Using a Wolf as a Sheepdog: How Providence isn't following the ERD

Wolves aren't meant to guard sheep, but eat them

During a discussion on Holy Family Radio - Kentucky yesterday, I used an analogy to try and explain the situation at Providence.

The analogy is that of a large farm. Let us say that all the Catholics are represented on the farm as sheep. One day, the Shepherd decides to allow a "Sheep Wool-Farmer" to come in and build a big pen in one corner of the the farm. Now some of the sheep are worried that what it means to be a "Wool-Farmer" is that while most sheep would go into the pen and simply get their wool harvested, some will be "harvested" for meat. So they want assurance from the Shepherd that the Farmer won't kill any of the sheep in the pen, and so the Shepherd writes some rules based on the "good" of the Sheep as to what can and can't occur in this new pen.

As time goes on, the "Farmer" decides to hire a new "Sheepdog" for the pen. When the new dog arrives some of the sheep are distraught because it is a WOLF. And not just any wolf, but a wolf that admits that he eats over 500 sheep a year.  So they ask the Shepherd how having a wolf, especially this wolf, as a Sheepdog can be reconciled with the rule that no sheep will be killed for meat. So the Shepherd talks to the Farmer. The Farmer assures the Shepherd that no killing of sheep will happen inside the pen. When the Shepherd asks further if the Wolf will try and talk to the sheep about "getting fattened up" or other things contrary to what good sheep need to do in order to produce wool, the Farmer tells the Shepherd that there are some nuanced and complex positions that some sheep holding regaring what it means to be a sheep and what are acceptable ways to farm them. The Farmer assures the Shepherd that he will uphold the tradition of his sheep farming and not to worry.

But the question remains: even if the Wolf doesnt't kill any sheep in the pen, but he admits to killing so many each year, then it seems obvious that the wolf would get some of the sheep to come with him somewhere outside of the pen to kill them, doesn't it? Not only that but the wolf also is allowed to teach the sheep how to "fatten up" so as to be better for eating, even though being fat is bad for wool production, which is the main purpose of these sheep. So why would the Shepherd, knowing all this, want this wolf for a sheepdog. Especially if he counsels the sheep to get fatter, thereby hurting their wool production, and who admits to being a sheep killer? 

With this analogy, take the facts of the situation and apply them to ERD #70 & 71:

70. Catholic health care organizations are not permitted to engage in immediate material cooperation in actions that are intrinsically immoral, such as abortion, euthanasia, assisted suicide, and direct sterilization.


71. The possibility of scandal must be considered when applying the principles governing cooperation. Cooperation, which in all other respects is morally licit, may need to be refused because of the scandal that might be caused. Scandal can sometimes be avoided by an appropriate explanation of what is in fact being done at the health care facility under Catholic auspices. The diocesan bishop has final responsibility for assessing and addressing issues of scandal, considering not only the circumstances in his local diocese but also the regional and national implications of his decision.

I don't see how this clinic, this doctor, and these services are allowed to exist and practice at Providence. I also don't see how their statement on the matter can be said with any modicum of sincerity:

Kirsten Schultz, communications director for Providence Health & Services Alaska, said that “Providence Alaska Medical Center adheres to the Ethical & Religious Directives, and we remain faithful to our Catholic tradition.”

“Every physician who is credentialed to practice at Providence Alaska Medical Center must sign an agreement that requires they abide by the ethical standards of the Catholic Church in treating patients in our facilities,” Schultz added.

We must continue to pray and to let the Archbishop know how we are scandalized by this situation and how we as Catholic faithful lose a sense of what Catholic teaching is, when abortion, contraception, and sterilization are acceptable at the one place where they should be spoken out against.

The disappointing thing about this whole situation is the we are arguing over nuance, complexity, and the greys of the faith. Why can't our written and traditional faith exist in black and white? Why can't we have clear teaching on these things, and expect that teaching to be put into action that wave the flag and banner of the Church? You can't argue that this doesn't have an affect on Catholics. Ask Catholics in the pews what the teaching of the Church is, or better yet what they believe. We need examples of our faith, we need to be bombarded with truth, and we need concrete examples of how the teachings of our faith actually correspond to how we live our lives!

So let us continue to pray and let us to continue to let our shepherd know that we want the faith to be upheld in a pure and direct way.

The Chancery:
Archbishop: The Most Reverend Roger L. Schwietz, OMI: ab.schwietz@caa-ak.org
Vicar General: Reverend Thomas Lilly: tlilly@caa-ak.org
Judicial Vicar: Reverend Thomas Brundage, JCL: tbrundage@caa-ak.org

†††