By Deacon Mike Manno
By now I
think most have seen or heard about the un-woke gender policies that have been
adopted by Des Moines Bishop William Joensen. As diocesan clergy, I received an
advance copy of the policy but was still surprised when an old Creighton buddy
called at 7:30 in the morning it was released to the public to congratulate me
for having a bishop willing to take a firm stand on this gender identity
nonsense infecting society.
It seems he
heard of our new policy on the FOX News program Fox and Friends which I
actually had on at the time. I also noticed the story was picked up nationally
by Newsmax as well. Now I can’t listen to them all, but at least before 8 a.m.
the story had made it to two national outlets.
But, more
about that at the end, I first want to start in Maryland where a “Catholic”
hospital lost a round in federal court to a transgender man — that is, a woman
who is making the change — for damages when the hospital, citing Catholic
ethical teachings and Catholic medical guidelines, refused to perform a
hysterectomy.
The man (I
guess) was suing the University of Maryland Medical System (UMMS), and the
University of Maryland St. Joseph Medical Center, among others, over the
refusal to allow the hysterectomy to be performed in its hospital. The hospital
had claimed protection from the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine and the
Religious Freedom Restoration Act which basically protects religious
institutions from government interference.
Now, before
we get into the weeds of the case, we should determine exactly how a public
institution was seeking protection of a legal doctrine and federal statute
designed to protect religious communities, and why it cited Catholic teaching
as a reason to object to the hysterectomy request.
Long story,
but to make it short, here’s why, as explained by the court:
“The medical
center was owned and operated as a Catholic hospital by Catholic Health
Initiatives prior to being purchased by UMMS. When UMMS purchased the medical
center in 2012, a condition of the ‘Asset Purchase Agreement’ was that ‘UMMS .
. . shall continue to operate [St. Joseph] in a manner consistent with Catholic
values and principles including complying with a ‘formal reporting mechanism’
to ensure St. Joseph is held accountable for its ‘Catholic identity.’
Specifically, UMMS agreed to ensure that St. Joseph’s board implemented the
Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Services (the “ERDs”), as
promulgated by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, in St.
Joseph’s provision of health care….
“Around the
time of the sale, each of the defendants entered into a ‘Catholic Identity
Agreement’ with the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Baltimore, which provided a
‘framework within which to continue authentic Catholic traditions and practices’
at St. Joseph. This agreement provides that, every two years, St. Joseph ‘will
undergo an audit of its adherence to the’ ERDs by the National Catholic
Bioethics Center.”
The court
went on to explain that the ERDs — and this was key to the court’s ultimate
ruling – say “[d]irect sterilization of either men or women…is not permitted in
a Catholic health care institution” but that ‘[p]rocedures 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.”
The last
part of the ERDs quoted is what doomed the ship for the defendants. They had
argued that they must comply with the Catholic teachings on gender transition
that the National Catholic Bioethics Center, which audits hospital compliance,
articulates as Catholic teaching in its guidance document: “Gender
transitioning of any kind is intrinsically disordered because it cannot conform
to the true good of the human person, who is a body-soul union unalterably
created male or female. Gender transitioning should never be performed,
encouraged, or positively affirmed as a good in Catholic health care.”
But the
plaintiff argued that this was not a simple procedure to change gender, but that
it was an allowed exception to the guidelines because it was being used to
treat a known condition, gender dysphoria. It cited the testimony of the
hospital’s chief medical officer as stating that hysterectomies were frequently
performed at the hospital when connected with an identifiable medical condition
that could not be solved by other means, “so long as [a] hysterectomy is
consistent with the standard of care for a given diagnosis, the hysterectomy
may be performed [at St. Joseph].”
Thus the
court found that the medical ethics would have been satisfied had the hospital
approved the surgery since gender dysphoria is a recognized medical disorder
and the requested surgery was not for the purpose of elective sterilization but
to treat this particular individual’s medical condition for which there was no
other available treatment.
Accordingly,
the court found that since St. Joseph was — for the purposes of this case — a
“state actor” – the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine and the Religious
Freedom Restoration Act did not apply and therefore its refusal to perform the
hysterectomy was discrimination on the basis of sex and granted summary
judgment to the plaintiff.
The Diocese of Des Moines
Now, getting
back to my home diocese. Our bishop has issued a document, pastoral in tone,
but controversial nonetheless. In it he speaks of concern for our brothers who
experience gender confusion and how the Church must continue to love and assist
them in their travails. Two paragraphs, I think, sum up what he is trying to
say, but for space needed to be edited here:
”In a
culture that advances a highly subjective conception of love, many families of
an adult or child with gender dysphoria will feel a sense of obligation to
support their loved one by acceding to and advocating for an uncritical sense
of ‘whatever is going to make them happy’….[Family members] will likely face
pressure…from the prevailing culture to affirm and validate their loved one’s
newly adopted gender and, in conjunction with medical personnel, to ‘resolve’
the dysphoria by electing to pursue surgical and hormonal interventions aimed
at altering the biological sex of the affected person.
“Such
treatments, especially for children, are invasive and disruptive when aspects
of the entire person are taken into consideration…[but] these treatments do not
promote the common good of society, particularly when it comes to the
institutions of marriage and family….
“For the
parents of a child who presents with gender dysphoria, the overarching priority
is to genuinely assist the child by acknowledging the suffering involved and to
accompany him or her along the path to personal healing, self-acceptance,
integration, and peace. Any response that merely ratifies and reinforces the
perceived disconnect between biological sex and gender affiliation is not
genuine compassion.”
Here are the
diocesan guidelines:
All entities
of the diocese in areas where designation by sex is required the use of the
person’s biological sex shall be used and pronouns must reflect this. No
preferred pronouns may be used. All persons will use the bathrooms and locker
rooms that matches their biological sex.
Participation
in school, parish, and co-curricular activities must be consistent with the
participant’s biological sex; all persons are to present themselves in the
attire of their biological sex; entry into single-sex building and instructions
are restricted to persons by their biological sex; no person is permitted to
have or distribute any medication for the purpose of gender reassignment on
Church property.”
This, of
course, is a shorthand version of the document; the full document can be found
at: https://www.dmdiocese.org/resources/evangelization-catechesis/catechetical-services/cladd.
Unfortunately,
some have taken this as an affront to the LGBTQ community. One Democratic state
senator suggested that Jesus would not be happy with this document. Sorry,
senator. I think Jesus would thank the bishop for complementing His Father’s
creation.
(You can
reach Mike at: DeaconMike@q.com and listen to him every week on Faith On Trial
at https://iowacatholicradio.com/faith-on-trial/)
No comments:
Post a Comment