Bonehead Bishop from Phoenix.

Yet one more reason not to visit Phoenix: a presiding, dimwitted Catholic Bishop.

Via CBS News, two years ago, a Catholic hospital endured a moral dilemma: save a woman's life by terminating her pregnancy, or have them both die.  After consulting its ethics committee (which included a nun), the pregnancy was terminated and the life of the woman was saved.

Seems sensible, right?  If two lives are at stake, better to save at least one.  But here's where it all goes wrong.

The local bishop, father Thomas Olmsted stepped in, and determined that the nun participating in the hospital's ethics committee erred by not equally treating the fetus and mother, saying that  "while medical professionals should certainly try to save a pregnant mother's life, the means by which they do it can never be by directly killing her unborn child. The end does not justify the means."

He also ruled that the hospital "had not addressed in an adequate manner the scandal caused by the abortion."

He excommunicated Sister Margaret, then removed the hospital from its Catholic association.

Since then Sister Margaret Mary McBride's excommunication has been lifted, but the hospital has refused to agree to the bishop's requirement that it not terminate pregnancies that would otherwise cause the death of both mother and child.

I don't think it is required to delve into the failure of his logic, is it?  Two lives are in jeopardy, but rather than save one, the Catholic Church (which has continued to stand behind Bishop Olmsted's decisions) feels necessary to let both die out of perverted dogma.  It is perverted, obviously, because life is supposed to be precious, so forgoing both lives (mother and child) would be a profane act of passive murder.

He excused himself, by referencing canon law (1398).  Seems however, he's decided to forgo Canon 619, where superiors "are to give the members opportune assistance in their personal needs. They are to be solicitous in caring for and visiting the sick."  After all, if the Bishop had not been lax in his responsibilities, the issue may have been dealt with properly, and an understanding agreed upon -- such as this woman leaving the care of the hospital to find an appropriate alternative, if it had to come to this.  If the rock won't move out of your way, you surely go around it.

And then there's the ridiculous assertion that a hospital is supposed to address a manufactured scandal.  If God asks you to explain your actions, are you really going to tell Him, that you wanted to avoid a scandal?  That's utterly ridiculous, and inane.

This man is leading the charge back to Medieval times.

Via USCatholic.org, earlier this month, he issued a directive that would have parched parishioners' throats for the blood of Christ, except for "Chrism Mass and feast of Corpus Christi. Additionally it may be offered to a Catholic couple at their wedding Mass, to first communicants and their family members, confirmation candidates and their sponsors, as well as deacons, non-concelebrating priests, servers, and seminarians at any Mass."

After a widespread uproar, the decision was rescinded.  Nevertheless, the point seems to be: Bishop Olmsted wants to remake the Church in America by separating the laity from the clergy.  What next, removal of the Bible from print?  A reinstatement of Axis Mundi?