably by Pope John Paul II in Evangelium Vitae:
“…we have what appear to be two diametrically opposed tendencies. On the one hand, individuals claim for themselves in the moral sphere the most complete freedom of choice and demand that the State should not adopt or impose any ethical position but limit itself to guaranteeing maximum space for the freedom of each individual, with the sole limitation of not infringing on the freedom and rights of any other citizen. On the other hand, it is held that, in the exercise of public and professional duties, respect for other people’s freedom of choice requires that each one should set aside his or her own convictions in order to satisfy every demand of the citizens which is recognized and guaranteed by law; in carrying out one’s duties, the only moral criterion should be what is laid down by the law itself. Individual responsibility is thus turned over to the civil law, with a renouncing of personal conscience, at least in the public sphere…At the basis of all these tendencies lies the ethical relativism which characterizes much of present-day culture. There are those who consider such relativism an essential condition of democracy, inasmuch as it alone is held to guarantee tolerance, mutual respect between people and acceptance of the decisions of the majority, whereas moral norms considered to be objective and binding are held to lead to authoritarianism and intolerance.” (Nos. 69-70).
The dictatorship of relativism seeks to impose its immoral agenda on Christians in the name of “tolerance.” But this “tolerance” is a sham. It is simply an attempt to make an idol out of a false conception of freedom. Pope Benedict XVI explains that, “..what clearly stands behind the modern era’s radical demand for freedom is the promise: You will be like God…The implicit goal of all modern freedom movements is, in the end, to be like a god, dependent on nothing and nobody, with one’s own freedom not restricted by anyone else’s…
And Father Hehir has been described as one of the world’s “leading experts in ethics?
You can read the full post at http://lasalettejourney.blogspot.com/
I have a major concern with Archbishop O’Malley’s genuine approval of Fr. Hehir. Did he not read the comments on the Catholic position of the conscience clause given to us by the Holy Father before doing that? How can he allow Fr. Hehir to contradict the Catholic Church’s position on these issues?? It is so reprehensible. Both of these prelates need to be taken out and put on an island somewhere far away. No doubt about it, they are doing all they can to try to destroy our precious Roman Catholic faith here in Massachusetts.
Let us pray for them, that God will intercede to stop this madness. Then, we must cooperate with God’s call to us to stand up against this, and bring this out into the open, as you are doing so courageously.
Classic Hehir. Ventosus! (Latin for full of air)
Just because we should be mindful of jumping to conclusions
does not mean we should never reach them. Abortion and the conscience clause; Pro and Con? Is that a joke?
Real Doctors don’t do abortions. Real Catholic Priests are not afraid to use the word abortion.
I watch that video and it makes me want to offer him fraternal correction with clenched fist. What a mockery. It is like he is splashing through the blood of babies with his cozy black loafers.
Meanwhile in the real Catholic church in America…
http://www.priestsforlife.org/action/schedule-of-events.htm
Keep up the good work EBH!
Thank-you, Alice Slattery for bringing up the barbarism of Dr Greene’s late term abortions at MGH. Jack Connors, who many claim is “calling the shots” at the Archdiocese, is the chairman of Partners Healthcare. MGH is a hospital in Partners Healthcare. Why does this man who presides over these terrible late-term abortions at MGH have such power in the Archdiocese? Should he not be spurned for the work that he does?
Hi,
I’m a different Chris, but also interested in Connors. Look into his former company from which he made millions from relationships with drug makers: http://www.fiercehealthcare.com/story/partners-healthcare-chairman-accused-conflict-interest/2009-06-01
(I’d suggest you all check out what was offered in those CME programs.)
Chris and Chris, I’m sure you know Jack Connors is rolling in dough. He gives a lot of it to the Archdiocese. Indications are he and Fr. Hehir are hatching a plan to allow children being raised by homosexuals to be enrolled in any Catholic school in the Archdiocese. At some point, these tykes are going to be traumatized because Catholic teaching on homosexuality is opposed to what they see at home. The homosexuals raising them don’t care. They want an excuse to force Catholic schools to stop teaching Catholic doctrine on homosexuality. When the issue is raised, Connors will demand that Catholic teaching be ditched and the Cardinal, who has already sold out to Connors, will comply. That appears to be the plan.
Last Catholic, Chris(s), and Ferde,
Thanks for the insights. We regret the comments on the video are so troubling, but it is what it is. We will explore those conflicts mentioned.
As we have posted before, we too worry about the influence of Jack Connors. It would be interesting to know how much money JackConnors is in reality giving to the Archdiocese. (We think he gives less to the Archdiocese than one might assume, though he is obviously helping fund-raise for Catholic schools.) And yes, Ferde is 100% on the mark–Jack Connors and Fr. Hehir are well along the way of hatching their plan to formalize how Catholic schools enroll children of homosexual parents. We need to muster forces to try and stop that plan in its tracks very soon.
“…along the way of hatching their plan to formalize how Catholic schools enroll children of homosexual parents.”
When you separate ‘the pro-creative act’ from God’s plan to transmit life – things go wrong.
We are now 40 or so years out on the rejection of Humanae Vitae, and this is what we got…
Honestly, could this be more ridiculous?
It makes one think that there is a carefully orchestrated campaign to actually deconstruct The Church in America.
Duh, if you are trying to bring your children up Catholic and struggling to pay tuition, could they come up with a better incentive to withdraw your children from Catholic school?
Good bye.
Ya, the concerns of Catholic parents today is how the Church supports and embraces queer parents….Is the diocese for real?
from the Globe on June 7, 2005
Before he became pope, Benedict — then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger — was the primary explainer of Pope John Paul II’s oft-stated opposition to same-sex marriage. … ”Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean *doing violence to these children, in the sense that their condition of dependency would be used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development.”
… ”It is only in the marital relationship that the use of the sexual faculty can be morally good. A person engaging in homosexual behavior therefore acts immorally.”
…”This does not mean that homosexual persons are not often generous and giving of themselves,” he wrote then, ”but when they engage in homosexual activity they confirm within themselves a disordered sexual inclination which is essentially self-indulgent.”
Fr.’s Hehir and Ericson should realize this is a deal breaker. The Church militant are stirring. The diocese is either with Rome or with Harvard and ruling elite.
Stay tuned.
[...] notice about the conference and the speakers comes just months after Fr. Hehir spoke at BC about Catholic conscience exemptions and said, if “we do not choose well” on exempting Catholic medical workers from having [...]
[...] Archdiocesan Caritas board representative Fr. Hehir said in April that conscience clauses “adjudicate deeply held convictions and positions in this pluralistic society” and if we are not careful, we could harm the individual who needs abortion services). And [...]
[...] and church teachings on topics including education for children of gay parents in Catholic schools, Catholic conscience exemptions, women priests, and voting for pro-abortion politicians. Fr. Erikson said there was much on the [...]
[...] Or do we need to remind you about how he told a Boston College forum this spring he was concerned Catholic conscience rights could harm the freedom of women to get abortions? And do we need to remind you of how he praised the “intelligent and courageous [...]
[...] 2010, Bryan Hehir also spoke at Boston College on a panel with a partial-birth abortionist about Catholic Conscience exemptions, and never even mentioned the word “abortion.” Here’s what he said. “If you [...]