Texas Bishops Backtrack on Parish Advisory; Now They Need to Fully Retract It & Apologize to All

I come to you with a big update on the Parish Advisory debacle wherein the Texas Catholic Conference of Bishops ("TCC" or "TCCB") basically banned Texas Right to Life ("TRTL") from parish properties, made other statements about them that are demonstrably untrue, have yet to be supported with examples or facts, and gave its absolute endorsement to Texas Alliance for Life ("TAL") and Texans for Life Coalition ("TLC"). 

I have recently blogged about the Parish Advisory, what it says, and the implications of it here and here. I have requested a meeting with Fort Worth Bishop Michael Olson on the matter about a dozen times. I have written a certified letter, tweeted, and emailed him. Others have made that same request of him. He has, as I expected, ignored those requests. I will take you through some of his more memorable tweets on the matter in a bit. Why? Because you need to know where your Bishops are on these things. You need to know what we're up against. And, you need to see why this has to become the beginning of a much larger movement to take back our Church. We are in crisis. That is not news. What may be news to you is that this issue has touched a nerve with people - not just because of its unfair attack on TRTL - but because right thinking Catholics see that this is emblematic of what is wrong with this Bishops' Conference (and so many others) and the Church as a whole right now. People want to do something to right this ship. More on that in a moment. Let's get to the update first. 

On March 2, 2018, EWTN (the Eternal Word Television Network, a Catholic media outlet) interviewed San Angelo Bishop Michael J. Sis about the Parish Advisory. 

In it, Bishop Sis makes a few rather shocking statements given the history of it all. You will see in a moment the contrast between how he now characterizes this Parish Advisory versus how it has been handled by Fort Worth Bishop Michael Olson before it blew up on them. I want to get into all of that with you in some depth for a number of reasons. First, the  Texas Conference of Catholic Bishops is clearly backtracking and trying to undo some of what Olson has done. Second, however, Bishop Sis continues to promote a false narrative about Texas Right to Life - that is, that they somehow have sought to teach on or make statements about Catholic Doctrine authoritatively. That has never been done and despite repeated requests, no specifics have been given. Third, backtracking and "re-characterizing" the Parish Advisory is wholly insufficient. While it is mildly gratifying to see a bit of "crawfishing" as we'd say here in Texas (backing away from something), it is simply not enough. They cannot now act like this was something different than what they intended initially when they believed that everyone would just be in lockstep with them because they were told what to do. We will not err by clericalism. The TCC should know this. We have made some progress showing them this. Let's hold them accountable - as best we can - and I will show you how in a moment. 

But let's continue the examination of this interview with Bishop Sis. He begins the interview by saying, "First, of all I think it's really important to remember that this was a note to our pastors. It was not a public press release." 

Really, now? This was not to be a "public press release"? It was supposed to be in every parish bulletin and announced from every pulpit last Sunday - which would be a wide public release. What difference adding "press" to that makes is lost on me. For example, Bishop Olson tweeted the following on February 22, 2018:

That link leads to this:

That seems like it was intended to be pretty publicly released to me. Was the press then supposed to ignore it because it was not labeled "public press release"?


Bishop Olson also tweeted:

Although he was trying to "subtweet" Chris Salcedo, the point is, he was re-emphasizing how widely this Parish Advisory was to be disseminated - to at least the Catholic public. More on this in just a moment.

The Dallas Catholic Diocese has it on the homepage of their website. (Tyler, San Angelo, San Antonio, Houston-Galveston, Beaumont, Brownsville, Corpus Christi, Victoria, Amarillo, El Paso,  Laredo, and Lubbock did not - at least not on their homepages which is what I checked.)

The Diocese of Austin did respond to a question on Bishop Olson's Twitter page as follows, so at some level they were pushing this also:

To be diplomatic about this, Bishop Sis seems a bit uninformed. The facts do not comport with his representation in this interview. To be fair, perhaps Bishop Olson went rogue and this was not meant to be widely disseminated, but Bishop Olson tweeted for days about it. For example, four days after it was released he was retweeting his own newspaper's tweets of an article by Crux:

No brother bishop called him up and said, "Hey, this was not supposed to be public"? Apparently not.

Bishop Sis continues: "And the whole logic of this message to our pastors is this: that is, a Bishop is entrusted to teach the Catholic faith to the people of their dioceses. And a pastor is responsible for guiding the faithful in their parish in understanding, a comprehensive understanding, of Catholic teaching under the guidance of the local bishop. And, of course, Texas Right to Life has not been entrusted with that mission. That's not in their job description. That's not the responsibility of Texas Right to Life to define Catholic teaching." (Emphasis added.) 

A few comments on this. First, it is manifestly untrue that TRTL has ever tried to go onto a parish property and do this. The TCC gives no example of when that has ever happened. Second, Bishop Sis admits that teaching Catholic doctrine is "not in [TRTL's] job description." Exactly. It is not. That is not in their "What We Are" or "What We Do" statements on their website or what they do. So what's the problem? By Bishop Sis' own admission, TRTL does not seek to do this. This is clearly a manufactured justification for this Parish Advisory which was about other motives as you'll see.

But let's go deeper. Search "Catholic doctrine" on the website and you get one result from 2016, which notes that former VP candidate Tim Kaine's pro-abortion views were at odds with Catholic teaching (that is indisputable) and warns of a fake Voter's Guide alleged to be from Pope Francis. Search Catholic doctrine (no quotation marks) and you get four results. One is the Tim Kaine article.

The next result is an article by Bishop Emeritus Gracida who wrote in response to a public 2014 attack by an individual on TRTL and noted that: "Additionally, the Texas Catholic Conference of Bishops has no canonical authority or official status in the hierarchy of the Catholic Church, and as the political advocacy arm of the bishops of Texas, the TCC is not the magisterial arbiter of moral doctrine in Texas (or elsewhere), nor does the TCC hold any authority over individual Catholics." This is extremely applicable here. The TCC with this Parish Advisory has overstepped its authority and we are not bound by anything they say about morality.

This is very important given that the TCC has stated in the Parish Advisory that: "Texas Right to Life is not to be confused with Texas Alliance for Life or Texans for Life Coalition, which are separate organizations and remain consistent with the bishops' positions." (Emphasis added.) As I noted in my prior post on this, "Thus, TAL and TLC were given a robust, unqualified, absolute endorsement in the Parish Advisory. That will become more significant as we delve deeper into the substance." I also noted that, " The TCCB - thankfully - does not go so far as to say these are consistent the the Church's position. This is a distinction with an important difference as this situation makes painfully clear." Given TAL's and TLC's positions on certain matters that the TCC states is consistent with theirs, the TCC is extremely compromised. I laid out a number of these issues in my prior blog post. An additional issue is that TAL's executive director testified against the dismemberment abortion ban.

(A quick explanation here: Pojman referred to his testimony about being "on" the bill, but it was in opposition to it in substance. That is a way to avoid going on the record as against, but the substance is what you look to. Watch his full testimony in the link above - and then watch Senator Perry's very astute, logical responses. Also, note that to the left, the woman in the green jacket is Kyleen Wright, Executive Director of TLC, also one of the organization that the TCC endorsed as being consistent with its own positions. Then, I have to take a moment here and say that Pojman's quote of St. Thomas More, "I am the King's good servant, but God's first" in this context is totally inappropriate. More upheld his faith rather than be pragmatic and go along with the King and was beheaded as a result. He is a Catholic Saint because he was martyred for sticking to his guns on a matter of morality. Pojman is not putting morality and principles first, but what he believes is pragmatism by predicting what one elderly justice on the U.S. Supreme Court might do. Pojman testified against a bill to ban dismemberment abortion; just as Planned Parenthood did. This is consistent with the TCC's position apparently by their own terms. Good to know. Avoid them all if you are truly pro-life.)

The third result is a 2013 article entitled "Hostile Orders" which first appeared at AmericanThinker.com and was reprinted with permission. It was not an original article written by TRTL, but it discusses DNRs (Do Not Resuscitate Orders) in the context of discussing the Catholic "principle of subsidiarity" in the context of the SB 303 battle raging at that time. In so doing, the article links to this article on the Vatican's website and quotes from it. Then it concludes that SB 303 violates that principle. I have said the same. It did.

Finally, the fourth article is entitled "Planned Parenthood President Joins Ford Foundation." It noted that "'Catholics for Choice' advocates abortion in direct contradiction of established Catholic Church doctrine." Again, that is an established fact and the article notes that the U.S. Catholic Conference of Bishops has condemned them. Indeed, Bishop Olson actually tweeted a link to this statement he made back 2016 just last week condemning Catholics for Choice. So surely, there is no complaint about this being some error in presenting Catholic doctrine by TRTL. 

So, what is the issue here? Where has TRTL sought to teach Catholic doctrine at all, much less incorrectly on parish property (or anywhere else)? Where did it seek to "define" Catholic teaching on parish property or using parish families or anywhere else as Bishop Sis claimed in his interview? TRTL, which, by the way, is made up of more than just Catholics, has mentioned Catholic doctrine in exactly four places on its website. Mentioned, not taught. Two of those articles were written by others, one of whom is a Bishop in Texas. One article comports exactly with something Bishop Olson has written. The other notes that there was no Voter's Guide to the U.S presidential election from Pope Francis. So why the condemnation and banning from parish sites? 

Let's continue with what Bishop Sis said in his interview. The interviewer asked him: "So, your excellency, what will happen to those pastors who don't follow suit? Are there any repercussions?" Sis answered: "No, we have not put forth any particular policy of that nature."

Well, Bishop Olson had one of his own that he tweeted to the world:

He made clear that he was following up on any reports that the Parish Advisory was not mentioned and/or in a bulletin and posted updates:

Most people did not respond favorably to these tweets, to which he replied:

In addition to the very condescending tone, please note what Bishop Gracida said above about the TCC's authority. And this was a TCC document as evidenced by the letterhead and the tweet by the Austin Diocese above.

Finally, a note on people's reactions. Many are familiar with the TCC's compromised position on these matters having allied itself with organizations that do not actually support life principles. In the past I have talked about the cozy relationship between TAL and the Texas Medical Association. TAL and the TMA were on the same side of SB 303 and other efforts to either introduce faux reform bills or undermine true reform bills. Please note that the TMA is a pro-abortion organization. Yet, TAL can be said to carry the water for this organization when it comes to certain legislation, including refusal to treat and end-of-life legislation. Remember that the TCC has all but said TAL speaks for it. Put that together yourself and see the implications for legislation and morality. If the TCC had any teaching authority, it has abdicated it long ago - but most recently through this ill-conceived Parish Advisory.  Again, they have supported politicians who refused to even consider closing an abortion loophole allowing for the abortion of babies diagnosed with fetal abnormalities. Many of those legislators were endorsed by TAL which speaks consistently with the TCC's or bishops' positions. That means those are the TCC endorsements by the language the TCC used in its Parish Advisory. I covered this in my prior post.

Those who have followed this closely know the full story. One such person tweeted as much and look at Bishop Olson's response:

So Bishop Olson accused this person - publicly - of sin and slander. But this person only tweeted something that is demonstrably true which I have also shown you. At that point, I tweeted to Olson again myself:

I noted that there were still no facts to support the allegations against TRTL, renewed my offer to meet with him, and asked him to stop attacking the laity as this was just further scandal. Perhaps coincidentally, shortly after this, he stopped tweeting about the Parish Advisory.

Returning to Bishop Sis' interview, he next states that he wants to make sure that their pastors know that parishioners need to know that if an organization is recruiting there, that the organization is not representing the Catholic Church formally. But who thinks this? Many organizations use parish facilities - the Boy Scouts, Girls Scouts (despite their close association with Planned Parenthood), homeschool groups, mothers' groups, etc. But the truth is, this Parish Advisory banned TRTL from using parish facilities. It was no mere clarification. And, there was nothing to clarify as I have pointed out - TRTL has not sought to teach or define Catholic doctrine on parish property.

Bishop Sis said it was not the point of the memo. to malign any organization, but just clarify the use of facilities and teaching. Really? Because it banned an organization, which certainly maligns them, as does accusing them of misrepresenting Church doctrine. Then it endorsed two organizations who the TCC says, without qualification, holds positions consistent with the Bishops, thereby stating, by implication that TRTL does not. In this case, that is good because if the TRTL held positions consistent with the TCC I'd have to write about them and call them out and we'd have no one truly  defending life in Texas.

Bishop Sis then says that we need to keep in mind that the big picture is to build a culture of life. That's fine. That should be the goal. However, as I have demonstrated, that is not what the TCC is doing nor what this Parish Advisory did. Far from it.

The Bishop concludes with a call for unity. That would be nice, but we cannot undermine sound pro-life principles just for the sake of getting along. You can't split a baby. You can't kill half a patient. On some matters, there is no room for compromise. Life issues are such matters. True incrementalism if we have to, but not in lieu of pushing hard for the best we can get first.

So, there you have it. The TCC has backed off the Parish Advisory - re-characterized it (frankly, mischaracterized it) - but has not retracted it. Further, it continued the false narrative that TRTL has sought to teach or define Church doctrine with authority without any examples or proof of that. I could not find any myself as I explained above.

So what was all of this about, I have been asked? Well, given that TAL and TLC hold positions consistent with the TCC, given that one big issue was the TRTL Voter's Guide, given that this Parish Advisory was released on February 22, 2018, during early primary voting, given that it was pushed hard in the two dioceses where there are some hotly contested races, and given that the organizations have endorsed opposing candidates, I think we all know what was at play here. Politics. Not principles, but politics.

The interview begins with this quote:

This is the kind of politics that the Church has no business in. But the TCC has aligned with two organizations that push certain candidates very hard who are not truly pro-life as I have explained. They also push legislation that undermines efforts to protect the life as I have explained or that does not protect life at all. (For example, TAL pushed a bill that became law which focused on what to do with the remains of aborted babies' bodies. TRTL, on the other hand, was focused on a dismemberment abortion ban and closing the loophole that allows the abortion of babies diagnosed with fetal abnormalities. One group was focused on what to do with babies whose death was caused by abortion; one was trying to keep those babies from becoming victims of abortion so their bodies would not need to be cremated or buried. The contrast is stark. And telling.)

Go to Bishop Olson's Twitter page - look at the tweets and replies. People are truly scandalized. One poor guy said this was discouraging him from returning to the Church. That is just beyond scandalous and something for which clergy will have to account. They are responsible for souls and lives, but not primary elections other than to accurately teach the faith and let voters use their well-formed consciences to make their choice. The TCC has lost way on what its duties are. This has been an enormous embarrassment to many Catholics. The TCC has refused to support its allegations in any way. Given all of this, there is only one thing to do.

The TCC should fully retract this Parish Advisory and apologize for the scandal it has caused to everyone, from TRTL to the laity. That is the only right thing to do. 

I have never had a post so widely viewed and shared as my prior post to this one. Nor have I had so many people contact me in various ways to discuss this issue and thank me for bringing it to their attention and spreading the word. I have not been alone in my efforts. Representative Matt Rinaldi's letter has garnered a great deal of press. It was well-written and spot on. Plenty of other Catholic and political bloggers, followers, and commentators - Catholic and otherwise - have been shocked at this unprecedented display of raw politics and abuse of clerical power.

The movement has begun to take back our Church. Please keep the pressure on all of our Bishops in Texas. Respectfully let them know that playing politics in this manner, ignoring sound Church teaching, and engaging in defamation and calumny is unacceptable. Respectfully, demand that they retract this statement and apologize to both TRTL and all of the lay faithful who have been scandalized by this truly unfortunate shocking display. Then ask them to find new advisors. 

Be forewarned. Bishop Olson is blocking some people from his Twitter page who dare to question him. Two of my friends have been and one in particular hardly said anything at all.

If that happens to you, do not lose heart, however. Twitter is not our only means of communication. Screenshot your block notice, disseminate it, and then go on to call, write, email, and contact the Bishop and TCC directly. In fact, do all of this. This cannot go on. The Bishops are supposed to have missions from God that they need to focus on and not incite inter-organizational conflict as they have here.

Thanks for reading!

On the Record & in Their Own Words: The Texas Catholic Conference of Bishops, et al, Support TADA

In the wake of the Texas Catholic Conference of Bishops' ("TCCB" or "TCC") "Parish Advisory" (see this post) seeking to ban Texas Right to Life ("TxRTL") from parish properties statewide, embargoing any information coming from them in order to keep it from Catholics, and making all sorts of allegations against it for which there factual support is still entirely lacking (and I'm not the only one who has been asking for it), various questions have arisen. One is where the TCCB stands on certain matters, including the Texas Advance Directives Act ("TADA") to which this blog has been almost entirely dedicated. The Parish Advisory mentions in Issue 2 "Conflicts on end-of-life reform" but that is code for TADA. I have been asked how I can claim that the TCC supports TADA, and, therefore, involuntary passive euthanasia of patients. What evidence do I have? Well, first, I have covered it on this blog for four years (but it has been going on much longer than that) and below I catalog and summarize prior posts on all of these matters for you. Second, I'm presenting here the Amici Curiae brief that the TCCB and other organizations filed supporting TADA in a lawsuit brought to challenge its application to a patient and its constitutionality. In their own words, they explain their support of TADA and all it stands for. 

Let me begin with a note about terminology. I've discussed this before but let me recap. Why do I refer to TADA as "involuntary passive euthanasia"? First, TADA allows a hospital to withdraw your life-sustaining care against your will; it does not require anyone to consider your thoughts on the matter at all. Thus, if it is used against you against your will, you are subjected to something that is involuntary. Second, "passive euthanasia" is distinguished from "active euthanasia." "Passive euthanasia"is death brought about by the denial of something without which you will die. It can be air (ventilators), nutrition, hydration, etc. "Active euthanasia," on the other hand, is that which Jack Kevorkian promoted - a shot or pills, etc. are administered - to directly and quickly bring about your death. TADA allows for passive, but not active euthanasia. But allowing the one sets up a slippery slope. There have already been calls to allow active euthanasia in Texas. 

One other term should be addressed as well. This dispute has been characterized as being about "end-of-life" reform or legislation. Understand that in some cases the patient is not at the end of their lives. Often the issue is a refusal to treat a patient with a serious illness, a need for medical intervention to sustain their lives (but who might live a long time if treatment is not denied), a person with a disability, or even someone who suffered a serious traumatic injury and just needs more time to heal, and who might make a full recovery. It is simpler and maybe "cleaner" for some to characterize such people as always being at death's door; a person who someone is trying to keep alive at all costs in some hopeless, cruel endeavor meant to only cause suffering so that the clueless, distraught family doesn't have to "face reality." That paints a narrative where euthanasia seems the humane thing (even if it were moral). 

The truth is, there is a great deal of discrimination here against those with disabilities or medical needs that are not otherwise "terminal." The situation is not so unlike the exception in Texas allowing abortion of unborn babies diagnosed with "fetal abnormalities" at all points in the pregnancy even after the important 20 week gestational age when science proves that babies can feel pain. Certain Republicans (not endorsed by TxRTL, of course) refused to even consider an amendment to a bill that would have closed this loophole and prohibited all abortions after 20 weeks. Babies diagnosed with "fetal abnormalities" do not have the same right to life in Texas even among certain "pro-life" Republicans. There is great discrimination in existence here against those with disabilities from womb to tomb including among those who call themselves pro-life. Think about that. 

Concerning the matter at hand, I have publicly stated that the TCCB supports TADA and I have received some flack and pushback from people, who I am sure are well-meaning, but refuse to believe that their Bishops could err (clericalism is an error, by the way) and have demanded proof that the TCCB supports involuntary passive euthanasia and/or TADA. Although this proof exists in the statements made in the Parish Advisory itself coupled with the language of TADA, some are not convinced. 

I have also directed people here, to this blog, which has covered this issue for nearly four years - in great substantive detail. You can look at any number of the following posts to learn more about the law, the morality, the victims, the organizations involved, the conflicts (between victims and the law; between the law and morality; between organizations; between the TCCB and Church teaching; there is a lot of conflict here; but just as we can't split the baby that one might seek to abort, we can't half way kill the ill patient). You can read:

• this post (where I lay out the issues with TADA and the TCCB for the first time);  
• this post (where I discuss the issues in more detail); 
• this post (where I take issue with a PolitiFact hit piece on the issue and discuss the really unfortunate, macabre language the TCCB uses in the context of TADA (and has continued to use, more on that below)); 
• this post (where some of the TCCB's thinking is exampled in more detail); 
• this post (where I describe one of my experiences attending a hospital ethics committee hearing where TADA was invoked in order to withdraw a patient's life-sustaining care in order to hasten his death); 
• this post (where a proposed reform to TADA was amended so that it could be supported as an incremental improvement to the law; NOTE: one of the TCCB's primary complaints (Issue 1) is that TxRTL opposes incrementalism; this is just one piece of evidence demonstrating the falsity of the allegations against them); 
• this post (where we see TADA being used against a patient, Chris Dunn); 
• this post (the date of Chris Dunn's death; the hospital never diagnosed or treated him for his underlying condition while in the hospital; he did not die because of the withdrawal of his care, but only because a lawsuit was filed to prevent that, and the hospital relented);  
• this post (where I analyze the lawsuit filed by Dunn prior to his death (and then continued by his Estate and mother) to challenge the constitutionality of the law as it provides absolutely no due process for a patient; and the difference between a natural and hastened death); 
• this post (where I provide the actual court documents in the Dunn case and show the hospital sought to be his guardian so as to make his life-ending decisions for him; present a pro-life out-of-state doctor's published article discussing TADA after Dunn's death; TAL's response to that article and public endorsement of euthanasia; the doctor's reply; TAL's and the TCCB's close association (as further proven by the Parish Advisory); and explain the "feud" between TAL and TxRTL); 
• this post (where I provide an update of the Dunn case where even the State of Texas says that TADA is unconstitutional and the Attorney General - who is charged with defending the State's laws - will not); or 
• this post (where I describe yet another experience I had while attending a hospital medical ethics committee hearing seeking to withdraw a patient's life-sustaining care in order to hasten his death and note, among other things, that two of the members SLEPT during the proceedings). 

In addition to that above: the TCCB, TAL, Texans for Life Coalition ("TLC") and others filed an Amici Curiae brief in the Chris Dunn case when it was pending at the trial court level in support of TADA. This is a "friend of the court" brief which is filed by those who are not technically parties to the case who want to jump in, put in their two cents, and claim an interest in the outcome. It is rather unusual for that to be done in a case still at the trial court level as this is normally done at the appellate court level. (FULL DISCLOSURE: The Dunn case is on appeal and I am one of the attorneys who helped write the appellate brief. Therefore, I will not discuss the appeal itself further at this point.)

NOTE: The Parish Advisory stated: "Texas Right to Life is not to be confused with Texas Alliance for Life or Texans for Life Coalition, which are separate organizations and remain consistent with the bishops' positions." (Emphasis added.) Thus, TAL and TLC were given a robust, unqualified, absolute endorsement in the Parish Advisory. That will become more significant as we delve deeper into the substance. 

Here is the file-stamped cover page for their brief:

Then, significantly for the purpose of this blog, I want you to see the stated "Interest of Amici Curiae" - in other words, the organizations' explanations to the Court for why they believe they have an interest in this litigation and why the court should listen to what they have to say. I'll present each of the four pages and then comment below.

So there you have it. The TCCB, TAL, and TLC have each come out in support of TADA in a brief opposing the constitutional challenge to the law which gives you - the patient - no due process rights. None whatsoever. 

TLC goes further and says you have no Constitutional right to medical care at all! So if medical care is required to sustain your life, you have no Constitutional right to life by this logic. Good to know. Also, and this is relevant, the executive director of TLC, Kyleen Wright gave this testimony in support of using aborted baby tissue for research so long as the women know what will happen to their babies' bodies.

NOTE: The Parish Advisory stated: "Texas Right to Life is not to be confused with Texas Alliance for Life or Texans for Life Coalition, which are separate organizations and remain consistent with the bishops' positions." (Emphasis added.) Arguably then, these are the positions of the TCCB. There were no qualifications given to the absolute TCCB endorsement of these organizations and what they stand for. The Catholic Church does not support using aborted baby remains for medical research. Apparently, the TCCB does. Do you see why the TCCB, and Bishop Olson in particular, are in need of both correction and to meet with someone else on these matters?

It simply cannot be said that a patient's rights are "balanced" in a law that provides them with no rights at all. Read the law. Google what is required by due process. Then read the law again. As I have discussed in various posts above it is patently false to claim any sort of balance between patient and doctor rights, due process protection, constitutionality, or morality under Catholic Church doctrine. Balance is not just lacking, it is non-existent. 

The TCCB is actively opposing the death penalty in Texas. While I make no statement on the morality of that, it is important to note here the irony: people on death row received full due process rights - both substantive and procedural - that the ill patient in the hospital is entirely denied by the law that the TCCB claims is "indispensable for ensuring dignity at the end of life." The convicted felon has a right to appeal his conviction, any denial of due process rights, etc. The TCCB supports the denial of due process rights for the ill patient but cries out to the Heavens for the convicted criminal who received those very rights TADA and the TCCB (and TAL and TLC) deny to the ill. How does this make sense? 

Further, I have written before about the TCCB's usage of the language "prolonging death," how unfortunate, even nonsensical it is, and how it shows the true philosophy here. Not only does the TCCB use that language, but so do those promoting TADA in the PolitiFact article, which I discussed here. I said there, referring to my prior post on Bishop Gracida's blog, the following:

There is so much wrong with this letter [from the TCCB in 2014], but a few things occurred to me immediately.  It refers to “unnecessarily prolong[ing] a patient’s death…” as a reason to withdraw care.  Such is an awkwardly worded statement that literally makes no sense.  The definition of prolong is “to extend the duration of,” but we cannot extend the duration of death.  Once you die it’s done; this earthly life is over.  It seems to me that what they are saying is that they don’t want to unnecessarily prolong a patient’s life.

The whole letter, like everything else the TCC has done on this issue, is focused on how soon we can withdraw care so one can die.  It uses the term “dignity” again  veering very closely to arguing for “death with dignity.”  This sickens me to my core.  From the beginning of the HB 1444/SB 303 battle, there were references to “dignity” and I noted then that:

When you lose control of the language, you are well on your way to losing the battle and even the soul of the movement. When representatives of the Texas Catholic Conference are making statements like: “The Texas Catholic Conference advocates advance directives reform legislation that recognizes the dignity of a natural death. Human intervention that would deliberately cause, hasten, or unnecessarily prolong the patient’s death violates the dignity of the human person.” This is very close to just saying, “We favor death with dignity.” This is a concept we in the pro-life movement have heretofore rejected. I am sorry to see that change.

The TCCB has not (to my knowledge) wavered in its opposition to anything that might keep you here longer if that's what you wish. Your "death with dignity" should not be "prolonged" - whether you like it or not. Your life? Not so much concerned about prolonging that - given this consistent choice of language - but we must get you to that death ASAP - death must not be prolonged. (This also really affects the individual's preparation for dying, facing judgment, and hopefully meeting God. There is a whole spiritual process that needs time to unfold here that should not be truncated. Perhaps in time I will write more about this. It has been the topic of discussion between myself and certain ethicists and religious leaders. It should not be dismissed, but is beyond the scope of this particular post.) 

Also, and this cannot be stated enough, I have never gone into a hospital ethics committee hearing and had doctors complain that their consciences were violated by continuing life-sustaining treatment, nor has anyone else I've ever talked to that has attended one. Doctors and advocates of the institution of involuntary passive euthanasia for a patient have, however, stated (in front of the family) if the patient were in a forest and had been still that long, he would have been eaten. I wrote about this experience here and used it as part of my testimony before a legislative committee hearing on TADA. Doctors have said that this person was "gone" and would never be the same; that the person the family knew had left. These are quality of life determinations made by people utterly unqualified to do so. No one is qualified to make that decision for you but you or your chosen surrogate. 

Significantly, in the wake of Chris Dunn's death, TAL publicly came out in favor of euthanasia and argued that removing life-sustaining care to alleviate "suffering" was "morally legitimate" This is the very definition of euthanasia. Suffering is not the same as a disproportionate burden or harm from the expected outcome of a medical procedure or intervention. I suffer when I have a wisdom tooth pulled, but that procedure is not disproportionate to my needs. See CCC 2278 below, where this is discussed in more detail, as well as who should make that determination. (The Catholic Church also teaches about "redemptive suffering" so this is all the more reason why the decision about how much suffering one wishes to endure must be left to the patient. Again, that is a topic for another post, but not a throw away consideration in this context.)

NOTE AGAIN: The Parish Advisory stated: "Texas Right to Life is not to be confused with Texas Alliance for Life or Texans for Life Coalition, which are separate organizations and remain consistent with the bishops' positions." (Emphasis added.) Arguably then, this is the position of the TCCB. Taking action to alleviate "suffering" (as opposed to the reasons set forth in CCC 2278) is euthanasia which is not supported by the Catholic Church. Doing this against a patient's will is also not supported by the Church. Yet, this this is the position of TAL and TAL's positions, according to this most recent Parish Advisory of the TCCB, are "consistent with the bishops' positions." The TCCB - thankfully - does not go so far as to say these are consistent the the Church's position. This is a distinction with an important difference as this situation makes painfully clear.

Incidentally, there was no factual evidence that Dunn was suffering from his life-sustaining care, even were that a justification to pull the plug on him early against his will. Moreover, he prayed for his life as evidenced by the video of him. Moreover, this is all beside the point because a hospital should not be making the decision for you as to whether your death is hastened by the withdrawal of life-sustaining care or not. That is yours and yours alone. And, should you argue that life-sustaining care is not natural, you should know that the hospital in Chris Dunn's case argued that as they did not withdraw his life-sutaining care, his death was "natural." 

As I have argued before, if a doctor's conscience is pricked by allowing you to continue your life-sustaining care as your underlying disease, illness, or infirmity consumes you and leads you to a natural death, then why can he not step aside and allow another doctor to take over? Why must the fulfillment of his conscience lead to your hastened death? Your only option under TADA is to, in a maximum of 10 days, find a new facility (which is very difficult and usually impossible to do once the current hospital has made a futility finding) or the hospital can then withdraw your life-sustaining care against your will and hasten your death. You are completely at their mercy. 

From the Catholic Church's standpoint, there is no moral justification for this. A supporter of the TCC - who herself had never read TADA before last night - sent me a reference to the Catechism of the Catholic Church paragraph 2278 as support for TADA. It does not support TADA, the TCC, TAL, or anyone else who promotes involuntary passive euthanasia. Let's take a look:

It says that "[t]he decisions should be made by the patient if he is competent and able or, if not, by those legally entitled to act for the patient, whose reasonable will and legitimate interests must always be respected." (Emphasis added.) That in no way supports TADA, involuntary passive euthanasia, or its lack of due process rights. 

I want to make one more observation. In Issue 3, "Texas Right to Life's voter guide," the TCCB's Parish Advisory states: "Unfortunately, a number of legislators who have consistently voted for pro-life and end of life legislation have been opposed by Texas Right to Life." Ignoring that the premise of this statement is incorrect - let's look at that language more closely. It does not state that the legislators have voted for pro-life (or even pro-patient) end of life legislation. Rather, it says that they have voted for end-of-life legislation (read: "ending your life prematurely against your will" legislation). Exactly. Freudian slip? Perhaps. Consistent? Yes. Of course TxRTL will oppose them! Gosh. (That is not the only problem with Issue 3, but it relates to the problems with Issue 2, which is the point of this particular post.)

End-of-life legislation could actually be pro-life - it could actually promote the value and dignity of each life until a person's natural death, but that has been a difficult task - because of the TCC, TAL, and TLC (which has gone back and forth on TADA). 

Finally, I have been asked what the difference is between the TCCB and TxRTL on end-of-life (and I'd add to this refusal to treat) issues. I do not speak for TxRTL at all. I do not have that authority. My view of the difference between the two organizations is based on my own observations, statements by the organizations, review of their written works, testimony before the legislature, etc. With that caveat, as I see it, TxRTL wants, at a minimum, the patient's will to be upheld which, if we persist in having a law like TADA, should at least require due process rights for ill patients in hospitals so that a decision may not be made to withdraw their life-sustaining treatment against their will in a bid to hasten their death because someone else has decided that their life has no value, no quality, and is futile. Ideally, this would require a hospital to treat until a patient could be transferred to another facility willing to continue that patient's life-sustaining treatment until their underlying condition (if any) results in their natural death or until natural death otherwise occurs. 

The TCCB supports TADA as a "balance of patient autonomy and [ ] physician conscience protection." See Parish Advisory at par. 2. The TCCB, as noted above in their Amici Curiae brief, "strongly supports §166.046 as indispensable for ensuring dignity at the end of life." Id. at 2. As noted, the TCCB sees "unnecessarily prolong[ing] the patient's death [as] violat[ive of] the dignity of the human person." Id. at 1. The TCCB has opposed such reforms as treatment until transfer and in the otherwise fatally flawed SB 303 faux TADA reform bill in 2013, and would only agree to extend the time to transfer from 10 to 14 days. Gee, thanks. 

TxRTL, as I see it, does not believe that TADA provides any patient autonomy at all and therefore provides no "balance" between that and doctor conscience. It is important to note that there is a difference between life-sustaining care and life-saving care. This is not a call to provide what the Church has called "extraordinary measures." It is not chemotherapy or radiation or such treatments. Rather it is "basic" care such as artificially administered nutrition and hydration or even ventilators; oxygen, like food and water, is necessary to life. (Since the removal of artificially administered nutrition and hydration has been tightened up, I have personally seen an increase in hospitals wanting to remove ventilators from patients to hasten their death now.) Primarily, I believe that TxRTL sees the patient's wishes as paramount and does not see why there cannot be real balance between doctors and patients without the patient's hastened death through the premature withdrawal of life-sustaining care being necessary. 

So now you have yet more evidence as to the TCCB's support of TADA and the nature of the dispute. 

I renew my request to Bishop Olson to meet with me to discuss these matters. I submit that the evidence is overwhelming that he has not been well-served by his advisors on these matters. This Advisory is just an example of the problems in the TCCB and the Church as a whole. As I have said, this should be the genesis of a larger movement to take back our troubled Church. 

Indeed, it has been suggested to me that I may actually have a moral obligations to do what I am doing. And so do the rest of you! 

According to the Code of Canon Law, Can. 212 §3: 

According to the knowledge, competence, and prestige which they ["the Christian faithful" or laity] possess, they have the right and even at times the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful, without prejudice toward their pastors, and attentive to the common advantage and the dignity of persons.

(Emphasis added.)

Please call, email, tweet, or mail Bishop Olson and respectfully request that he meet with me to discuss these issues that affect us all, Catholic or not.

Thanks for reading!

Updated: The Texas Bishops' Attack on Texas Right to Life: My Letter to Bishop Olson Requesting an In-Person Meeting to Discuss It

UPDATE: I'm updating this to include a link to Rep. Matt Rinaldi's letter to Bishop Burns. I think it is well worth reading. 

ORIGINAL POST:

You may have heard that the Texas Catholic Conference of Bishops issued a "Parish Advisory on Texas Right to Life" last week basically banning them from any parish property and telling everyone that TxRTL lies, misrepresents the faith, etc. As set forth by Bishop Olson of Fort Worth - who seems to be the primary promoter of this, "The advisory regards the hostile position of Texas Right to Life towards the authentic Catholic teaching on the dignity of human life..." None of this is true and no specific examples are given. Indeed, when I mentioned this to Bishop Olson in a tweet, I received no response. 

Readers of this blog know that I have taken issue with the TCCB's position on the Texas Advanced Directives Act ("TADA") and end-of-life issues as they seem to have consistently worked against any true reform efforts made to give even some semblance of due process to a patient. (If you are unfamiliar with TADA, search this blog, it has been pretty much entirely dedicated to that issue.) You know that I find nothing in Church teaching to support it morally. You know that I find nothing in the Constitution to support a total denial of due process rights to an ill patient. You know that I in no way support euthanasia, much less passive euthanasia, much less involuntary passive euthanasia which is exactly what TADA is. Thus, those that would work against any reform of this draconian law can only logically be said to support involuntary passive euthanasia. 

On the other hand, contrary to what I have written, try to find something where TxRTL has accused the TCCB of not holding fast to Catholic doctrine. Try to find TxRTL insulting the Bishops and calling them bad Catholics as Bishop Olson has done to them. Try to find something where TxRTL is claiming authority to teach Catholic doctrine. Try to find something where TxRTL is discussing Church doctrine. You won't find anything.  Because that is not their mission. They are not a Catholic organization, but a pro-life organization made up of individuals of various faiths. Their collective mission is promoting the value and sanctity of all life from womb to natural death - in utero, in the hospital, in all conditions from all threats that the culture of death brings. The allegations in this Advisory ring hollow because they are. In its response, Texas Right to Life did not respond in kind and did not get personal. 

The TCCB has come after TxRTL before, but never in so calumnious a manner. I suspect this is the result of the "Francis effect" and the "Trump effect." Decorum is out the window. Everything is a bar fight and you should expect that from those who see themselves as your opponents no matter what office they hold. It is a scandal. The Church is in crisis and that is no secret to anyone, Catholic or not. 

I thought long and hard about this situation. As a faithful Catholic, it both grieves and enrages me. We don't have enough to be concerned about and focused on? Really? But what is a lay person to do? The hierarchy are often misguided and believe themselves immune to correction - filial or by the laity. It seems a hopeless business. But in recent days I have been reminded of Blessed John Henry Newman who taught that a well-informed laity was necessary to the Church and, indeed, did much to save the Church from the effects of the Arian Heresy when the majority of bishops adopted that heresy. I have written of this before and analogized that heresy with the state of the TCCB on TADA. 

After thinking long and hard about this - praying - I felt a calling (a conviction as some of my dear, dear faithful Protestant friends might call it) to write the following letter which I have mailed and emailed to Bishop Olson after requesting four separate times on Twitter to meet to discuss these matters with him. (There was a time people met to discuss their differences calmly and professionally and in-person.) He "subtweeted" me and commented on the negativity of the tweets concerning the Parish Advisory. That avoids substance. If you have noticed anything about this blog, you should know that I am all about substance. I don't care much for talking points and who's allied with whom. I care about people, the pro-life cause, and the pro-life mission. I have worked with all the major groups in the state in my nearly 20 years in the movement. I have seen things that I will not share but have taught me a great deal. Politics is a messy business and not everything is as it seems and that is just as true for the organizations as it is for politicians. 

Trust me when I tell you that there is only one organization that is true to the pro-life message from womb until tomb via natural death (not hastened by the denial of life-sustaining treatment) and that is Texas Right to Life. If they ever cease to be faithful and consistent to the mission of protecting all life, I will talk to them privately and then go public if need be, following the counsel of the Bible. That is how we should all deal with one another. 

Thus, I have responded in what I hope is a respectful, meaningful, and substantive way. This letter is my fifth attempt to obtain a meeting with Bishop Olson. I explain why I think that is necessary and why I believe I am a person that can discuss these matters with him. I have no illusions (delusions?) that he will meet with me or anyone else even as I hope and pray he does. Nevertheless, believing that all things are possible with God, I ask each of you to prayerfully consider respectfully emailing, tweeting, calling, and writing him to ask him to meet with me about this. He needs to hear from someone other than those advising him and the TCCB to engage in scandal upon scandal as it relates to this ill-conceived Advisory and all the inside baseball internecine political warfare that this telegraphs to everyone. (And people are picking up on it because I'm being asked about just this aspect of it.) If he chooses not to meet with anyone on the matter and if the TCCB persists in this action without explanation and details to back up the flame-throwing, that in and of itself will tell you what you need to know. 

Here is my letter: 

As a final note, I will be sending a copy of this to my own Bishop Burns here in the Dallas Diocese, who put this on their website. The annual Bishop's appeal came this weekend right after this bomb was thrown by the TCCB. The Dallas Diocese will receive no money from my family. None. I will not support any organization that engages in these tactics and opposes meaningful, substantive reform to TADA. I encourage you all to consider doing the same and telling your bishops why. Sometimes we suffer in the short term so that we might benefit in the long term. It is time that we sacrifice in many ways so that we might begin to take back our Church. The laity has a voice, we need to use it. This is just one of many things going on that needs our attention, but it is local and it is significant because of all that it demonstrates about our leadership. 

A movement needs to happen. Here. Now. With you. With me. Before all truly is lost. Will you help?

Please pray for all involved. This is a mess - an embarrassing, scandalous, unnecessary mess created by the TCCB and ramped up to a feverish pitch by Bishop Olson. And...I think I'll just leave it at that.

Thanks for reading! 

One Year Ago Today....Remembering Chris Dunn

Credit: Texas Right to Life

One year ago today, Chris Dunn died. I wrote then about how Chris did not get to see Christmas, having died without a diagnosis of his underlying condition, whatever it was, which meant it was not treated. Rather, the Hospital decided prior to Thanksgiving that year, that he was not worth treating or saving and sought to withdraw his life-sustaining care against his and his mother's wishes. Who can forget the video in that link where he prayed for his life? Chris and his mother bravely fought back. She continues the fight today for your sake and for mine. Ultimately, Chris was allowed to die without having his life-sustaining treatment withdrawn, but without a proper diagnosis and without any treatment for whatever his underlying condition was. This still deeply troubles me. It should trouble you as well. 

I have been anticipating this unfortunate anniversary for a few weeks now. Life and death issues are never far from the forefront of my mind. I've been thinking about my friends in the pro-life community who were on the front-lines this time a year ago and who have continued to fight on his behalf and others like him. I know this anniversary will forever be part of what all of us remember as we prepare for Christmas with our families. And, of course, it is all the more difficult for Chris's family. Please remember them as you celebrate. Please pray for God's comfort on them at this difficult time and for the repose of Chris's soul. 

As you know, it has always been our hope and prayer that Chris did not die under these circumstances in vain and that good might come of it. Chris's case was followed by people nationwide. His case brought to light how euthanasia is here - in Texas - and what that means for you and me. When people realize this, they are usually shocked and concerned. Many want to know how to act to stop this practice immediately. I have always seen it as part of my life's mission to bring education and awareness to this issue. Toward that goal, I have followed the lawsuit Chris filed prior to his death almost from the beginning. I have blogged about the underlying moral, legal, and ethical issues his case brought to light for many - including what it exposed as the core beliefs of a number of pro-TADA supporters who are members of alleged pro-life groups that advocate for legislation on this very issue that is neither pro-life nor pro-patient. I also poured over the pleadings, legal arguments, and facts in a sometimes lengthy posts to help you understand what this is all about, what the stakes are, and to set the record straight when it was muddled by those who think TADA is just fine and dandy. 

In the interim, I have kept up with the ongoing litigation he began which seeks to have the Texas Advance Directives Act declared unconstitutional. The status of the case is that there is a docket call on January 6, 2017, for trial which is set for January 9, 2017. However, the attorneys for Methodist have filed an unopposed Motion for Continuance. It appears that more time for discovery is needed, which is the fact finding phase in lawsuits. 

Meanwhile, the Court has yet to rule on the Motions I discussed in my last Update about the case, which argued for and against the Constitutionality of TADA. I wrote there about how Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton filed a brief opposing TADA, which is significant because normally the AG is charged with upholding the laws in the state and defending them. Our own AG believes this law to be unconstitutional and will not defend it in court. Clearly, this law should be overturned in Texas. The legislature should act accordingly in the coming months to do so, regardless of how the Court rules. 

The next session of the Texas Legislature will begin in January 2017. I pray that they take up this issue and that we get rid of TADA for good. I will do my part in that regard and I hope you will also. 

Credit: Texas Right to Life

Texas Right to Life has written a tribute to Chris and a call to action for everyone: 

Most Texans never learn about this law until they face the terrifying process of imposed death of a loved one by hospital committee. Chris was not the first victim, and he will not be the last. Texas Right to Life is the only statewide organization that provides support to the victims of this law, and we have assisted countless families racing against the clock under this draconian TADA. In this sense, Chris's story is not unique, sadly. What makes Chris's story different is the tremendous courage he and his mother showed in their desire to fight for other patients.

This is true. In November of this year I was asked to attend another "ethics committee" meeting where the hospital was seeking to withdraw life-sustaining care from a man against his family's wishes. The family had never heard of this law, were taken aback by what was happening to them, and could not believe that this was possible in America at all, let alone pro-life Texas. The family was unanimous and unified in their opposition to the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment for their loved one. I met with the family and we attended the hearing together. 

The committee members could not have cared less what the family had to say. In fact, by the time we were allowed in, the meeting about the patient's condition had already occurred without us - even as we were standing in the waiting room waiting to be allowed in. When we were finally called in, the chairman let us know in no uncertain terms that they had already discussed the patient's condition without us. The family asked why the treating doctors who made the decision as to their loved one's "futility" were not in the meeting. We were told it was because it was their day off. (I hope you can see the lack of due process here, how the cards are stacked against a family, the farcical nature of this proceeding, and even the flippancy with which it is conducted.) 

The family was allowed to speak and expressed - with medical literature - why they believed their loved one should not be killed by withdrawal of his life-sustaining care. The two primary members of the committee dozed off repeatedly during the meeting, including the one who was chairing it. That's right. The two members of the committee most eager and vocal about withdrawing care to hasten a man's death against his family's wishes SLEPT during parts of the meeting while the family addressed them. THEY. SLEPT. 

When those two sleeping members were awake, they were overtly hostile and rude to the family members who could not have been more prepared, gracious, and composed under extraordinarily difficult circumstances. How did these two committee members respond - that is, when they were awake? They were hostile toward the family and actually raised their voices to those representing the family when fine points of the law were calmly presented to them. 

It was abundantly clear that anyone who would dare oppose the hospital's edict to kill a man prematurely by withdrawing his care enraged these members. Another one of the committee members, a doctor, asked what law we were even talking about. He was completely ignorant of the legal authority they were using even as he sat on the committee that would potentially render the final decision to kill a man. It was as if he was shocked that they even needed to have a law to allow them to make these determinations. I thought that said a lot.

I have never been in a meeting with more blatant hostility and anger than this one toward a family, which remained calm and composed. Besides the lack of civility and kindness exhibited by these committee members, I was also appalled by the aforementioned doctor who was totally ignorant of the law. He was utterly confused by references to law at all. I had to explain to him that there was a statute and that that was why they could even have this meeting in the first place. Only two of the 12 or so there uttered a single kind, calm word; the two already mentioned two were hostile when they were not sleeping; one was ignorant of the law and confused; and the others were dead silent, avoided interaction with anyone, avoided eye contact, and/or looked bored or disinterested, if not annoyed by being there at all. When the family finished their presentation, not a single member asked a question. 

The whole experience was completely stunning - and remember this was not my first rodeo. This was actually worse than the meeting I attended in 2015 where the neurologist advocating for a man's hastened death compared him to an animal in the forest, who, had it been still as long as the ill man had been, "he would have been eaten." This "doctor" said that to this man's family. I wrote about that experience here. In time, I may write more extensively about this latest "ethics committee" meeting I attended, but I will leave it here for now. 

Make no mistake about it, although we made some limited progress in reforming aspects of TADA in the last session, this is not a pro-life or pro-patient law. I don't see how it can be made into one. It completely lacks any semblance of due process and hospitals are still finding plenty of ways under the law to seek to kill patients against their will or their families' will by withdrawing life-sustaining care. 

This is not what we should be satisfied with in Texas. Take up Texas Right to Life's call and notify your state representatives and senators and let them know that enough is enough with TADA. It needs to be repealed. You can go to that link, type in your address, and find out who represents you and their contact information. It is not too early to set the tone for the next legislative session. 

Let's all do what we can to stand for life and protect the most vulnerable among us. One of these days, that vulnerable person could be you or your loved one. It is not pro-life to hasten death by the withdrawal of life-sustaining care against a patient or his family's wishes. Remember, we err, if we err at all, on the side of life. Always. 

Thanks for reading! 

I wish you a very Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!