Catholic hospitals betray their mission.

The sponsoring of Toronto's 1999 Gay Pride Week by downtown St. Michael's Hospital (SMH) (see Catholic Insight, July/August '99, p. 24) was severely criticized in the July 5 "Letters to the Editor" page of the Catholic Register.

One writer pointed out that Catholic hospitals are supposed to be guided by Catholic teaching, including that on homosexuality; another wondered whether the claim "we celebrate diversity" might not, in fact, also cover 'celebrating abortions'; a third, a medical doctor, argued that SMH's placating of homosexual activists represents the last straw in the demise of Toronto's only active-treatment Catholic hospital; still others agreed that SMH had betrayed its mission. The letters summed up my own views.

However, the Register page also contained a letter from SMH's president and interim CEO, Mr. William MacLeod, defending the hospital's action. According to him, the sponsorship must be seen simply as part of an outreach program for health services in the downtown Toronto core:

"Our participation in these community events is not intended at any time to reflect an endorsement of the philosophies of any groups or individuals organizing these activities."

He added: "These are important opportunities...to educate our communities about the services we provide." Consequently, "the healthcare role of SMH is to respect diversity without enacting judgment."

When asked by Catholic Insight for a comment, Archdiocesan spokeswoman Suzanne Scorsone referred to the MacLeod letter, stating that there was "no need at this point for the Chancery to make any further statement."

In a further effort to explore the hospital's current attitude I acquired the freely available glossy publication entitled A Celebration of Culture. In it, SMH describes itself as a Catholic faith-based institution with special emphasis on compassion and human dignity. So far, so good.

However, there follows a concluding affirmation which states that the hospital's policy "respects the patient's definition of family and partner." As SMH has recently absorbed the neighbouring Wellesley Hospital with its large homosexual and AIDS clientele, the affirmation serves notice that the Catholic definition now shares the spotlight with one diametrically opposed to it. As two contradictory statements cannot both be correct, I assume the Catholic definition has bitten the dust.

Let us explore further. A letter to the editor in this issue of Catholic Insight, page 6, informs us that Catholic hospitals in Ontario have had same-sex benefits for their staff since 1994. The letter explains that Catholic hospitals could have avoided doing this, but they lacked the will to swim against the tide: accommodation proved more attractive than resistance. This fits the SMH picture, doesn't it?

The homosexual aspect of this process of accommodation is best left to another time. Instead, let me follow the trail of betrayal itself.

Last March, newspapers printed the news that an Ontario woman who became pregnant after a tubal ligation is suing the Pembroke General Hospital (Post, March 27, 1999). Now, Pembroke General is a Catholic hospital. How is it that sterilization is permitted when it is directly contrary to Church teaching?

Answer: because Catholic hospitals across Canada have been thumbing their noses at this Catholic teaching for years, sometimes on their own, sometimes with the support of the Ottawa-based Catholic Health Association of Canada, or a local moral theologian. In Toronto, for example, St. Michael's and St. Joseph's hospitals have been tying tubes for at least 20 years, apparently each averaging some 40 procedures a month. Bishops have been informed but have remained silent.

Take another step. Walk into the "family practice" department of Catholic hospitals whether in Toronto, Montreal or Edmonton, and you'll find a full array of literature on every form of contraception, including the health-destroying abortifacient I.U.D. And why not? Except for a protest here and there from a pro-lifer, ecclesiastical authorities in Canada have held their tongues, while Catholic laity, apparently, are too poorly educated in the Faith to know otherwise.

The above may help Catholics see that the demise of Catholic hospitals in Canada is as much the result of self-indulgent accommodation on the part of the Catholic community--in fact, betrayal of the faith--as of any economic or social factor. This is important to know. Already there are voices who tell us that adherence to a strict moral code is not necessary.

The editor of the Prairie Messenger, Father Andrew Britz, recently stated that "adherence to a strict moral code, as important as this is, is not the justification for Catholic hospitals in Canada. Catholic hospitals are about touching people" (PM, May 19, 1999).

I beg to differ. All hospitals are about "touching" people. But Catholic hospitals were supposed to do so while pointing to higher spiritual values. These, in practice, depend on a strict moral code which has now been betrayed.

There is here a clear tie-in to the 1968 papal encyclical Humanae vitae, that is to say, to the rejection of this teaching by the Canadian Catholic community. The fruits of this rejection are everywhere. The loss of our hospitals is among the more important ones.

By the same token, if the remaining Catholic community were to adopt Pope Paul's teaching on birth control, it would begin a process of renewal.