On an April day in 2005, my husband and I turned on the television to watch some show, but the program had been interrupted by coverage of the funeral of Pope John Paul II. I switched to another channel, but that one was broadcasting the same thing. I lifted the remote to turn off the TV, but my husband told me to pause. "Wait. Look at this," he said.
The cameras panned over the crowds, which seemed to have no end. I'd never seen so many people gathered in one place, and marveled at the endless variety of ethnicities and nationalities represented. It was like one of those intergalactic conventions in a sci-fi movie: There were nuns and monks wearing strange (to me) habits, people dressed in traditional garb from all over the world, folks holding signs written in all different languages.
Even more remarkable was the list of public figures in attendance: One news program showed a highlight reel of all the dignitaries arriving, and afterward I was hard pressed to name a world leader whom I had not just seen at St. Peter's Square. According to Wikipedia, there were 4 million people in attendance, including four kings, five queens, over 70 presidents and prime ministers, and more than 14 leaders of other religions. It was the single largest gathering of heads of state outside of the United Nations in the history of the world, surpassing the funeral of Winston Churchill.
I turned to my husband for his reaction. At the time he was a lapsed Southern Baptist with more than a few anti-Catholic opinions, so I had expected him to roll his eyes and turn off the footage. Instead, he seemed to be lost in thought. He spent a long time watching the entire world pause for the funeral of this Pope. Then finally, he said, "There is something going on with the Catholic Church. Something...different. I just can't figure out what it is."
I was reminded of that moment this afternoon, as I once again found myself glued in front of the television to watch something huge happening at St. Peter's Square. Once again I saw crowds gathered like I had rarely seen in my life, a collection of people from all over the planet. Once again I sensed, as my husband had remarked in 2005, that there was something special, something different happening here -- only this time, as a Catholic myself, I knew what it was. And it brought tears to my eyes to see it.
To behold what happened in the Vatican today is to behold the fruits of Christ's promise that he would establish one Church, and that he would never abandon it. To see the footage of the masses in St. Peter's Square is to see what it looks like when people of all different races and nationalities and customs and traditions are brought together as a single family in Christ. To have experienced the undeniable feeling of hope and excitement that rippled to the ends of the earth when Pope Francis stepped out on that balcony is to have experienced a reminder that God is with this Church. It may be full of imperfect people who act very, very imperfectly sometimes, but God guides it still, just as he promised he would.
Two years to the day after Pope John Paul II's funeral, my husband and I became Catholic. As I think back on that afternoon in 2005 (which, unbeknown to us, was the very beginning of our conversions) I have to think that many others were in that same position today. I have no doubt that people from all over the world watched today's footage, as we did so many years ago, and were left with the unshakable feeling that there is something special about this Church. Like we were, they may be puzzled by many things about this strange religion, yet be left with questions about how it remains such a force in the world after 2,000 years, how it manages to unite all peoples. I pray that they get all the answers they're looking for, and, as we did, eventually discover just what it so special about the Catholic Church.
Comments
Post a Comment
Thank you for this, Jennifer! I am going to read it with my students tomorrow when we talk about the Papal election; it’s beautiful and will challenge them to consider the miracle of the Church’s continued existence in history.
Well said! I was a young-twenty-something-lapsed-Catholic when I attended World youth Day in 1997 in Paris with John Paul II, after that world youth day, I gradually came back to the Church and never look back. Blessed John Paul II was a very special individual, I have no doubt he has something to do with my conversion and yours.
Beautiful recollection. Being a cradle Catholic but practicing tepidly in my teens and 20’s, those moving scenes in Rome eight years ago also stoked my faith. The enthusiasm of the different nationalities and tongues inspired me to become more actively involved with my local church; I soon signed on to become a lector and Liturgy & parish council member. It has been so rewarding and joyful to participate and contribute to parish life and befriending my fellow parishioners. Let us pray that Pope Francis’ election spurs another wave of fervor for our Catholic life!
It’s fitting the Pope will be installed on the feast of St. Joseph, the foster father of Our Lord.
This post hit home for me. When Blessed John Paul II passed I harbored very anti-Catholic sentiments and avoided watching any media coverage of his funeral or Benedict XVI’s election. In 2010 I finally came home, so watching the excitement captured so well by the cameras today was truly special. The moving of the Spirit among the throngs today was undeniable, and I also believe there was a cloud of witnesses joining in the chanting of “Viva il Papa!”.
I was driving to downtown San Jose to take care of an errand and attend noon Mass, and at that time I heard of news of white smoke at the Vatican.
At the end of Mass, father announced our new Pope is name Francis, and I thought, WOW! St. Francis of Assisi, just want the world and the church needs, a teacher to remind us to simplify life and to slowdown.
Of course, it was later that I heard he is a Jesuit so perhaps the Francis is for St. Francis Xavier (or both).
Well, it’s too early to tell, but I understand that Jesuits are more liberal in their politics. I know the new boss is the same homophobic, anti-contraceptive, anti-secular old-boss, but maybe he’ll be more reasonable.
.
Nah, He’ll just be a fresh terrorist.
Beautiful article. God bless you, Alice. You know, this “fresh terrorist” served those suffering in an AIDS hospice and asked those who raised money to go see him given the title of cardinal to stay home and give the money to the poor. There is a difference between condemning a person and saying with clarity and love (yes, love) that an action is sinful. Condemning a person is wrong. Speaking about what actions are right and what are wrong is Christlike.
You are right, Jennifer! Hearts were moved today! Fruits of the Holy Spirit….great article.
The secular media loves to point out differences and distinctions in ethnicities and gender and skin color and pretend they are concerned with equality and diversity and multi-culturalism, but when you looked at St. Peter’s Square today or as you mention, for John Paul II’s funeral, you see what true diversity and multi-culturalism is; not how are we distinct, but how are we the same. The oneness, the unity, the acknowledgement we are all children of One True God who loves us, and we are brothers and sisters, regardless of our origin, that is truth. Before the election the secular media opined perhaps the Church needed a Pope from South America, or Africa, to balance, I presume, some imagined inequity and an imagined inability of any man who is Pope to love all the people of God.
And he has chosen the name Francis, which takes my breath away! Beloved Francis, the Poverello, the little poor man, whose real name was John; who sought the hand in marriage of Lady Poverty; who overcame pride by kissing a leper, who at first he ran away from, on the lips; who preached to the Sultan of Egypt, a Muslim, hoping to die a martyrs death, but instead was granted permission to visit the sacred places of the Holy Land and even preach there; who insisted he be placed on the bare ground when he was dying, as a final act of humility. This is the Francis our beloved new Pope has chosen as a namesake. How God has kept his promises to Francis! Blessed be His Holy Name!
People are saying that the new Pope is very conservative. He is also old. The Church needed a young reformer but opted for an old stay the course guy. That is very disappointing. By the end of his reign, the Church will be even more out of touch with the modern world than it is now. People think it’s quaint. I think it’s disastrous.
Bill S.
Please open your heart and really look at what the Catholic church stands for. I feel the modern world is the one out of touch, I see it not moving forward, but backward. The secular world is moving backward toward paganism, where it’s everyone for themselves, no true goodness or mercy, just whoever is strong enough to impose their will on everyone else.
God bless our new pope Francis.
“Please open your heart and really look at what the Catholic church stands for.”
And I would ask Catholics to open their minds.
Marcus Aurelius was a great Roman Emperor except for the fact that he persecuted the Christians because he could see that they were determined to replace the Roman gods with their God, which they eventually did. If you read his writings, he often referred to a “God” who was very much the same as the Christian God. His advice was “Follow God”.
Catholicism has gotten us from there to here. But it is in serious need of reform. That is why an old, stay the course Pope was not the right choice.
I forgot why I brought up Marcus Aurelius. He wrote that the Christians were obstinate. That is how Catholics are perceived to this day. They won’t assimilate with the secular world which is all inclusive and not divisive.
Bill S,
Not even one encouraging word this morning?
:)
There can be no such thing as obstinate Christians- only Freudian media sho cannot see beyond the material world. During Marcus Aurelius’ time, the world was mostly pagan unlike today, yet nobody’s perfect.
Kathleen does this answer your question?
“He is unwavering in his support of traditional Catholic teaching on abortion, same-sex marriage and contraception.”
That’s just ducky. I won’t say what my iPhone tried to change “ducky” to. But that too.
“On gay marriage
Let us not be naive, we’re not talking about a simple political battle; it is a destructive pretension against the plan of God. We are not talking about a mere bill, but rather a machination of the Father of Lies that seeks to confuse and deceive the children of God.”
I can only imagine how out of touch Catholics will be with the rest of the world by the end of this papacy.
I woke up this morning, feeling wonderful. We are no longer orphans, we are no longer sheep without a shepherd. We have a new pope, who chose to be named after St. Francis of Assisi, a man of humility and simplicity. I felt so proud to be Catholic. What other religion celebrates as we do the election of a new leader? What beautiful smiling joyful faces filled St. Peter’s Square! “Let’s begin the journey,” Pope Francis said. Yes, let’s begin the journey. We are in good hands. And for those who do not have anything good to say about our Pope, open up your hearts, you need a new praise maker!
“And for those who do not have anything good to say about our Pope, open up your hearts, you need a new praise maker!”
Has the whole world gone mad? He’s way too old school. Don’t Catholics want to ever progress?
Bill S., your ship has sailed. It is being piloted by a bunch of gray-haired liberals who think our culture peaked in 1969. It is going over a cliff while the Barque of Peter remains steadfast.
Bill, it’s not a matter of progress, but the Truth. The world may change but God does not. For those of us who understand this and see and experience the beauty of the Truth of Jesus alive in the Catholic Church, this indeed is a time for rejoicing.
Marcus Aurelius wrote that the Christians were obstinate. And that is how Catholics are perceived to this day. Um-mm…and the Catholic Church has been with us for 2000 years. And the implications of that are…
“Bill S., your ship has sailed. It is being piloted by a bunch of gray-haired liberals who think our culture peaked in 1969. It is going over a cliff while the Barque of Peter remains steadfast.”
Yeah. I graduated Catholic high school in 1969. It’s been all downhill from there.
“Bill, it’s not a matter of progress, but the Truth. The world may change but God does not.”
And the world is the one with the problem? You talk about Truth. Do you really believe that the resurrection and ascension are Truth?
Bill S.
You say “progress”, I say “regress”.
“The Catholic Church will never change”
Good! We’re not supposed to. We’re not of this world - we live in it; but we’re NOT part of it. Thanks be to God!
Since when did gay marriage, abortion and conraception became “all-inclusive and non-divisive”? The liberals should find a way to include those who go for necrophila, bestiality, paedophilia, etc. to be inclusive to all…One cannot be inclusive to some and exclude others, right?
“Marcus Aurelius wrote that the Christians were obstinate. And that is how Catholics are perceived to this day. Um-mm…and the Catholic Church has been with us for 2000 years. And the implications of that are… “
That he was right. Obviously,,,
“Good! We’re not supposed to. We’re not of this world - we live in it; but we’re NOT part of it. Thanks be to God!”
So you make persecution a self fulfilling prophesy. Instead of trying to get along with the rest of the world you intentionally set yourself up to oppose it and cry foul when you don’t get your way.
“Since when did gay marriage, abortion and conraception became “all-inclusive and non-divisive”?
People that want them can have them. Those who don’t want them don’t have them. One big happy world.
Let us all pray for Bill, he is in desperate need for healing.
Just pray for more work so I will be too busy to blog.
“You talk about Truth. Do you really believe that the resurrection and ascension are Truth?”
Yes, actually.
“People that want them can have them. Those who don’t want them don’t have them. One big happy world.”
Truth doesn’t work that way. Objective truth either _is_ or _isn’t_. Otherwise what would stop me from having the belief that all people named Bill must be killed? Or wait, maybe I can get a majority of people in an area, or even around the world to agree with that. Then it would be democratic, right? Majority rules?
BTW-It is always great to be a faithful, practicing Catholic.
“Truth doesn’t work that way. Objective truth either _is_ or _isn’t_. “
So you say. And of course, you have this objective truth and I don’t.
Kill Bill. I’ve heard that somewhere.
Bill,
Sounds like your morning’s not going so well.I’ll pray you find more work soon & have a better rest of the day.
God bless.
“So you make persecution a self fulfilling prophesy. Instead of trying to get along with the rest of the world you intentionally set yourself up to oppose it and cry foul when you don’t get your way.”
It’s a prophecy Jesus made - not me.
I try to get along with the rest of the world. But I also set myself up to follow what Jesus taught, not what the world teaches. I don’t cry “foul” when I don’t get my way - I try to follow the better way that Jesus taught.
You should really try it, Bill. If you stop worrying so much about following the world - THAT’S when you’ll find peace.
Jenn’s right - “It’s a great day to be a Catholic” - but then all days are like that.
I was really touched by this story. It shows that even at his death, JP2 was working at converting souls. There is something special about the fact that your own conversion was stirred by JP2. What a fantastic sory.
Thanks Kathleen. I’m actually on a stationary bike at the Y texting and trying to burn off all this winter blubber.
Bill S,
I once heard that the Catholic Church is like an iron ball in the pit of the world’s stomach and that it cannot be assimilated. I believe that is an apt metaphor. The Bible says that Christ said that the world will always hate the Church; it would therefore be surprising if there were not many, many people like you, who believe the Church to be out of touch, delusional, etc. But we certainly don’t want to kill you. The Church teaches that we should want the best for all people. I am glad you are on this site and I hope you find what you are looking for on it.
Larry. Telling followers to expect persecution is just setting them up to bring it upon themselves. If people feel good about opposing the world they are going to create a giant chasm between themselves and other people who are just like them in more ways than not. Eventually we will not be able to span that chasm.
Wow, Patrick. That’s really nice of you. Thanks.
Objective truth exists despite who believes it. Not just about religion, but about everything objective. You can say that the best color is orange and I can differ by saying that the best color is purple, but that’s subjective, so differing opinions can exist. Things like gravity exist whether you want to believe them or not. And by the same measure, God either exists or doesn’t, and all the other _Truths_ (capital T intentional) that go with it apply. Therefore, if He does exist (and I fully believe that He does), the concept that people can choose which version of God they want does not lead to “one big happy world”, but in fact leads to the ones that chose wrong being eternally unhappy.
And to clarify, Bill, I don’t want to kill you. I think murder is objectively wrong.
Bill,
You see it one way,I see it another.
You want the world and want to fit into it desperately. While I live in this world, and enjoy its beauty, I realize that I was not created for this world. Our time in this world is just the tiniest fraction of our existence. We are meant to have something so much more than this. This world is nothing, not even a shadow of what will someday be ours.
I’m not home yet.
Take care and God Bless
Mr Bill,
Let’s do this, when you die and see that 1+1=2 and not 11 like the world says, ask for mercy and say “Lord Please forgive me, I’ll pass the rest of eternity working (praying) for people to realize your truth” That would be swell, Thanks!
“Therefore, if He does exist (and I fully believe that He does), the concept that people can choose which version of God they want does not lead to “one big happy world”, but in fact leads to the ones that chose wrong being eternally unhappy.”
That’s their choice. The point is that everyone should have a choice of living as if your God exists or as if he doesn’t. That should work for everyone. Those who try to make it not work are just being difficult and should be ignored or politely told to back off.
Larry. As long as you are enjoying your life. You might think otherwise but you only live once. Life is not a try out.
Bill - you’re correct, it’s not. But it doesn’t end here, either. I’ll do my best to finsih the race here with my eye on the Big Prize.
I am wondering what will come out of Argentina on this guy given the catholic church’s complicity with those awful dictatorships of the 70s and 80s, the murder and disappearance of thousands of people and other such baggage. All in all, he is a probably a boring conservative which will further alienate the rest of the world. Given that the majority of catholics have no problem with gay marriage and even less with contraception the church will further lose members and become even more irrelevant in the future.
Bill, EVERYONE has free will. EVERYONE can choose to believe or not believe in God. So indeed, that’s “their choice”. The point is, when they die, they will know the objective truth, whether they like it or not. Gambling on the idea that there’s nothing after this certainly has a nasty oops potential, doesn’t it? Yet I doubt you’d gamble on far less important things than eternity.
Either way, I hope you find more work (not so you won’t hang around here, just so your life is somehow improved) and will pray for you.
My favorite quote from our Holy Father - “On gay marriage
Let us not be naive, we’re not talking about a simple political battle; it is a destructive pretension against the plan of God. We are not talking about a mere bill, but rather a machination of the Father of Lies that seeks to confuse and deceive the children of God.”
God bless him and our Lady protect him.
The Jesuits have the description of “God’s Marines.” If Pope Francis’ austere background requires him to hold tight to Catholic teaching and keep the principles steadfast against the world’s clamoring then he fulfills the role of Cephas, the Rock. The New Evangelization is the ideal vehicle for whipping us into military shape, so to speak. We Catholics need to relearn and ingrain these core truths, akin to physical drills and training, in order to overcome the enemies which are disordered earthly values of greed, pride, and pleasure-seeking. Like Therese of Lisieux we must subsume our self-interests into the greater and holier Body which is Christ’s Church.
Saints Francis Assisi, Xavier, and de Sales, pray for the new Pontiff and for us!
Mr Rodriguez,
The Episcopalians have bowed to the world in everything you would like te Catholics to change and they’re numbers are much worse. That goes to show that it’s not people with good intentions that want to change the Church but the devil himself that wants to creat division in between te faithful and Truth (God). “Oh the church should do this and that” seems to be the creed of the children of the father of lies!
What a great article! I too came back to the Lord with the passing of JP2. And I loved what I witnessed yesterday. Such a surprise, but so filled with deep wisdom the more I took it in. As someone said on facebook…“well played Holy Spirit, well played”. And what a fantastic back and forth with Bill. You see how the Spirit moves? An article leads someone to post a comment and a challenge, and the challenge is taken up (great Christian apologetics here), but respectfully, on both parts. I can sense Bill’s keen mind searching, since his points are so well articulated. But a believer can only plant. It is only Jesus who can make the seeds grow. Bill, St. Augustine said “Our hearts are restless, oh Lord, until they rest in you”. We yearn for something beyond our measily existance filled with selfish pride and sinfulness. We yearn for truth, real Truth. We find it in the teachings of Jesus. If our meager bodies are capable of being satsfied when we are hungry, or when we are cold, or when we are injured, then why not when we are restless in spirit? Jesus gives us that rest. Be open to the Lord, he will lead you.
Pray for Bill S. Since he’s been blocked from Simcha’s site, he spends a lot of time agitating elsewhere. Poor Bill. We hope it doesn’t bother you too much to know that a lot of people are praying for you.
Bill, yes I do believe in the Resurrection and Ascension. We do not believe in a set of concepts but in a Person, Jesus Christ the Risen Lord. I believe the difficulty for you may not be with the Church but in the fact that you have not yet encountered Jesus Christ alive. I pray that He would reveal Himself to you that you may know the reality of faith in God. Jesus will never disappoint you and in His love you will experience true freedom as a child of God. Bless you!
New subject, same condescending Catholic attitude to non-believers. Funny how all of you are celebrating a “new direction” for a Church that is supposed to be the “unchanging truth.”
.
Logic—interesting how you use Pascal’s Wager to base your belief in an “objective truth” that will be “known” when you die. It only shows that you’re afraid of the consequences of unbelief. It’s a carrot-stick method to get people to convert because of greed and fear—basic Catholic manipulation. Your moniker is a misnomer.
Jenn,
Have to admit - you do attract them.
Bill S., okay, you’ve had your fun. Now I want to say something to you, and since I am Catholic and have to be nice and charitable, even Christ-like, here goes - NOW SHUT UP…please!
Jen,
another great article - i’m thankful to see saints every day in my life.. you’re one of them! keep spreadin’ the love!
-dh
Viva il Papa!
Great post Jennifer!!!! Great to have you and your family Catholic. Love your blog here and conversiondiary too! Looking forward to your book!!
What a wonderful post. It is truly a great day to be a Catholic. I’ve been thinking a lot about my convert friends and the joy they are experiencing, my protestant friends who somewhat get it, and others who say things like, “so you’re into that whole pope thing?” Why yes. I AM into that whole “pope thing.” Habemus Papum!
What a beautiful church. If only everyone knew how awesome it is. I become more Catholic everyday. Thanks for your post, Jennifer. Blessings to you and your family. And best of success with your book.
Jennifer—happy to see you are well enough to write, and write beautifully.
Bill S—how does it feel to be the subject of Catholic pity?
Thanks for a beautiful post, Jen.
On Catholic radio, a man called in and told Patrick Madrid that he has been away from the Church for a very long time. I believe he said he tried various Protestant denominations in the interim. Well, as he watched the beauty, humility, love, and togetherness of, as you say, all peoples in St. Peter’s Square, he knew that he had to come home. He asked Mr. Madrid for a little encouragement or help with this; and he, Mr. Madrid, & everyone who heard his, “I am on my way Home right now!” were plainly filled with Joy.
What a Gift is our new Pope Francis & our Lord’s Catholic Church!!!
“We Catholics need to relearn and ingrain these core truths, akin to physical drills and training, in order to overcome the enemies which are disordered earthly values of greed, pride, and pleasure-seeking.”
RE, I hope you are not suggesting that people who strive to be wealthy, who feel good about themselves and take pride in their accomplishments, and people who seek pleasure are all demonstrating “disordered earthly values”.
Our whole world economy would collapse without those people.
I just got this email from Bill:
I want to apologize to Jess and anyone else I offended when I overdid it yesterday. I was at the Y alternating between the treadmill and the exercise bike and texting (not while running) on my iPhone. It broke up the monotony. I appreciate the prayers that some are saying for me.
I still go to church with my wife and all my friends are there. I go and I listen but find it hard to believe half the stuff that is said.
Bill S, just because a truth is old doesn’t make it any less true.
Response to Robert M. from Bill S
I don’t want ECO to be blocked so I can’t get into back and forth discussions. Ancient stories sometimes weren’t even written to be taken as history but as what we call novels or fiction. Plus, oral traditions were often embellished before they were written down. If you want to see how a story can change in just one iteration, look at what Matthew, Luke and John did to Mark’s account of the empty tomb (where that gospel originally ended before being embellished by a scribe). They all used Mark’s gospel as a reference and added on to it.
“I can only imagine how out of touch Catholics will be with the rest of the world by the end of this papacy.”
As a new Catholic I can only say I hope to be entirely out of touch with the rest of the world.
We will be praying for you Bill S! I recommend that perhaps you sit down with a cathequist or an apologist and explain you’re having a crisis of faith, never branch out alone, and do not stop praying for “he who doesn’t pray to God, prays to the devil”. Just know that you have a massive misunderstanding of who God is, you can also look into a retreat!
@ECO, by “disordered pride” I mean the fallacy of man to believe all accomplishments are solely the product of their own greatness or superiority over their fellow men. Of course we each make the most of our talents but to think God has no influence in our gifts and successes is foolish assumption. By “disordered pleasure-seeking” a better term I could have used would be hedonism.
“Of course we each make the most of our talents but to think God has no influence in our gifts and successes is foolish assumption.”
We are all beneficiaries and victims of circumstances that have brought us to where we are today. Believers attribute those circumstances to God. Our gifts come from our genes and our environment. When I see an actor recieve an Oscar or an athelete inducted into the Hall of Fame, I see them thanking everyone for their success. When they thank God, they are really thanking the circumstances and their own character, although they don’t know that. It is a good way to remain humble, but I just see it as a fortuitous chain of events and not any divine intervention.
RE,
my response has been temporarily blocked. I was trying to say that believers attribute the circumstances that get us to where we are to God. I attribute them to genes, nurturing, environment, etc.
From what I researched, it looks like Pope Francis will be more of a Cafeteria Catholic rather than a Pope like Benedict. This will be a good change for the Church.
Wesley, you may be disappointed.
Thank you, Ioanna. The blogger, Simcha Fisher, has been kind enough to accept my apology and let me back onto NCR. I actually passed up the opportunity to go on the annual retreat that I had been making in prior years. I went last year even though I had stopped believing. I enjoyed it but felt a bit like a fraud and I decided this year not to keep lying to myself and the people around me.
RE, you speak of “disordered pride” and “hedonism” but I would have to say that many great accomplishments have come from people with those “vices” which as you know, are associated with “the world, the devil and the flesh”.
Mina, cafeteria Catholics are heretics. You can’t pick and choose what you want to believe and be a member of the Catholic church. Find another denomination or religion with which you agree.
Alexis Mina, I don’t think so. I could never be more happy or at home than in the Catholic Church. If being in touch means becoming pro abortion, pro redefinition of marriage, pro worldly standards, then I am happy being backward. Pope Francis sounds like my kind of pope. And I doubt he is a cafeteria Catholic.
The new pope won’t make you spin on a dime and start promoting contraception,etc., but it looks to me that he will change priorities—moving the focus off what people do in the bedroom and on to more important issues, like poverty, global warming and the spread of disease.
.
Jesuits are known to be educated in science as well a theology and Francis seems to be more connected with other world views. If he is as promising a progressive as signs suggest, he will be good for your Church.
He expresses his admiration for the atheist socialists who helped bring social justice to Argentina, but recognises that some socialists end up leaving the church. “Generally it is because they have conflicts with the church structure, with the way of life of some believers who, instead of being a bridge, become a wall.”
.
And he warns against a globalisation that does not respect cultures. “The kind of globalisation that makes things uniform is essentially imperialist,” he says, adding that cultural diversity must be conserved. “At the end it becomes a way of enslaving people.”
.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/mar/15/pope-francis-book-radical-progressive
All you need to do to convince an atheist to believe in your God is to persuade your God to show up and perform miracles in front of the atheist such as raising the dead, healing the sick and turning water into wine. The other way to convince an atheist to believe in your God is to demonstrate to them that they can have some emotional benefit that they strongly desire such as friendship, sex, acceptance, safety or hope if they are prepared to abandon reason and accept a God without any evidence. The first method seems unlikely to work as Gods don’t seem to be showing up and performing miracles in front of atheists these days. The second method has a chance of working if your atheist is lonely, depressed or sick and is not committed to reason.
.
The best way to convince an atheist, assuming he or she is willing to be convinced, is with evidence. Biblical references don’t count, neither do prophecies. Since there is no known evidence, the next best way is through logical arguments (remember, the majority, if not all, of the religious arguments have at least one fallacy, avoid those. No appeals to emotion, authority, personal experience, etc…). If that doesn’t work, then save your time, because you have lost. You will not recover from that.
” cafeteria Catholics are heretics. You can’t pick and choose what you want to believe and be a member of the Catholic church. Find another denomination or religion with which you agree.”
No self-respecting person should feel obliged to accept everything that the Catholic Church teaches without disregarding some of the more ridiculous requirements. For example, my wife has been on the pill with the exception of when we had our kids. I consider her to be a good Catholic and I wouldn’t really listen to anyone who tried to tell me otherwise.
Well, you’re wrong Bill. According to this lot, you and your wife should not be taking communion. A Catholic isn’t what you do, it’s what you believe. A person can do everything a good Catholic does, but if s/he doesn’t believe what the Catholic Church tells her/him to believe, then s/he is not Catholic.
.
God is watching your thoughts, Bill, and whatever you do you will never be a worthy Catholic until you stop thinking on your own and swallow whatever excrement the current Pope gives you.
Bill, I don’t know where you learned the Catholic faith, but you must believe all the dogma of the church in order to be a Catholic. If you wife is on the pill, she is not a good Catholic. period
Bill, you and your wife are certainly not alone, and I am certainly not going to pass judgment (nor could I) on the virtue of your wife. However, I think so many Catholics don’t get why the pill and other forms of contraception matter. It seems like such a minor point, but that’s because most of us have never been taught in homilies or elsewhere why it matters. In a nutshell, the reason is this: the sexual act has 2 purposes—unity between spouses and children. The pill and other things like it divide those purposes such that the unity is there, but the children aren’t. It’s a lot like the ancient Romans who would eat to the point of discomfort for the pleasure of eating and then throw up on purpose so they didn’t get fat or continue to feel uncomfortable. It isn’t quite natural. If it matters to you, Janet Smith’s talk, “Contraception, Why Not” gives a really excellent explanation, and it’s on the internet for free.
The other thing specifically about the pill is that the modern lower dose pills carry a significant chance of causing an abortion. You don’t have to trust me on this. Whatever brand of birth control your wife is using, go to drugs dot com and look it up. They work primarily by preventing ovulation (no abortion there), but when that fails, they also work by making the uterus hostile to a newly formed embryo such that he or she can’t be implanted in the mother’s womb.
A lot of people would say that NFP is just “Catholic birth control,” but the difference is that rather than with contraception where the act takes place but is not open to life, the act that would be likely to bring about a new life simply doesn’t take place. Instead, the couple waits until the infertile time to express their unity in marriage. It requires sacrifice and self discipline, but the fruits are also really tremendous as the divorce rate of couples using NFP is something like 2%. Also, for people who say it doesn’t work, due to some difficult circumstances, my husband and I have been using NFP for 7 years straight, and our youngest child is nearly 8 years old.
Hey, Joe, I know you’re trying to defend the faith in all its beauty and fullness, but make sure you do it with charity. You can never know the state of another person’s soul. You can know whether something is objectively serious matter, but you cannot know whether it is done with full knowledge or full consent no matter what it looks like from the outside.
Pax Christi,
Carla
Well, my kids are 31 and 29. I am happily married and life is good. I think I will ignore Catholics like Joe and keep doing what I’m doing.
Perfect visual of Bill sitting on a bike, peddling nowhere…
Carla—which “act do you mean—the sex or the fertilization?
We went over NFP being a method of contraception on another post. The purpose of preventing pregnancy without abstaining from sex is the reason for the pill and the practice of NFP. If NFP was “open to life” it wouldn’t be necessary to track the woman’s cycle. If NFP was not for contraception, why schedule sex specifically for the time when the woman is not fertile?
.
Planning for sex only during the infertile parts of a woman’s cycle is no different than using a condom, or withdrawing before climax. The semen is fired, but the target is deliberately avoided. Fertilization does not take place.
.
NFP doesn’t prevent divorce but, by your own statements, you must agree that it does prevent pregnancy. Your current relations with your husband may be intimate, but they are not “open to life” because you, and not God, are making the decision.
Bethany, can I assume that you are intent on being faithful to the teachings of Holy Mother Church, including those that followed the 2nd Vatican Council? If so, then I would recommend that you read Humanae Vitae, especially from part 10 through 16, where Pope Paul VI clearly shows how different contraception is from the prudent use of reason. I was going to quote from it and thus put the matter to rest with the Church’s own words, but the quote would be far too long.
In the cases of a condom or withdrawal that you mentioned, the marriage act is disrupted, and I think I would contend that both the unitive and the procreational aspects of the marriage act are compromised, but most certainly the latter. With NFP, each and every act of marital union is open to life, contrary to what you said. The fact that we know that the likelihood of having a beautiful baby to hold in our arms afterward is very, very slight does not change that. There is no marriage act that is not open to life in a couple using NFP.
I would agree with you that NFP can certainly be practiced with a “contraceptive mentality,” and that is a danger—one which we must frequently examine to make sure we haven’t fallen into. With great frequency, my husband and I ask ourselves whether there is anyway that abandoning the use of NFP would be prudent (that cardinal virtue), if we are acting out of cowardice, if we are failing to trust God, if we are taking into account the great value that our children would have from a 6th sibling among them, if my health has recovered sufficiently to take the risk, etc. This is not something we take lightly. Believe me when I say that the moment it seems prudent to us according to the best determination we can make, as soon as the serious causes referred to in Humanae Vitae are no longer an impediment to the hope for another child, then we will stop using NFP to prevent a pregnancy. Yes, it does prevent pregnancy, but not by illicit means assuming one’s motivations are as they should be. It’s rare to have perfect motives, but one tries the best one can.
God gave us reason, Bethany. He expects us to use it to love Him and serve Him the best we can. In a perfect world, there would be no health problems, no job losses, and no need for NFP to prevent a pregnancy. That said, if in spite of our use of NFP I became pregnant, we would rejoice in the gift that God had given, knowing that His Will is perfect and we would be privileged to love another child of His.
“It’s a lot like the ancient Romans who would eat to the point of discomfort for the pleasure of eating and then throw up on purpose so they didn’t get fat or continue to feel uncomfortable. It isn’t quite natural.”
This fallacy comes from the word “vomitorium” where crowds spill out into an area large enough to avoid congestion. It is not a place to vomit after overeating.
“A vomitorium is a passage situated below or behind a tier of seats in an amphitheatre or a stadium, through which big crowds can exit rapidly at the end of a performance.”
As for the pill, it worked in controlling the size of my family and Catholic condemnation of it is stupid and largely ignored by most families with two children. There is no virtue in pumping out one kid after another. If you want a lot of kids, fine. No one is stopping you (unless you live in China). But don’t be telling men they can’t use condoms or women that they can’t take the pill. That’s just silly.
Carla, charity is telling people what they are doing wrong. In the bible, it says that we are supposed to confront those who are sinning, and if they don’t listen you are to let the church intervene. That is one of the problems with the church today. The clerics are afraid to reprimand their flock.
Oh, stop it Joe. You’re embarrassing yourself. I’m 61 years old. I don’t have to listen to you say that my wife and I have been sinning for the last 40 years. Just think about how silly you are being. If your faith is making you this way, maybe you should check out the cafeteria approach yourself. More choices can be good for you.
It’s funny how all of you focus on the controversial “rules” of the Catholic Church as if they are hard, set laws for mankind to adhere to, thus you spend your time debating and trying to “one-up” each other on points- no one is going to budge. Your spew of words means nothing in the end.
The Catholic Church’s view on all the issues mentioned comes down to one point, God’s. That’s why Truth is the center of all questions human’s have about morality and applying to their own lives. No one is being forced to choose, so why try to press your views on one another?
Truth answers every question we may have.
God knows that some will follow it and some won’t, so why get so worked up?
“The Catholic Church’s view on all the issues mentioned comes down to one point, God’s. That’s why Truth is the center of all questions human’s have about morality and applying to their own lives. No one is being forced to choose, so why try to press your views on one another?
Truth answers every question we may have.
God knows that some will follow it and some won’t, so why get so worked up?”
Karen, it is very presumptuous of you to think that you have a direct link to “God” and “Truth”. Many great minds would disagree with you. So, it is worthy of debate.
Carla—never assume anything.
.
I’ve been directed to read several things defending NFP, and they all fall short of the basic principle that the couple intend to prevent pregnancy by timing their marital relations to ONLY when the woman is infertile. You may be “working with nature, and not against it,” but your intention is to have sex and not produce a “new life.” You’re interfering with “God’s purpose.”
.
With NFP, each and every act of marital union is open to life, contrary to what you said. The fact that we know that the likelihood of having a beautiful baby to hold in our arms afterward is very, very slight does not change that.
.
I’d believe you, if you also had relations when you knew that it was very likely you would have a baby. You are practicing NFP with a contraceptive mentality and you even tell us how effective it is in that you have practiced it “successfully” for seven years. The fact that you know the likelihood of having a baby is very, very, slight is the reason you’ve timed you marital act. The same purpose is the reason for every other method of contraception. Stop fooling yourself.
My first reply is being checked for spam, and may not pass because it contradicts your statements, Carla.
.
I’ll try a shorter version. Timing marital relations so that you know the likelihood of having a beautiful baby is very, very slight is not trust God, it’s trusting science. If you trusted God, you wouldn’t have to make the effort, or abstain when you believe you are fertile. You are practicing NFP for the same reasons people use other forms of contraception—you want to have marital relations without making babies.
.
Kayla and Bethany, if this weren’t so sad, I would be laughing because I’m so used to defending my big Catholic family in secular society that needing to defend the use of NFP is a little unusual.
Kayla, why are you placing God and science in opposition to one another? Where scientists have discovered what is true, there is no opposition. God made the world after all. Can science be misused? Certainly, and these days it often is.
In this case, though, it seems to me that you are assuming that your wisdom is greater than that of Holy Mother Church, who has stated clearly in Humanae Vitae and Gaudium et Spes that the use of NFP is just in certain circumstances. If you are in a position where you can prudently allow children to come as they will, that’s wonderful, but passing judgment on those whom God is leading by other paths does damage to the body of Christ.
Joe, charity is calling a sin a sin, but it’s condemning the sinner.
Joe, I meant to say charity is calling a sin a sin, but it is not condemning the sinner. I left the word “not” out.
Carla—I am not suggesting that God and science are opposites. I’m saying you are practicing contraception by practicing NFP. It’s as simple as that.
.
I agree that prudence is a virtue and that you are being prudent for preventing conception of another child if you think the circumstances call for it.
.
Contrary to popular belief, the Church does not oppose artificial birth control because it’s artificial. She opposes it because it’s contraceptive. Contraception is the choice by any means to impede the procreative potential of a given act of intercourse. In other words, the contracepting couple chooses to engage in intercourse, and foreseeing that their act may result in new life, they intentionally and willfully suppress their fertility.
.
http://www.dioceseofscranton.org/parish-life-and-evangelization/marriage-family-life/natural-family-planning/
.
You are willfully suppressing your fertility by abstaining from marital relations when you foresee your act may result in new life.
.
The person who wrote the above quote is using the same flowery excuses, and you probably learned those excuses from your NFP class. However, NFP is compared to other methods as to it’s effectiveness for contraception. It’s recommended by Catholics as an alternative to the pill, etc., but the reasons are the same.
.
It would be reasonable if the Church preached abstinence all together if the couple does not want more children, but timing for the infertile part of your cycle is suppressing your fertility so you can have sex without pregnancy.
Another block to check for spam. Perhaps I use too many words.
.
I am not placing god and science in opposition. I’m saying you are practicing contraception. Contraception is necessary in the secular world and Church teaching had to “give” some sort of “alternative” method that meets that need or millions of Catholic couples would not be worthy of communion. NFP is using science for contraception, just as a condom, pill, or vasectomy/tubal ligation, depending on how the couple wants to continue relations and not “create a new life.”
.
Stop fooling yourself.
Back to the original topic, it’s a great day to be Catholic & I hope to see our new Holy Father on the news this evening.
To fast from food is infinitely different than to consume food and vomit it back up in order to enjoy the texture and flavor but avoid the calories. Fasting can be very good for the soul and body while bulimia is a mental illness. You, “Kayla” (sock puppet!) need to take a Philospophy 101 class to establish some reason in your abortion advocating, gay sex defending brain.
.
What a great day when a man who defends the smallest and most defenseless is elected Pope. Thanks be to God.
@Bill, really, you need to trade that cheap and filmy marble in your pocket for the Pearl of Great Price.
OK, Kayla, now I think I know where you’re coming from, though as you say, I will avoid making assumptions. Yes, I agree with you that the purpose of using NFP when it is used to prevent conceiving a child is in fact to prevent conceiving a child (it is also sometimes used to help conceive a child, as I’m sure you know). I agree that that is the same goal that couples have when they are contracepting. The difference is that the couple using the pill, condem, IUD, or whatever is engaging in sex but subverting one of its purposes. The couple practicing NFP (assuming serious cause for doing so) is not having sex at a time when a baby would be likely to be conceived. Like laughter said above, it’s the difference between bulemia and fasting.
Trusting God doesn’t mean abandoning reason or prudence, though there is a time for radical trust beyond human understanding. Under normal circumstances, though, God calls us to use the reason He gave us to the best of our abilities. What the Church teaches on human sexuality doesn’t fit well on a bumper sticker in our sound-bite society. My husband often says that these fine points in our faith are a lot like concrete. You need rocks, sand, and cement to make concrete. The cement is the smallest stuff by far—the fine points—but it is the cement that makes the concrete hold together. Our faith is like that—the small and seemingly unimportant matters hold the whole together. The Church moves at a glacial speed, deepening her understanding of the Gospel of Jesus Christ little by little. To the best of my knowledge, there is no other philosophy or religion in the world that so fully understands, supports, and explains human nature, but it takes some time and humility to see that. God bless you.
Oh, I don’t presume to know God’s mind…lol. I cheated and heard His words. Nothing more than that.
Peace!
I don’t believe some of the things that I read on these posts. Many of you have been falsely catechised. If you think that you can pick and choose what teaching that you want to believe and still be Catholic… The clergy has to clarify the teachings of the church.
The pope had the opportunity to make a statement by giving out communion and refusing to give Pelosi and Biden communion. According to the catechism, priests are supposed to refuse communion to Catholic public officials who are publicly pro-abortion. I am disappointed in the Pope.
Carla—I’ve heard that bit before—fasting vs. bulimia. That doesn’t wash.
.
You’re not “fasting”—You’re skipping dinner and only having the desert—all sweet but not nutritious.
.
The “bulimia” part suggests abortion more than contraception, in my opinion. (What are you throwing up?) At least it’s implying that you can have “too much sex” in a marital relationship—who are you to judge?
Bill S and Rodriquez,
You are under the mistaken impression that American Catholics are the majority of Catholics or even Christians in the world. The axis of Christianity is shifting. Christianity in the global south is a lot more focused on social justice, but is also socially conservative. You might want to read, John Allen’s ‘Future Church” or even, Philip Jenkins, “The Next Christendom”.
As Chesterton once said,“I am tired of arguing with people who prefer Thursday to Wednesday, just because it’s Thursday.”
And to the Catholics accusing Catholics who disagree with church teaching on something as heretics. Do yourself a favour and look up the definition of heretic.
Bill S,
This ones for you.
Millions Watch as Irrelevant, Dying Sect Inaugurates Poorly Dressed, Out-of-Date Leader
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/publiccatholic/2013/03/this-just-in-millions-watch-as-irrelevant-dying-sect-inaugurates-poorly-dressed-out-of-date-leader/
Adam who are you to decide? How do you know what Carla’s circumstances are? Would you say the same to my friend who has stage 4 cancer? She has seven young children. She doesn’t know if she will be alive this summer. Clearly you don’t give any merit to Humanae Vitae. That’s your loss.
anna lisa—who said I was deciding anything? I’m giving my point of view. I’m not sure what you are objecting to. I’m sure Carla has very good reasons for contraception and if NFP is her preferred method, it’s her choice.
.
I’m sorry your friend is dying—I used to work at a hospice and have known many dear people for a short time. Still, I don’t understand why you brought it up. Please explain.
Anna Lisa, I’m sure you know that Adam Wilson is Sandy/Gloria/Bethany, etc. She couldn’t get anyone else to go along with her ploy that NFP is contraception, so she’s using a male name this time to make it look like someone else agrees with her. I’m sorry about your friend. But, I have personally seen miracles in situations of Stage IV ovarian cancer, and I’m praying that your friend will be one of them. Situations like this certainly put our troll problem in perspective.
Anna Lisa, I will pray for your friend and her family—and thank you.
Adam, Kayla, and Bethany, I’ve been wracking my brain trying to come up with an analogy that works to explain the difference between contraception and NFP. I think sometimes we all understand things better via analogies. I think I have one, though it certainly isn’t perfect. If anyone here has suggestions for making it better, that would be great. Anyway, here goes:
The Smiths love to plant things in their garden, and they garden whenever they feel like it. It brings them close to each other. Sometimes new plants sprout up and sometimes they don’t, and it’s fine either way. Their garden is full of nutrients, and they know there is enough to sustain all the flowers that come up.
The Johnsons also love to garden, and they too garden whenever they feel like it, but they don’t want any flowers, so they spray pesticide all over the garden to make sure nothing grows there. If any little unexpected plant come up in spite of this, they have a long discussion about whether they should pull it out by the roots or let it live.
Mr. and Mrs. Lee also love to garden together, but they live in the desert where water is scarce and the soil is alkaline. In spite of this, they already have many flowers growing in their garden, but they know that if more flowers grew, there won’t be enough nutrients for the flowers that are already there, so knowing that the act of gardening brings them together as nothing else does, they only garden in the winter when nothing is likely to grow. They enjoy the time together and they do nothing to disrupt the seeds they have sown. If by some unlikely chance a seed should sprout, they give it everything they can and sacrifice to nourish it.
Mr. and Mrs. Wilson also live in the desert. They desperately want a beautiful garden full of flowers, but so far they can’t get any to grow. This couple studies the best methods for organic gardening in the desert, and they also learn everything they can about the best time for planting seeds so that the flowers can grow. They use this knowledge to make sure that their gardening efforts are most likely to be fruitful, and indeed eventually some beautiful flowers grow there, carefully nourished by the husband and wife.
The Smiths are living by God’s providence, making love when the time seems right. Objectively speaking, this is the ideal in a marriage—the generous parents of a large family spoken of in Humanae Vitae.
The Johnsons are contracepting. They make love when the time seems right too, but they also make their garden barren on purpose. If their method of contraception eventually fails as they often do, they consider what to do with this unwanted child. Hopefully they welcome him into their hearts and their lives.
The Lees are using NFP. Unlike the Johnsons, they don’t work the soil only to poison it. Instead, given that their circumstances involve one of several just causes given by Holy Mother Church for using NFP (health of the mother, education of the current children, and economic difficulties), they give up the joy of making love during the time when conception is likely. This is a sadness for them and a sacrifice, both of opportunities for being united to one another and also because they would love to have another baby, but doing so would make it difficult for them to provide the basics of food and clothing to their current children.
The last couple, the Wilsons, would love to have a baby. They resist the temptation to do so by illicit means such as in vitro fertilization and instead learn NFP very well so that they can use the reason and knowledge God has given to make it possible for them to do so naturally.
And Adam, there is nothing sweeter in this world than holding a newborn infant in your arms.
Gosh, Claire—you are so paranoid! You credit me with an agenda more diabolical than the Teabagger Party! I change my name because you keep getting me blacklisted. NFP is contraception—it looks like contraception, it’s practiced for contraception, and it is as good as or better than other methods of contraception.
.
There are people who respond to my comments and want my reply. Stop assuming that you are so important that I give a damn what you think of me.
Carla—You’ve agreed that NFP couples have the same goal as other couples who practice contraception. Why can’t you admit that the goal is preventing conception and still having sex? Seed is being spilled for no purpose—whether because of a condom/diaphragm, withdrawal, artificial temporary infertility with use of a pill, or intentionally abstaining from sex until the woman is in the infertile part of her cycle.
.
Carla—whatever your circumstances, you are not “open to life” in your current sexual relations with your husband. It’s OK by me, but I dislike the duplicity that you are using to ease your conscience because you were taught that you must be “open to life” at all times.
.
Comparing marital relations with an eating disorder degrades the marital relations you are trying to preserve with NFP.
Savvy heresy is
Savvy- Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of a truth which must be believed with divine and catholic (universal) faith… Catechism of the Catholic church (2089)
Can you pick and choose what laws you want to obey in the USA?
Gee Joe. Lighten up on the “Return” button. I guess by that definition, there are a lot of heretics including me.
Bill, I don’t know what you mean by “return” button.
Do you see the definition of a heretic?
NFP is not contraception, and if anyone here really wants to hear your reply it’s either because they’re trolls like you, or they’re trying to reach out to you in love. As far as paranoia, that would be you. I have done nothing to get you blacklisted. You have gotten yourself blacklisted by being a troll. People who stay on-topic and refrain from lying and game-playing post alternative opinions here all the time without being blocked, as is their right. Unfortunately, so do the trolls most of the time. I can’t believe all the time and effort you have put into your trolling. All the name changes, changes of URLs, just so you can be a troll. How about using all that energy to do something productive? Anyway, as I said, situations like Annalisa’s friend certainly put this pathetic troll situation in perspective.
Joe, I was referring to all the blank lines in your post.
Heretic
1 : a dissenter from established religious dogma ; especially : a baptized member of the Roman Catholic Church who disavows a revealed truth 2 : one who dissents from an accepted belief or doctrine.
I know I am a heretic. In another time and place, I could have been burned at the stake by our beloved Church.
Claire—who is trolling who? I really don’t think about you that much. Is your son better now?
.
Joe—for some reason what ever you pasted shows as blank space.
.
It’s not only my opinion—what is contraception if it is not deliberately changing sexual behavior to prevent conception? If NFP is not contraception why is its “success rate” favorably compared with other methods of contraception? I’ve been told of “spiritual” differences, and how NFP brings couples closer together and enhances their marriage. Those are wonderful benefits—but it’s the rate of success in preventing pregnancy that makes it a valid alternative to other methods.
.
(That reminds me—wasn’t Jennifer appalled that not getting pregnant was considered a “success” in a contraception research study?)
Carla—I love babies too! Like you, however, I would avoid having a child in circumstances where it would be irresponsible to have one. I think you are acting wisely and I admire that you consider your marriage worth putting off having another child, which you obviously want so much.
.
I just get irritated at the double-talk. NFP is a method of contraception and that is the reason you and your husband practice it. Period.
The Catholic Church has its followers tripping all over themselves and splitting hairs about this NFP being acceptable but other forms of contraception being “intrinsically evil”. It’s a crock. The Church screwed up. Admit it. There is nothing wrong with birth control. My wife was on the pill for 40 years. We have two great kids who are grown up and gone and life is good. What a big to do a out nothing.
Who’s trolling now? That would be you, Adam/Bethany/etc. Don’t even pretend that you love babies or that you’re concerned about my son. In one breath you offered prayers for him, and in the next you ridiculed the idea of praying for a sick child. You also mocked Annalisa’s miscarriage. Save your lies and your games for someone who is gullible enough to believe them.
Bill S., I’m really glad you have 2 great grown children, but I see this so often. People get defensive about choices they have made because having to go through the process of delving deep into their consciences and coming to the conclusion that they did something wrong is terribly, terribly painful. If you had done the opposite and sacrificed your moeny and your time to have a big busy Catholic family where every day ended in joyful exhaustion for years, do you think you’d regret that? I’m guessing the answer is no. You would be here saying that the joy and knowledge of your own generosity as well as your wife’s would have been worth it.
Adam, etc., is this correct? Are you saying that Catholics are being hypocritical by saying that NFP is not contraception when it serves the same basic purpose? I think our differences may in part simply be a matter of semantics. The word contraception means against conception, and using NFP to space or prevent the conception of a child is, at its base, against conception, right?
It’s a question of means and ends. The end is the same. The means is quite different. Please see my garden analogy above and let me know what you think.
Meanwhile, here’s a paragraph from part 16 of Humanae Vitae which addresses the question quite directly:
“Neither the Church nor her doctrine is inconsistent when she considers it lawful for married people to take advantage of the infertile period but condemns as always unlawful the use of means which directly prevent conception, even when the reasons given for the later practice may appear to be upright and serious. In reality, these two cases are completely different. In the former the married couple rightly use a faculty provided them by nature. In the later they obstruct the natural development of the generative process. It cannot be denied that in each case the married couple, for acceptable reasons, are both perfectly clear in their intention to avoid children and wish to make sure that none will result. But it is equally true that it is exclusively in the former case that husband and wife are ready to abstain from intercourse during the fertile period as often as for reasonable motives the birth of another child is not desirable. And when the infertile period recurs, they use their married intimacy to express their mutual love and safeguard their fidelity toward one another. In doing this they certainly give proof of a true and authentic love.”
Claire, thanks for the heads up, I had a feeling that it might be shim (she/him lol) but sometimes rad trads argue that point too. Strange bedfellows I’m afraid. I’ve been praying for your son since I read that thread yesterday.
@Bill, I can only hope that you hang out here because you crave *oneness* with the bride of Christ rather than evangelizing to your odd brand of atheism. It seems to me that there is something that keeps you away, because you don’t want to give it up, but your soul craves God knowing that the love of God is superior to that which you are stubbornly holding on to. Carla, that was a beautiful way of expressing what it means to be open to life according to one’s personal circumstances
Bill S. You are justifying your beliefs which are not in communion with the teachings of the church. I would suggest to find another faith with which you believe. Vatican II was a pastoral council, not a dogmatic council, so the teachings haven’t changed. The moderators won’t let me quote from “The Apostolic Digest” which has quotes from the bible, church fathers and popes. Everything I’ve posted I can back up by citation.
Post-Vatican II religion teachers have done a poor job in teaching the faith.
I want to apologize for saying that the Catechism says that Catholic public officials should not be given communion. Apparently, I’ve must have read it elsewhere. The American bishops said it is up to the individual bishops.
Annalisa: yes, definitely strange bedfellows! My son is much better. Thank you for asking and thank you for praying for him. It’s amazing how he can have pneumonia without any respiratory distress in the winter, but in the fall even a normal headcold (or sometimes even no cold at all) can put him into distress. His fall allergies apparently are his trigger point. Anyway, I’m going to sign off now (unsubscribe) because I am really trying to limit my troll exposure. Hopefully I’ll catch up with you on one of Simcah’s monitored threads in the future.
Well, Claire signed off again, but it’s obvious that she stays awake at night thinking about me. I guess she thinks I eat babies instead of loving them. (Baby back ribs——hummmmm!)
@Carla, the analogy of the garden is one I think of often, and not just as it pertains to fertility. My father says something like, “let many flowers bloom”—when it comes to the vast array of people, personalities, and personal circumstances. We are all scaling the mountain on our own path. I am grateful for the individuals who took it upon themselves to enlighten me to the hows and whys of the Church’s teachings on life. There was a time in my early life when I didn’t understand the difference between NFP and contraception. There was a time in my life when my husband considered contraception a necessary “imperfection” of this imperfect life that we live in. Now, after some years of struggle and with some water under the bridge, my husband and I are completely of one heart and mind on this subject. Ironically it took a being stripped down of all of our worldly goods that allowed my husband to be completely open to life. We thought we were set for life and then the opposite happened. We are well on our way to being back on our feet but when we were stripped of everything, we looked around us, and saw the eight beautiful children that were the culmination of all of our struggles. How good it is to know, love and be the cooperator with God of these immortal souls! My last four pregnancies have ended in miscarriage. I am at peace with this. I just turned 47, and am in the “autumn” of my life. I cherish these souls that come to me, and now know that I don’t get to “keep them” for long, but I rest in the confidence that God knows when a sparrow falls and has all of us—even the microscopic ones accounted for.
...And yes, not feeling a need to use NFP has been absolutely *lovely*. We may be in the autumn of our lives, but we are most certainly in the lush springtime of love. Thanks be to God.
@Claire, just in case you check back—I would recommend that you never subscribe to these threads. I don’t. I check back if I feel like discussing matters at a time that is convenient to me. Having an email inbox full of comments is tiresome. This way, if someone wants to make fun of me in an evil way, or if the thread becomes disgusting (devil curses from the troll) I just don’t go back to that thread.
I told you I’d get ya!
@Shim(Adam Wilson heh), I had my miscarriage before your curse. Nice try though Beelzebub. I have no fear of devils. They cower before God, and are pathetic sore losers. They end up marinating in their own poison.
How beautiful, Anna Lisa. I think I needed to hear that because we are going through a “stripping down” as you put it now. God knows what we need to become saints, and out of love He gives and takes away so as to lead us to Him. It isn’t always easy, though, is it?
According to a lot of you, Jesus loves me even if I don’t want it.
.
anna lisa—I never put a curse on you to have a miscarriage or anything else—but if it makes you feel better to attribute me with so much power, it’s OK with me.
.
I have not fear of any god or “devils” because they don’t exist. People like you invent them. You’re the ones turning off your follow-up notifications.
Are you saying that Catholics are being hypocritical by saying that NFP is not contraception when it serves the same basic purpose? I think our differences may in part simply be a matter of semantics. The word contraception means against conception, and using NFP to space or prevent the conception of a child is, at its base, against conception, right?
It’s a question of means and ends. The end is the same.
****
Now I’m confused—Do Catholics approve contraception or not?
.
Contrary to popular belief, the Church does not oppose artificial birth control because it’s artificial. She opposes it because it’s contraceptive.—quoted from Good News about Sex & Marriage by Christopher West—
.
http://www.dioceseofscranton.org/parish-life-and-evangelization/marriage-family-life/natural-family-planning/
.
West gives the same excuses as you, but if the Church opposes contraception because it’s contraceptive, then why should there be any difference in NFP vs. other methods?
Adam, no, Catholics do not approve of contraception, but insofar as you are saying that NFP is used sometimes to prevent a pregnancy, I agree with you that it is. The knowledge of NFP is used to prevent pregnancy, but it is a just way of doing so whereas those items commonly known as contraception (the pill, the IUD, condoms, tubal ligation, vasectomies, and the list goes on) are unjust methods of preventing the creation of a child in the womb because they attempt to separate the two ends of sex, which are unitive and procreative. With NFP there is no separation within a sexual act. There simply is no sexual act at a time when pregnancy is likely. Contraception is a distortion of sexuality. NFP is not. Contraception is like planting a garden and then pouring pesticide on it so nothing can grow. NFP is like not planting a garden when things are likely to grow. Surely you can see the difference, Adam.
Adam,
There is a difference between birth control and contraception.
@savvy
—I’ll bite—what is the difference?
.
Carla—the cite I posted says the intent to contracept—as opposed to the method—is why the Church objects to ANY human interference with your god’s will as to when and how many children he wants you to have.
.
The Pill is only the most recent method of contraception, because scientific method provided the information on how to affect the female cycle. Condoms, IUDs (stones—look it up) and the “rhythm method.” were methods practiced throughout history.
http://www.medicinae.org/e08
.
So what are your principles—do means justify the ends or do ends justify the means?
.
Are you agreeing with me that contraception is necessary, regardless of the Church, or that the NFP, is not contraception because the Church says so, in spite of it’s success rate in preventing pregnancy?
Darn—Spam police again!
.
Look—either you are preventing pregnancy or not. Scheduling sex so that it will be very, very unlikely to conceive and abstaining from sex when it is very, very, likely that conception will occur, is a method of avoiding conception—whether you call it “spacing of children,” or “avoiding pregnancy because of circumstances,” If you don’t plant the seed, you won’t get the fruit. If you want to control the market, you manipulate the planting of the seed. That’s using contraception to defy “god’s will,” and deciding for your own purposes whether you are “open to life.”
Adam Wilson,
Planting or not planting in accordance with the laws of nature is not the same as manipulating it. NFP is also not profit-driven. It’s the green solution.
There are 2 logical fallacies in your argument, Adam. First, you make the assumption that “scheduling sex” (though it isn’t quite so formal as all that) is somehow immoral. I’ll admit that it has its drawbacks, but they aren’t moral issues. I missed the commandment that said, “Thou shalt have sex every day.” :-)
Second, you state that using NFP is defying God’s will? You stated elsewhere that you don’t believe in God, correct? Therefore you are basing it on how you think a Catholic Christian perceives God to be, right? That version of God sounds look a boogey monster, not the loving Father I understand God to be—a Father who made us, knows our nature, and knows what we need to be happy with Him.
Perhaps all of your efforts to cause disquietude among the readers here come down to that. You may truly be an honest atheist (and I have known some very virtuous atheists) but you may also be one of so many living in pain, blaming God for it, and telling Him you don’t believe in Him in an effort to get back at Him for the pain that you think is really His fault.
May God bless you, Adam. He does exist, and He loves you.
Carla—when did I ever write that scheduling sexual relations was immoral? I’ve gone though this crap before—You don’t have to have sex everyday; periodic abstinence is beneficial for the marital relationship; both of you are “sacrificing” by withholding yourselves at certain times that just happen to coincide with the woman’s fertility cycle. All extremely shallow pretenses for NFP.
.
Why do you abstain when you are most likely to conceive—given your intense desire to hold a new life in your arms? Why do you welcome the “expression of marital relations” ONLY when you are the very least likely to conceive?
,
It doesn’t matter whether I believe in any god—what matters is that you do believe. I have no problem with contraception. You do have a problem with contraception because the Church objects to the principle motive for contraception.
,
You also suggest that I’m here to simply “cause disquietude” just for the helluvit. And how “kind of you” to acknowledge that some atheists might be virtuous! (sarcasm) It seems you can’t understand that I’m telling you that god doesn’t exist.
.
You are still avoiding the point—You are practicing contraception so that you can enjoy the marital relations with your husband without the fear of pregnancy. You are practicing contraception because you know it would be irresponsible in your current circumstances to “let God decide.”
Look. Just admit it. Pope Paul XI screwed up and now everyone has to shift their own common sense worldview to be consistent with Humanae Vitae. NFP, condoms, the pill, etc. It’s all good.
“The world may change but God does not.”
You’re kind of assuming that there really is a “god”.
“Objective truth either _is_ or _isn’t_.”
And who gets to judge what is “objective truth”? You? The Pope? Me?
“If He does exist ... in fact leads to the ones that chose wrong being eternally unhappy.”
And if there are no gods, those who wasted their time praying simply wasted their time. (Now about their money.)
“eye on the Big Prize”
Hilarious.
Bill S. and Adam, as I said before, the reasoning why Humanae Vitae makes sense doesn’t fit neatly on a bumper sticker. Unfortunately, we live in a society where people want sound bites, so they reject what takes a little more thought. There’s no shift of common sense needed—just some real thinking. Adam/Kayla/Bethany, I don’t see why you can’t see the difference. At this point, we’re both just saying the same thing over and over again. You say contraception is the same thing as NFP because both have the same purpose. Do you think that the way a thing is done doesn’t matter? Say I want a new car. I could steal the car or I could buy the car. The end is the same. The means are considerably different.
I’m so glad, by the way, the you acknowledge the effectiveness of NFP. When one comes across it in the secular media, they often still refer to the outdated “rhythm method” and state that it is minimally effective.
Another major difference is this—NFP is using reason. There’s no device involved. That same reasoning ability can be used to help a couple conceive. There is no contraceptive method that can be used in both ways.
Bill S,
Have you even read Humane Vitae? Because until you have, SHUT UP. We are tried of you entering every thread and not making any useful contributions.
Adam,
You seem to put the focus on intent. Yes, I agree in both cases the intent is the same, but the means is different. It’s the difference between robbing a bank when you want money for a good cause, and doing it in a different way.
The key issue here is natural law. NFP works in accordance with the natural rythmns of our body, already established by God. Contraception does not.
Oh, please! I’ve been dished out that kind of analogy before. I know NFP is not the just the “rhythm method” because it’s been refined by science and reason.
.
Contrary to popular belief, the Church does not oppose artificial birth control because it’s artificial. She opposes it because it’s contraceptive. Contraception is the choice by any means to impede the procreative potential of a given act of intercourse. In other words, the contracepting couple chooses to engage in intercourse, and foreseeing that their act may result in new life, they intentionally and willfully suppress their fertility.—from Good News about Sex & Marriage by Christopher West.
.
As to you analogy about acquiring a car, it doesn’t matter to the Church as to how you get the car. What matters is the Church has declared it a sin to own a car!
.
You’re intentionally and willfully supressing your fertility by abstaining from sex BECAUSE you are in fertile part of your natural cycle to avoid the result of a new life. Every method of contraception uses reason and what ever method you use to make sure you’re infertile so you can have sex is a device. NFP can be practice to help a couple concieve, but it mainly practiced and promoted as a method of contraception.
.
You can fool yourself, but you are not fooling anyone else.
Savvy—you don’t seem to understand—the Church is opposed to the intent of contraception, which is why I’m focusing on it.
.
The Church also has affirmed that the illicitness of contraception is an infallible doctrine: “The Church has always taught the intrinsic evil of contraception, that is, of every marital act intentionally rendered unfruitful. This teaching is to be held as definitive and irreformable. Contraception is gravely opposed to marital chastity, it is contrary to the good of the transmission of life (the procreative.aspect of matrimony), and to the reciprocal self-giving of the spouses (the unitive.aspect of matrimony); it harms true love and denies the sovereign role of God in the transmission of human life” (Vademecum for Confessors 2:4, Feb. 12, 1997). —http://www.catholic.com/tracts/birth-control (emphasis mine)
.
The key issue is Church law, not natural law. Natural law promotes conception, NFP is practiced to prevent contraception.
I have to keep changing my name to get my point across.
The Catholic Church is opposed to the intent, which is why I’m focusing on intent.
.
“The Church has always taught the intrinsic evil of contraception, that is, of every marital act intentionally rendered unfruitful. This teaching is to be held as definitive and irreformable.”
—http://www.catholic.com/tracts/birth-control
.
NFP can be used to help a couple concieve, but it is promoted and used as a method to prevent conception.
Carla—my previous comments are being checked for spam and I’ve changed my moniker to get my point across.
.
On your analogy of the car, the Church considers the desire for the car to be the intrinsic evil—whatever means you use to acquire it. NFP is the scheduling of marital acts such that it is ensured that the acts will be unfruitful. What part of the “evil” intent don’t you understand?
Bill—savvy is getting annoyed with you. How dare you suggest Paul XI made a mistake?
.
I hope you are researching Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District.
.
“The Church has always taught the intrinsic evil of contraception, that is, of every marital act intentionally rendered unfruitful. This teaching is to be held as definitive and irreformable.”
—http://www.catholic.com/tracts/birth-control
Exactly! Contraception is rendering the marital act unfruitful. NFP does nothing to render the marital act unfruitful. It is simply using the knowledge we have of a woman’s cycle to make sure that the marriage act only takes place during the infertile portion of her cycle. Let’s not lose track here of the fact that the Church says NFP can be used for serious causes—not in order to be selfish.
Regarding the car analogy, you state, “the Church considers the desire for the car to be the intrinsic evil…”, but if we’re actually referring to sex here, that isn’t true. Desiring union with one’s spouse is certainly not evil. Desiring what is good is good.
Bill S. et al, Paul VI was the pope responsible for Humanae Vitae. There has not yet been a Paul IX.
If we are hoping for real dialogue here, it’s necessary to do more than just repeat yourself and be willing to give a little where truth allows for doing so. It’s becoming difficult to continue to assume that your intent is in fact to come to the truth together rather than just taking potshots. God bless you.
Buddy,
I do not have an issue if he thinks the Pope made a mistake, but that he likes to go on threads and ramble on and on about things he has not even read. I do appreciate the fact, that you are making an effort.
It seems you can’t understand that I’m telling you that god doesn’t exist.
...
And you don’t seem to understand that we believe He does exist. It’s a simple point yet an important one.
...
You and those like you come onto a Catholic website, definitely cause disquietude, some of you spew your hate and sarcasm when in fact - we don’t really care.
...
Like you, we are free to believe what we want. What I don’t understand as I follow posts like this one and the comments that follow is - why do you care what we believe? You don’t believe in God - that’s fine, that’s what you want to do.
...
Why are the intricacies of NFP vs. contraception so important to you? You won’t sway anyone here no matter how many names you use or how many ways you say it. So - why bother at all? The very clear absence of a desire to see things from another point of view and agree to disagree can lead us to one conclusion:
...
You do it to antagonize people. And given that fact, those of us who do believe in God and who are Catholic should just ignore people like you on these threads. If no one responds to your repetitious bullying, then you’ll go away. Or you’ll just be stuck in your own echo chamber.
...
Either way - I wish you peace. Not in the name of God but in the name of common courtesy.
“I hope you are researching Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District.”
I saw the Nova program on YouTube. Schools can’t teach ID because it inevitably leads to Creationism. Still, there is something to fine tuning of the physical properties, DNA codes, irreducible complexity like the flagellum motor, etc. I know they lost and that is good for science education, but there is definitely an intelligence behind the fortuitous events that resulted in human intelligence.
“but that he likes to go on threads and ramble on and on about things he has not even
read.”
Savvy,
You asked if I read Humanae Vitae, that disaster by Paul VI, yes, I did.
Oh, Bill—you’re breaking my heart. “Irreducible compexity” has also been disproven.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html
.
I agree, the universe is awesome! Don’t make “fine tuning” you observe as evidence of a designer—you’re ignoring the chaos.
.
You might want to explore the Talk Origins site for more on the “debate.” It’s much more interesting than Catholic-approved literature.
Kris in New England—I know I’m never going to get through to a hard-core Catholic, and that’s not why I’m here to antagonize people.
.
I’m here to engage in discussion of the issues where religion is imposing itself on secular human behavior. I resent being told my sexuality is abnormal, that my gay friends are mentally deranged, that my method of contraception is immoral while you deny that NFP is another method of contraception.
.
I’m antoginizing the people who will listen to reason and get them to reasonably explain why they believe in a logical debate.
Looks like the spam police let my comments through.
“Don’t make “fine tuning” you observe as evidence of a designer—you’re ignoring the chaos.”
Sorry. I don’t know what you mean. I wii do some research.
I’m here to engage in discussion of the issues where religion is imposing itself on secular human behavior.
...
No one is forcing you to avoid using contraception, to believe that homosexuality is wrong nor are we telling you that your own sexuality is abnormal. We aren’t attempting to impose our beliefs on you, yet you seem to feel completely OK with imposing yours on us.
...
You’ve been answered - many times, by many people, on multiple posts - yet you choose to continue to berate, antagonize and annoy those who have answered you many times on multiple posts.
...
You don’t like the answers so you continue to browbeat people because you disagree.
...
If you don’t like what Catholics, and Christians in general, believe - then why bother with us at all? We aren’t forcing our beliefs on you, we aren’t telling you that YOU can’t use contraception or that YOU must belive that being gay is a sin.
...
You don’t want to be forced into anything but you insist on forcing yourself onto this group and continually rehash the same tired arguments whenever YOU decide it’s time to change the subject to your pet issue of contraception.
...
You bring up nothing new. So again I have to wonder - why do you bother?
Bill—I mean the chaos of the universe is just as awsome as the fine-tuned patterns—you’re missing out on half the beauty.
.
Here’s another site related to the Talk Origins site:
http://www.talkreason.org/
Kris—Catholics are interfering in politics, government, schools and healthcare.
.
Why are you angry with me now? Claire and anna lisa have had their panties in a twist over me for months.
Kris and Joe, I’m not sure you’re right when you say that Bill S. should just choose another faith that agrees with him or that we make a mistake in continuing the search for truth in dialogue with those like Adam (et al) who don’t believe in God at all.
When in doubt, it’s always good to look to the lives of the saints (and of course Our Lord Himself) for an example. I just finished reading a very nice biography of St. Dominic to my children. He didn’t give up on the Albigenses. St. Francis de Sales didn’t give up on the Calvinists in his diocese. Always with love, they reasoned with them. I know it can be exasperating, but don’t forget that there are human beings made in God’s image (whether they know it or not) on the other side of those words. We must never lose patience with them even if their goal is merely to cause disquietude. Who knows what fruit will come from it, either for them God willing or for someone else because the arguments they have helped us develop here will be just what someone else needed to hear to draw closer to Christ, and we all need that.
Oh please. I am not angry with you Adam/Sandy/Whateveryournameis. I just find it so odd that people like yourself insist on coming onto a site like this one. Clearly, over many posts in the past few weeks alone, it must be abundantly clear that you will not sway anyone who frequents this place as a Catholic.
...
How exactly is the Catholic Church interfering in healthcare? If you are referring to the HHS Mandate, I’d say it’s government interfering in religion. And how to Catholics interfere in schools? Last time I looked it was the government that took religion out of schools completely. As to the rest of it, you could say that about every religion, organization or other group.
...
Anyone with an agenda to put forward is involved in politics. That’s what politics is all about.
...
Again - I’m not mad at you. Though I daresay that Claire and annalisa have cause to feel negatively towards you (if indeed they do). You haven’t exactly been - polite - to them.
...
And again I come back to my original point with you and others like you - why are you here on a site that by definition is Catholic-focused? You say you know you can’t change the mind of “hard core Catholics” and you could even go so far as to say “hard core Christians”. Yet you flog the same dead horse every single time.
...
I’m bored with it. Aren’t you???
Carla - I think you have me confused with someone else. I never said anything to Bill S. about finding another faith. And I’m not saying we shouldn’t pursue truth in dialog. We should - but when some of the conversation is manipulated by people who will never agree with you and have made that abundantly clear over and over again…where is the truth to be found?
Kris, I think it was Joe earlier who said that Bill S. should find a different faith. Sorry. That’s what I meant to say. I am similarly frustrated by the lack of willingness to budge an inch instead of just repeating the same tired lines, but we pray for the Holy Spirit’s guidance and do what we can, which may be very little, but who knows who will read this a year from now and find just what she needs to have the courage to go off the pill and start using NFP or simply put God in charge of her fertility.
Adam etc., I do find things to rejoice over in what you have to say. The fact that you know of NFP’s efficacy is great and unique in the secular world, and the fact that you think Catholics are actually having an effect in the public square is also really great news. In fact, given how very anti-Catholic and indeed anti-Christian so much of the American government is today, I’d say if you’re right, it’s something of a miracle. :-) Have a great day!
Carla—
“Marriage is intended to be fruitful; God said so Himself! God’s plan for the sanctification of the married couple includes their cooperation with God in procreating new souls destined for Heaven. NFP doesn’t explicitly fly in the face of such an understanding, but it is dramatically not submissive to God. NFP is all about a degree of control that is objectionable in any traditional Catholic understanding of marriage or Catholic spirituality in general.
.
NFP promoters attempt to elevate non-abstinence (that is, the circumvention of the need to abstain from the marital embrace) to the level of a virtue, achieved by gaining knowledge of God’s designs so as to frustrate them. In other words, NFP promoters see the marital act as having “unitive” value that trumps its procreative value; therefore, engaging in marital intimacy when there is no risk of pregnancy is considered good in and of itself….
.
……It seems silly to claim that one is “open to children” when one is organizing one’s life around having sex not likely to be fruitful! The NFP “way of life,” when not practiced to achieve pregnancy, is all about sterile sex – sex that is meant only to make the couple feel good, with no consequences attached to that pleasure. The “background music” of the NFP way of life is always about sexual intimacy: “when we can, when we should, when we can’t, and when we shouldn’t”……….”
—from Dr. Jay Boyd’s Natural Family Planning: Trojan Horse in the Catholic Bedroom?
Carla—yet again my message is being check for spam. It was a quote from a book on NFP by a Catholic scholar, so it think it may pass.
“I resent being told my sexuality is abnormal, that my gay friends are mentally deranged, that my method of contraception is immoral while you deny that NFP is another method of contraception.”
Nobody is making these claims about your sexuality or about your gay friends. Nobody hear even knows what the heck your sexuality is.
Look, Pal I do not lose sleep over what someone else does. If you do, it’s your problem, not mine.
Adam,
My sister used NFP to conceive. So NFP can be used to conceive as well as not to conceive, because it’s let you follow the natural cycles of your body. The same cannot be said of contraception, whose only purpose is not to conceive.
Adam,
The HHS mandate line of reasoning is that if a religious order that has a school, a healthcare ministry etc, is not religious, because they do things outside their church. So an order of nuns that has a school or hospital is not religious. The govt is trying to define religion, not the other way around.
Carla,
It’s more like some people are mad, that we will not bow down to their new commandment, that says, “thou shall bow down to the sexual revolution” because you see refusing to do so makes me uncomfortable, and makes me question my actions. How dare you do this to me?
Bill S,
The disaster of Humane Vitae predicted has come true with high divorce rates, women being reduced to sex objects, sex as consumerism, and govts trying to force population control methods on people.
This is why Wiegel called “Theology of the Body” the counter sexual revolution, that is a ticking time bomb about to go off, in the third millineium of the church.
Savvy—it doesn’t matter that it is also possible for NFP to be used to ensure conception—the point is the intent not the means. Can’t you get that?
.
The government is not trying to define religion—it’s just not pandering to it so much any more. The majority of American citizens want contraception and gay marriage rights. If the nuns don’t want to include contraception in their employee insurance plan, they don’t have to—they just won’t get government funding and employees who want the contraception benefit will leave. Considering you don’t want anything to do with government regulation, it works out for everyone.
Adam,
No, you do not get it. It does not bring in artificial barrier to conception, just a natural one.
The mandate applies to even those groups that do not receive govt. funding. Please learn the facts.
http://www.politicususa.com/catholic-hospitals-treating-pregnant-women-based-vatican-dogma.html
.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/angela-bonavoglia/reproductive-crisis-do-no_b_602086.html
.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXC86CawqMA
Savvy—get it in your head—NFP is direct human manipulation of fertility in order to have sex without conceiving a child. The Church considers the primary purpose of sex is to create a new life; ANY activity to prevent the creation of a new life defies the purpose of sex and is inherently evil.
.
Personally, I have no problem with contraception of any kind. You Catholics, however, do have a problem with it. Theoretically, preventing conception in marital relations, whether it is “natural” or not, is defying the purpose of marriage.
.
Let me put another question to you: how would you feel if your unmarried daughter were practicing NFP with her “boyfriend?”
Adam, you said the following:
“The government is not trying to define religion—it’s just not pandering to it so much any more. The majority of American citizens want contraception and gay marriage rights. If the nuns don’t want to include contraception in their employee insurance plan, they don’t have to—they just won’t get government funding and employees who want the contraception benefit will leave. Considering you don’t want anything to do with government regulation, it works out for everyone.”
This is absolutely not correct as Savvy pointed out, and this isn’t only limited to Catholics either. Last I read, Hobby Lobby was being fined over a million dollars per day for refusing to include abortifacient drugs such as the morning after pill in their health plan as required by the HHS mandate. I assume they don’t have a problem with the drugs that are “merely” contraceptive, but I could be wrong. Thousands of small businesses run by Catholics and other Christians are in the same boat where they must decide to provide murder as one of their “health” benefits, face business-closing fines, or limit their full-time employees to less than 50 so they don’t have to provide benefits at all.
How about addressing an issue you brought up rather than moving on without acknowledging your mistake? It would bring a lot more credibility to your actions here.
Regarding contraception, see above.
If my unmarried daughter were practicing NFP with her boyfriend, I would continue to love her, be very sad that she was living in sin, talk to her about it on occasion, and be glad that at least she wasn’t committing a 2nd serious sin by contracepting.
Adam,
No, Adam. Church teaching is that Sex is BOTH unitive and procreative. It forbids artificial contraception or the intend to establish an artificial barrier. Not a natural one that already pre-exists.
My hypothetical daughter, would be separating the unitive from the procreative, since she does not intend a life-long union with her boyfriend. Sex seals the marriage, so she would be committing a marital act without intending to do so and therefore would be lying with her body.
I do agree that NFP can be used outside of a marriage, but you would need a lot of patience and it will not work if someone keeps changing partners.
There are feminists in Canada, that promote NFP, they are not religious, but agree that it does not work if you are not serious.
Adam,
I do not see the point of your links. Are you saying that Catholic hospitals should not be Catholic? Shutting them down will not just affect Catholics. The govt wants it both ways. They want these hospitals to function and they want them to violate their conscience.
Adam, I just took a look on Amazon at what I was able to see of the book that you mention above by Jay Boyd—Natural Family Planning: Trojan Horse in the Catholic Bedroom?
Obviously, I didn’t read the whole book, but it looks like her thesis is that many Catholics have forgot the “serious cause” part of Humanae Vitae. This is true. The author states quite clearly even on the back of the book the fact that she agrees with the Church that NFP is licit in serious circumstances. I don’t think you’ll find anyone among the serious Catholics in our current discussion who thinks it’s okay to use NFP so you can buy your 16-year-old a car or even pay for college for your current children.
I’m still not sure why you don’t see the difference between NFP and contraception. Since you are claiming that we Catholics are being inconsistent, it seems reasonable that you would accept the Catholic view that any act at all is made up of motive and object (means and ends), and both must be considered in determining the virtue or vice of a given act, and, well, see above for everything that has already been said.
Carla,
Serious reasons could be different for each couple, depending on their circumstances. But, I agree with everything else you have said.
Savvy, as you probably know, there are a few distinct reasons given in Humanae Vitae—health of the mother, education of the children, and economic circumstances. Obviously, there’s a significant amount of room for interpretation within each of those three. That’s where serious discernment comes into play, right?
Carla—our exchanges are getting us nowhere fast. It seems you don’t agree with me that the Church opposes ANY active behavior that is motivated by the intent to have sex and knowingly prevent conception.
.
It also seems to me that you believe the intent of using NFP to prevent conception, in itself, is OK with the Church so long that there are DIRE circumstances that make it “prudent” not to create new life AND that it is “not suppressing fertility.”
.
The best guess I can make from these observations on my part, is that we both agree that NFP and other methods of contraception are practiced for the same purpose—to have marital relations while ensuring the most minuscule probability of conception as a result of said marital relations.
.
In my book, as the purpose of NFP and other methods of contraception are in opposition to “trusting God” to determine how many (or not) new lives zfd produced in your marital union. NFP, when used to schedule sex for infertile times in your cycle is intrinsic evil, according to Church teachings.
,
It seems to me that you believe NFP is not contraception because you are using the fairly recent ability to accurately identify fertile and infertile periods in your female reproductive cycle—something that was a “mystery” until the 20th century.
.
It seems you believe that taking advantage of this very accurate method of identifying the infertile state of your cycle to have unfruitful sex is not the same, in principle, as actively rendering the woman infertile with the pill, or preventing the deposit of sperm into the uterus with barrier/spermicidal methods. You like to believe that NFP is “working with God,” as opposed to other means of contraception.
.
So the question is about moral relativity—do you believe that practicing NFP to prevent conception is, because of its purpose, intrinsically evil?
.
Look at the quotes that got past spamville above—they don’t deny that NFP is a practice of contraception, they dictate that the only acceptable method of contraception for Catholics is NFP and you better have damn good reasons for using NFP in your marital relations.
.
So—stop pretending that NFP is not a method of contraception and start focusing on how to clean up your circumstances so that you can again be “open to life.”
“The key issue here is natural law.”
There is no such thing as “natural law”. It’s simply “made up” so that Catholics can attempt to claim that their desire to control other people is rational.
“why do you care what we believe?”
You wish to control others based on your beliefs.
“We aren’t attempting to impose our beliefs on you”
True. But you are attempting to impose “constraints” upon other people.
Would you make abortion illegal? Then it can be argued that your imposition is mainly the result of your religion, not rationality.
“If my unmarried daughter were practicing NFP with her boyfriend, I would continue to love her, be very sad that she was living in sin, talk to her about it on occasion, and be glad that at least she wasn’t committing a 2nd serious sin by contracepting.”
Boy, that’s an incredibly scary statement. It just makes the whole perception of sin ludicrous. “Mom, I’ve got good news and bad news for you. The bad news is that Jay and I are having sex. The good news is that he is not using condoms and I am not on the pill. We are timing our intimacy to coincide with my infertile periods and leaving the rest up to God.”
Earl,
No seriously informed person thinks natural law was made up by Catholics. Please do some research. The rest of your statements are just speculation.
I’m saying it’s criminal to allow a woman to die because the heartbeat of the non-viable embryo doesn’t stop soon enough for doctors to treat her inevitable miscarriage. Your Catholic dogma is so important that you would rather have two dead bodies instead of one.
.
Women and homosexuals have the legal right to treatment—the church would allow them to die. Church finds such murders acceptable just as it finds NFP an acceptable form of contraception.
.
If doctors can’t “violate their conscience” they are still obliged and responsible for the patient and must ensure the patient is provided with the best medical care from people who are willing to provide it.
.
http://www.salon.com/2013/02/07/clergy_are_not_doctors_and_the_u_s_has_its_own_savita_halappanavars/
.
And if anna lisa is reading this, she should consider herself lucky that her miscarriage didn’t take too long, or she might not have been around to take care of her other kids.
Buddy,
The spin continues. There is nothing in Catholic teaching that says the heart-beat of the non-viable embryo has to stop before treating a pregnant woman. Look up the principle of double effect. It’s more like in this case, the doctors did not understand Catholic teaching, and this was not even a Catholic hospital, but a public one. The doctors were idiots, who understood neither Irish law nor Catholic teaching.
In fact, Irish law already permits abortion in the same circumstances the woman was in.
Journalists there is something called research. Please get the book, The Seven Principles of Journalism that I had to read in J-school.
Carla—my response to savvy applies to you as well. Catholic dogma is interfering with women’s healthcare and women are suffering because of it. The Catholic church “approves” of NFP and set’s its own “definition” as to why it is acceptable compared to other methods of contraception; it also decides that a woman’s life is less important than an embryo that will never take a breath.
.
You obviously believe your circumstances are serious enough to allow you to practice NFP—if NFP is not contraception, why are you practicing it? It’s been an effective contraception method for you for seven+ years—how bad are things for you that you had to practice it so long?
.
As to the theoretical daughter—I wouldn’t expect you to “stop loving her.” My point is that she would be having sex for pleasure, and the practice of NFP is contraceptive in that she is not open to life—she does not want to end up pregnant until if and when she gets married. Is that a serious enough reason to practice NFP?
Buddy,
Catholic teaching considers all life to be important and forbids the direct killing of an unborn human being. Higher levels of academia no longer use the word choice. It’s now called justifiable homicide. And planned parenthood has recently dropped the word choice from it’s vocabulary.
There are laws against killing unborn animals, but not human beings. You should be glad that somebody is asking questions.
And BTW, the numbers of pro-life atheists are on the rise. You might want to see this.
http://secularprolife.org/
Carla—you might want to look at this site:
.
http://womenintheology.org/2011/03/29/women-speak-about-natural-family-planning/
Savvy—you may like to think that the “double effect” makes it acceptable to abort an embryo with a heartbeat to protect the mother’s life, but it is documented that the Church disagrees.
.
First of all, the medical staff have to submit the case to the hospital board of medical ethics, which has to interpret if the case meets “double effect” criteria. In Catholic hospitals, the board includes at least one clergy member who have little, if any, medical training who decides this interpretation. The heartbeat of the embryo has priority over the health of the mother, and a woman who is bleeding and in considerable pain is put on antibiotics and transfusions until the heartbeat stops. ONLY if the mother starts actively dying, the board will consider the double effect applies—and they still have to wait for the board’s approval.
.
If the doctors violated hospital policy and aborted the embryo before the heart stopped, they would have been subject to severe reprimand and penalties to their careers because Savita was not in immediate danger. Again, this would be judged by Catholic interpretation as opposed medical ethics.
.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excommunication_of_Margaret_McBride
Buddy,
Do you have actual church documents instead of Wikipedia?
http://www.cuf.org/FileDownloads/doubleeffect.pdf
BTW the excommunication of that nun was reversed, simply because of the principle of double effect. Canonists declared it not applicable.
“On December 8, 2010, the hospital released a statement that said Sister Margaret has since “met the requirements for reinstatement with the church and she is no longer excommunicated. She continues to be a member in good standing with the Sisters of Mercy and is a valued member of the St. Joseph’s executive team.”
http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1019&context=lzilinski&sei-redir=1&referer=http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=sister mcbride excommunication reversed&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CDQQFjAA&url=http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1019&context=lzilinski&ei=ub9MUauxAoPW2gXnnIC4Dg&usg=AFQjCNE9dvK4IMgdtzyL6aS7jAgs0NM_fg&bvm=bv.44158598,d.b2I#search=“sister mcbride excommunication reversed”
Just to be clear, the principle of the double effect states that an action may be taken that is likely to harm or even kill the infant in the womb in order to save the life of the mother. For example, the mother is discovered to have breast cancer while pregnant. It is legitimate for her to undergo chemo or radiation even if there is a great chance that it will cause the death of the baby.
However, it is never permissible to kill the baby outright for any reason. That is what happened at Saint Joseph’s in Phoenix. They killed the baby and then treated the mother. They didn’t have to kill the baby to treat the mother, though it was a complicated and difficult case, and she might have died had they acted differently.
It is never right to take one life to save another. It’s the same situation as a gunman telling you that unless you kill John, he’ll kill Sally, Susan, and Samantha. In that situation, it’s still wrong for you to kill John. The size of the person does not change that in the case of abortion.
Bishop Olmsted is a very holy man, and I’m sure he didn’t take the step of excommunication without pursuing everything else first. The religious sister involves admitted to her mistake and is now in a state of communion once again (or however you say that). However, Saint Joseph’s refused to give up their “right” to perform abortions and is now no longer a Catholic hospital.
Carla,
This was a complex case. Bishops are not canonists. And cases have to be studied, before making a decision. But, yes I agree about the hospital.
Margaret McBride had to go to confession and resign her position. The hospital itself has been excommunicated, so the Church still rejects the “double effect” applied to the case.
http://ncrnews.org/documents/olmsted_statement_dec21_2010.pdf
.
This is even with the consideration that “Her doctors stated that the woman’s chance of dying if the pregnancy was allowed to continue was “close to 100 percent”.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excommunication_of_Margaret_McBride
.
So the Church still views that allowing the mother to die—even when the embryo/fetus has no chance of survival—should is the ethical position, as opposed to medical ethics which are to do what every is necessary and effective to save the life of a person who <i>can<> be saved.
.
And yes, I would “John,” if that was the only way to prevent him from killing three innocent women. You would let John kill them—I’m sure their families would respect your faith. (sarcasm)
.
Again, if anna lisa is reading this—she should consider herself lucky that it wasn’t a choice between her miscarrying embryo or saving her life. Both she and her unborn child would be dead.
Marked for a spam check again—I guess certain terms set up a red flag. Here’s the shorter version, Carla. Maybe it will pass:
.
McBride had to go to confession and resign her post; the Church severed its ties to the hospital. They still affirm that the “double effect” principle did not apply and that they should have let the woman die.
.
Yes I would kill John if that were the only way to save the lives of innocent women—apparently you would not. Do you think their families would respect your decision based on your faith?
I can tell you the family of Savita Halappanavar, who are Hindu, do not respect your views.
Buddy,
I am interested in seem some documentation for these claims. In this case, it was NOT the principle of double effect, since it did not involve treatment and direct killing.
Savvy—the point is that <b>Bishops are not physicians.</i> Olmsted judged the case from his comfortable home, while McBride had to deal with a life or death crisis.
Buddy,
I understand this, but pro-life physicians who are not Catholic, also hold the same views, so it’s not like these things are just invented by Bishops. In fact Catholic hospitals are among the few places where pro-life physicians can actually work.
http://www.prolifephysicians.org/rarecases.htm
Savvy—
http://ncronline.org/news/people/excommunicated-sister-finds-healing
.
From the article:
.
“She told the audience that she complied with the bishops’ two requests for the excommunication to be lifted. One request was that she had to go to confession to a priest, and the other was she had to resign her position.”
.
St. Joseph Hospital also issued a statement:
“Consistent with our values of dignity and justice, if we are presented with a situation in which a pregnancy threatens a woman’s life, our first priority is to save both patients. If that is not possible we will always save the life we can save, and that is what we did in this case,” said Hunt. “We continue to stand by the decision, which was made in collaboration with the patient, her family, her caregivers, and our Ethics Committee. Morally, ethically, and legally we simply cannot stand by and let someone die whose life we might be able to save.”
.
http://www.stjosephs-phx.org/Who_We_Are/Press_Center/211990
“Once the physician-patient relationship exists, the physician can be held liable for an intentional refusal of care or treatment, under the theory of Abandonment. (Abandonment is an intentional act; negligent lack of care or treatment is medical malpractice.) When a treatment relationship exists, the physician must provide all necessary treatment to a patient unless the relationship is ended by the patient or by the physician, provided that the physician gives the patient sufficient notice to seek another source of medical care. Most doctors and hospitals routinely ensure that alternative sources of treatment—other doctors or hospitals—are made available for patients whose care is being discontinued.”
—
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/A+Physician’s+Duty+to+Provide+Medical+Treatment
In the Arizona case, couldn’t the hospital have tried to treat the mother without performing an abortion, as in the double-effect principal that Carla mentioned?
Also, involvement in an abortion directly or indirectly results in automatic excommunication. Bishop Olmstead did not excommunicate her, he simply pointed out the fact that she had excommunicated herself.
Buddy,
The principle of double effect is mainstream in the pro-life movement, regardless of what xyz church does.
That being said, Joan has a valid question.
A Catholic hospital was sued FOR aborting unborn twins. So it seems like they get into trouble both ways. Damned if you do, Damned if you don’t.
Joanp62—NO!
Don’t you think a Catholic (at the time)Hospital would have considered that?
.
The Church was/is important to McBride, and she was force to acknowledge that her medical ethics were wrong. She was also removed from her post—likely to prevent her from possibly making a similar decision in a new case. Also, Olmsted made it public that she was excommunicated.
.
She may love the Church so much that she submitted to the bishops’ demands to confess so that the excommunication could be lifted, but that is a big cost to her integrity, dignity, and professional ethics to save lives that can be saved.
.
Also, blaming her for “automatically excommunicating” herself is just another way you split hairs. She was being punished by the Church because Olmsted decided from the comfort of his home that she was disobedient and shouldn’t have acted without it’s approval.
.
Look at St. Joseph Hospital’s statement above—would you let someone die just to belong in the Church?
Savvy—I’m glad you brought that up—the lawyers for the Catholic hospital got it off the hook by arguing that a fetus is not a person!
.
Of course, they’re apologizing now—after the case was dismissed in the hospital’s favor. We have yet to learn if the Church will excommunicate the lawyers or their clients. Any bets?
.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/02/05/catholic-hospital-fetuses-not-people/1892575/
Buddy, or whatever your name is- NO! The bishop did not make it public!
And NO! It appeared to me from the articles that were prevelant at the time that they did not consider it. No mention that they tried to treat the woman’s condition, just that they determined an abortion was needed. Just because a hospital is Catholic, does not mean that the employees working there are, or if they are that they necessarily will follow Church teaching, evidently. I thought the woman in the case had severe hypertension. Women have been known to get this while pregnant, including someone I knew. Abortion was not considered to be the treatment.
Buddy,
Catholic hospital administrators or lawyers for a Catholic hospital are not always Catholic. The church cannot excommunicate non-Catholics.
Joan,
Buddy here is trying to say that doctors and staff have no choice because if they do not get in line they will be excommunicated and kicked out of the church. First, of all excommunication does not end church membership. It’s more like a medicinal penalty. An excommunicated person is still Catholic.
And yes, you are right, that murder, abortion and euthanasia would lead to self-exommunication, regardless of whether it’s made public or not.
Savvy, agreed. I always thought excommunication meant that you could not receive the Sacraments or do any of the things that required being a Catholic in good standing. An excommunicant may still go to Mass, because anyone can come to Church.
So you have no problem that a Catholic hospital appointed non-Catholic (maybe) lawyers to argue that fetuses aren’t persons to save them from the consequences of a lawsuit?
.
Why are you “correcting” me on that detail? The lawyers may not have been Catholic, but the defendants (the administrators of the Catholic Health Initiatives and St. Thomas More Hospital) probably are Catholic, or at least were obliged to base their policies and procedures on Catholic dogma. The lawyers had to have their approval to present that defense.
.
So, any bets?
Buddy,
I DO have an issue with what the administrators and lawyers did and I am glad they were taken to task on it.
“Bishop Thomas Olmsted of Phoenix, who is a “walk-softly-but-carry-a-big-stick” type of bishop, has stripped the label “Catholic” from the St. Joseph Medical Center. Olmsted confirmed reports that an abortion had been performed at St. Joseph’s, and get this – with the full consent of its administrator, Sr. Margaret McBride.
.
Bishop Olmstead also announced that, by giving her approval, Sr. Margaret McBride had excommunicated herself from the Catholic Church.”
.
http://www.crisismagazine.com/2010/bishop-olmsted-of-phoenix-sends-a-message
.
What part of the statement: ” Her doctors stated that the woman’s chance of dying if the pregnancy was allowed to continue was “close to 100 percent”.” don’t you understand?
.
Excommunication was painful for McBride and she had to humiliate herself before the excommunication could be lifted. Also, she was/is regarded by conservative Catholics as a murderer of an unborn child.
“And NO! It appeared to me from the articles that were prevelant at the time that they did not consider it. No mention that they tried to treat the woman’s condition, just that they determined an abortion was needed. Just because a hospital is Catholic, does not mean that the employees working there are, or if they are that they necessarily will follow Church teaching, evidently. I thought the woman in the case had severe hypertension. Women have been known to get this while pregnant, including someone I knew. Abortion was not considered to be the treatment.”
.
Joanp62—do you need a step-by-step report of what happened? Do you think that all cases of “severe hypertension” are the same? Look again—the woman was suffering from pulmonary hypertension. Levels of mortality are very high in pregnant women with severe pulmonary hypertension. Pregnancy is sometimes described as contraindicated in these women.
.
Do you suppose the anecdote of your acquaintance who experienced severe hypertension when she was pregnant, allows you judge the medical ethics of professional physicians?
.
You act as though arrogance is a virtue.
Posted by savvy on Friday, Mar 22, 2013 8:17 PM (EDT):
Buddy,
I DO have an issue with what the administrators and lawyers did and I am glad they were taken to task on it.
_______
Bully for you!
Buddy,
This was a comment posted on the Crisis magazine site by a doctor who is affiliated with the hospital.
As a physician who is on the medical staff of a Catholic Healthcare West affilliated hospital may I make the following comments
1) The situation of a young mother with pulmonary hypertension is medically challenging
2) The termination of pregnancy in a situation such as this is morally challenging and good people with the best moral intent may reach different decisions
3)Sister McBride, her ethics committee, the medical staff of St Joseph’s Hospital (Phoenix) and by extension CHW erred
4)The facility was a Catholic facility and did not (till that occassion) perform abortions
5) The termination of that pregnancy was not an emergency and the patient’s life would not have been endangered if the procedure were peformed at another facility.
9)Sister McBride made a political not a moral statement with her actions.
Vatican ethics are directly opposed to medical ethics on issues vital to women’s life and health. I know the excommunicated are still Catholic, but they must humiliate themselves and damage their integrity by rejecting their medical ethics to submit to the Church to regain their Catholic standing.
.
Suppose you jumped into a river to save person who fell in the water, and upon saving that person’s life you were fined for violating the “no swimming” law that was posted near the river’s edge?
Buddy,
“Suppose you jumped into a river to save person who fell in the water, and upon saving that person’s life you were fined for violating the “no swimming” law that was posted near the river’s edge?”
But, this was not the case. We are talking about killing innocent life, not saving one for another. It’s more like giving an innocent person the death penalty to save someone else.
“Vatican ethics are directly opposed to medical ethics on issues vital to women’s life and health.”
You mean like do everything you can to save BOTH lives, instead of taking the easy way out.
Buddy/Adam/Kayla/Bethany, I am very sad to hear that you would be willing to take an innocent human being’s life in order to “save” the 3 other people in my hypothetical situation, but that is a perfect example of how fundamental our differences are. What all this comes down to is the question of Truth versus situational ethics. Do you believe that an embryo is human? Do you believe that the embryo is alive? These are both pretty obvious scientific facts with no faith necessary at this point—far more so than when Roe v. Wade was passed thanks in part to sonograms.
Here’s the logic of those of us who are Catholic here, if I may dare to speak for more than myself alone:
1. An unborn baby is human and alive.
2. All human life is of infinite value.
3. We do not have the right to kill human beings, most particularly innocent ones.
4. Therefore we do not have the right to choose to kill one human being in the hope of saving another human being.
5. We do, however, have the right to do all that we can to save one human being short of directly killing another (principle of double effect).
Instead of just slipping away once again without addressing this and what so many others have said, how about letting us know which part of this you disagree with?
There are quite a few “ethics” professors who now contend that mothers should be legally allowed to kill their infants until they are 2 months old. As barbaric as their opinions are, it does follow logically from legal abortion, which follows logically from contraception. I’d love to know if you think killing 2-month-old babies is okay too and under what circumstances.
I keep pasting links that really upset the though police on this site. Maybe it will be posted, but I’ll try again.
.
“...a 27-year-old woman was admitted to St. Joseph’s Hospital and Medical Center in Phoenix. She was 11 weeks pregnant with her fifth child, and she was gravely ill. According to a hospital document, she had “right heart failure,” and her doctors told her that if she continued with the pregnancy, her risk of mortality was “close to 100 percent.”
The patient, who was too ill to be moved to the operating room much less another hospital, agreed to an abortion. But there was a complication: She was at a Catholic hospital.”
.
I’m afraid if I paste the link, it will be spam-blocked again, but it’s from and NPR article around the time the story broke. Maybe you could try looking yourself, before you automatically decide that anything else could have been done.
.
What part of “too ill to be moved” don’t you understand? Any other suggestions as to what the hospital “should have done?”
“It’s more like giving an innocent person the death penalty to save someone else.”
.
It’s more like letting an innocent person die while you give emergency treatment to a brain-dead person.
.
Why do all your posts have so much white space?
“You mean like do everything you can to save BOTH lives, instead of taking the easy way out.”
.
Do you actually believe the hospital “took the easy way out?” Read the statement I pasted above.
.
I posted this in another exchange, but I’ll do it again:
.
Sometimes I think that if the Vatican made the “infallible” decree that bears do not **** in the woods, Catholics would immediately start “reasonable” arguments as to why it is a fact. If shown a live broadcast of a bear doing its business in the woods, they would dismiss it.
.
Stop making excuses for your Church’s warped morality.
Buddy said, “What part of ‘too ill to be moved’ don’t you understand? Any other suggestions as to what the hospital ‘should have done?’”
Certainly. She shouldn’t have been moved to another hospital to have an abortion because abortions aren’t only wrong at Catholic hospitals. It isn’t easy, and it sounds heartless and even pointless to you I’m sure, but the hospital should have done everything they could to save the mother short of killing her baby.
What you’re just not getting is the idea that it isn’t right to directly kill one person in order to save another person. It’s that simple, but in the midst of a terribly difficult situation like the one at Saint Joseph’s, it’s hard to remember that unless you know it full well ahead, and the ethics committee at a Catholic hospital certainly should have known what any Catholic learns in Ethics 101. That is the problem.
Buddy,
Check out this story, where a doctor decided to take a different position in the same situation. Doctors are not always right. They are human too.
http://www.wisn.com/Doctor-Gives-Hope-To-Pregnant-Women-With-Heart-Condition/-/9374034/8079188/-/rrox6m/-/index.html
“Sometimes I think that if the Vatican made the “infallible” decree that bears do not **** in the woods, Catholics would immediately start “reasonable” arguments as to why it is a fact. If shown a live broadcast of a bear doing its business in the woods, they would dismiss it.
.
Stop making excuses for your Church’s warped morality.”
You do not understand what infallible means. It has nothing to do with the issues we are discussing, since infallibility has only been invoked 2 times in 2,000 years!
Savvy—I looked at the article, and I think it’s great. Science rules!
But anecdotes don’t mean that every situation involving pulmonary hypertension or ANY other condition will be the same with every patient.
.
But the woman at St. Joseph’s was about to die—there was no time to move her to an operating room, let alone give her any other treatment. She was in crisis in an emergency room—JoShara Rodgers was lucky enough in having been diagnosed in time and was able to consult with the cardiologist who successfully saved both mother an child. Very likely the 40 women that make up Dr. Zwicke’s 100% success rate were also diagnosed before it became a crisis.
.
It’s a wonderful medical breakthrough, regardless of religion or world view. There will still, tragically, be events where abortion is necessary so that the mother can survive and it is inevitable that the child would not.
The Church made infallible statements about abortion and contraception—even the ridiculous notion that NFP is not contraception. Here we are—discussing the medical necessity of abortion in certain situations, and whether the practice of NFP to prevent pregnancy is or is not contraception.
.
Savvy—you and Joanp62 have set yourselves up as medical experts of women’s healthcare in your support of the Church. You make moral judgments against professionals whose first duty is to save lives that can be saved.
.
One day, your life will be on the line—everybody dies sooner or later. Will you presume your superior expertise then?
Carla—I do understand your ethics—I just find them repulsive.
.
Here’s a classic scenario.
.
A ship is sinking and there aren’t enough life boats. One life boat is filled to capacity. Another person boarding the boat will cause it to capsize and all the people on the boat will drown in freezing waters. Desperate people are clawing and begging to get on the boat. To make it more interesting, one of the people begging to be let aboard is a pregnant woman.
.
What do you think you should do? What are the Catholic ethics in such a situation?
Carla—would you let your pregnant daughter die if she were in the same situation? I know Catholic ethics and they are despicable.
What part of “infallible” don’t I understand? Please explain.
Buddy,
I still think you have trouble understanding Catholic teaching on NFP.
NFP takes advantage of the natural rhythms of fertility and infertility. Contraception suppresses and manipulates fertility. Do you not see the difference?
Sister Mcbride is not a murderer. Its more like what she did was wrong, but because of the seriousness of the situation culpability for one’s actions is reduced.
Perhaps in light of the recognition of the reality of moral tragedy, and the recognition that McBride’s participation in evil was largely a result of tragic circumstances.
This is why canonists hold the excommunication was lifted.
Look, I will go with canonists who know what they are talking about in this case, rather than op-eds from both conservative and liberal Catholics.
Buddy,
The Hippocratic principle that the true physician’s first responsibility is to “do no harm.”
There is no moral casuistry that can justify doing the “harm” that is the intentional taking of an innocent human life — period. Attempts to justify termination in such circumstances by redefining the act of termination border on the Orwellian, further confusing the public discussion.
“I still think you have trouble understanding Catholic teaching on NFP.”
.
Duh! We’ve been over it—It’s timing sexual intercourse so that the sperm won’t be fired while there is a target. For some reason I can’t fathom, you insist that NFP is different from other methods of preventing sperm from getting to it’s target. You also, insist that it does not have the same intrinsically evil intent of making sure it is almost impossible for your sexual relations to produce a child.
.
Either McBride sanctioned the death of an unborn child, or not. The Church consider that murder. They have their ways of “forgiving” the crimes of their followers, but that is the Church’s infallible decree. The Church does not allow for mitigating circumstances or there would not be a problem. The Church also did not allow for the “tragic circumstances” for the hospital itself—whose policies and procedures conflict with the Church in such dilemmas.
Don’t you think it does harm to let a woman die when she could be saved? What if it was your wife/daughter/sister?
“Excommunication was painful for McBride and she had to humiliate herself before the excommunication could be lifted.”
She was humiliated a lot more by the media, and is hence refusing to comment on this issue.
“The Church also did not allow for the “tragic circumstances” for the hospital itself—whose policies and procedures conflict with the Church in such dilemmas.”
They did not before this issue. Exceptions are now being discussed. I live in Canada, where this is the case.
“Either McBride sanctioned the death of an unborn child, or not. The Church consider that murder”
Yes, it’s murder, but given the circumstances, the person committing it, is less culpable.
As for the NFP argument. You are missing the point that there is a DIFFERENCE between being naturally infertile, and rendering an act infertile on purpose. There are ALREADY times when a person is naturally infertile.
Buddy,
“Don’t you think it does harm to let a woman die when she could be saved? What if it was your wife/daughter/sister?”
If I have to steal bread to feed my starving family or kill someone in self-defence. Stealing is still wrong, and taking a life is still wrong. However, the circumstances, would make me less culpable.
This is what I am trying to explain.
Let me get this strait—Abortion is intrinsically evil; to either sanction it or some how be responsible for an abortion is an automatic excommunication; excommunication is a “medicinal punishment” that that requires the admission of guilt and repentance before it’s “lifted” AND the person have to remove him/herself from a position where it might be possible the same moral dilemma could occur again.
.
Olmsted’s formal statement that McBride violated the Church law and cause the killing of a child was a public humiliation before her fellow Catholics and clergy. So was the necessity of confessing she was wrong to not to allow the mother to die at the cost of a brain-dead fetus. And on top of it all excommunication is not really so bad.
.
Get real—the Vatican ethics are interfering with a woman’s right to life when it is necessary to abort a non-viable fetus to save her.
.
Again, how would you feel if it was your wife/daughter/sister?
Buddy,
I have explained this issue with the stealing example. The thing is a non-viable fetus is not less human than one that is viable. This is an argument made by pro-abortion advocates.
No—in law, killing someone while you are committing another felony is 1st degree murder.
.
I wrote before—It’s like leaving a person who could be saved to die while giving emergency treatment for to a brain-dead patient. Sometimes, in medical situations the choice is painful, but obvious. The Church demands apology and repentance for doing the right thing.
Buddy,
If you are pro-abortion and do not see the fetus as a human being, then it’s understandable why you would make this argument and why you think it’s right to take a life.
This whole thing brings us back to the abortion debate again.
You’re dodging my question—let me make it more personal: If it were up to you to sign the consent form while your wife/daughter/sister was actively dying and there was no treatment that could save her fetus, but she could be saved ONLY with a therapeutic abortion, what would you do?
.
I get that you consider an unborn child’s life equal to every other persons life, but face it—God already decided the outcome for the child. A physician has the moral obligation to do whatever s/he can to save a life that can be saved.
“If it were up to you to sign the consent form while your wife/daughter/sister was actively dying and there was no treatment that could save her fetus, but she could be saved ONLY with a therapeutic abortion, what would you do?”
I would sign the form, but I would still admit that it was the direct taking of a life.
.
Buddy, a therapeutic abortion is a contradiction in terms. Yes, a physician does have a moral obligation to whatever s/he can to save a life that can be saved EXCEPT directly taking another life. The funny thing is that although this is one of the primary arguments in favor of abortion by those who are pro-abortion, in real life this rarely comes up, but here we are discussing an actual case where it really did come up.
But I will answer your question. If I were actively dying and I was pregnant with a 10-week-old child, I would tell the doctors to do everything they could do to save both of us, but I would also tell them absolutely not to kill my baby to save me. Hard as that would be in my own case given that it would mean leaving my husband without a wife and my children without a mother, it would be harder still if it were my daughter or sister, but the same truth holds that it is wrong to kill one human being to save another.
Your example does not hold either. You compare it to triage in the emergency room where the patient with the greatest chance of survival and the most urgent need is attended to first. That isn’t a valid comparison because in that case, the ER doctors don’t kill the brain-dead patient before attending to the one with a good chance of survival. They let him die. Again (and again), we’re back to the difference between means and ends. The end is the same. The brain-dead patient dies. The means are different. They let him die. They didn’t kill him.
That’s the same difference between NFP and contraception, the same difference between you killing one person so the gunman doesn’t kill 3 versus you stating that you can’t do that, the same difference between killing a baby and trying to save the mother by every other means but that.
You’re a very clever individual who I think is refusing to see some very obvious differences. Why?
“If it were up to you to sign the consent form while your wife/daughter/sister was actively dying and there was no treatment that could save her fetus, but she could be saved ONLY with a therapeutic abortion, what would you do?”
What you are describing sounds like the principle of double effect.
Carla,
Correct me if I am mistaken. Sister Mcbride directly took innocent life. However given the tragic circumstances, her culpability is reduced, like it would if I stole bread to feed my family. It would still be stealing and objectively wrong, but I would be less culpable.
Buddy, sees nothing wrong with the stealing itself and therefore thinks its wrong to call it wrong.
“What you are describing sounds like the principle of double effect.”
.
Funny—Margaret McBride thought the same thing.
/
Bringing up the abortion debate is an underhanded ploy to avoid admitting that there are situations where abortion is necessary because the condition of pregnancy is killing the mother. You’re moving the goal posts. Our discussion is about whether and outcome will be a dead fetus, or a dead mother and fetus. This is not abortion on demand—it’s saving a woman’s life.
.
Carla—It’s obvious that you love the Catholic Church more than you love anyone else. Can you say you really love anybody?
Carla,
“Yes, a physician does have a moral obligation to whatever s/he can to save a life that can be saved EXCEPT directly taking another life.”
Buddys argument is that what if there is NO other choice except to take the life to save one? And the person making the decision is not you, but someone else.
Buddy,
Carla has the right to make her own decisions. I would do the same if I were her. The question, you posed is not about me or Carla, making a decision, but someone else making the decision for us.
“Carla—It’s obvious that you love the Catholic Church more than you love
anyone else. Can you say you really love anybody?”
This is a dishonest question since Carla is laying down a life for a friend. It’s called love.
Savvy—stop making assumptions-both stealing and killing are wrong, but as you say, there are certain circumstances that make you less culpable. But if you signed the consent papers for an abortion of the living embryo/fetus to save your wife/daughter/sister’s life you would excommunicate yourself and have to confess that your decision was wrong.
.
Carla—OK you would accept dying for your non-viable fetus and subjecting your family to a double funeral instead of a single one. What if it was your daughter in the emergency room? How much do you love her?
.
“The question, you posed is not about me or Carla, making a decision, but someone else making the decision for us.”
.
The woman in the McBride case consented to the abortion to save her life. If McBride followed Catholic ethics, she would not be alive today.
.
Savita Halappanavar and her husband (who are Hindu) begged for doctors to complete her inevitable miscarriage, but OTHERS decided to refuse her until they decided to do so. The dying fetus and hemorrhaging from her uterus eventually developed the septicemia that killed her. The Catholic Church made the decision for her—is that justice?
“I would sign the form, but I would still admit that it was the direct taking of a life.”
.
Would you believe it was a wrong decision and that you deserved excommunication? Would you repent your decision to consent the taking of a life in favor of another life? Would you renounce your rights as next of kin so that you wouldn’t be in a position to make that kind of decision again?
.
You’re dreaming up all sorts of situations where medical ethics are violated in patient care. A patient has the right to refuse treatment, and McBride acted in performance of treatment the patient needed and wanted. A hospital has the obligation to give the best possible medical care to a patient and the Catholic hospital refused to help Savita Halappanavar until THEY decided it when they should do so.
.
McBride’s patient lived because she violated Catholic ethics; Savita Halappanavar is dead because physicians stuck to Catholic ethics.
.
So, yes—it is a matter of someone else making the decision for you.
More potential spam in my reply—OK try again.
.
“Buddys argument is that what if there is NO other choice except to take the life to save one? And the person making the decision is not you, but someone else.”
.
Do you make a special effort to be an idiot, or just when I’m around? If a patient is conscious, s/he has the right to refuse treatment; if s/he is unconscious, the default assumption is that the patient wants to be saved; but an operation such as an abortion, cannot be performed without either the patient’s or the next of kin’s consent.
.
Someone else made the decision for Savita Halappanavar and her husband.
.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2248909/Husbands-grief-fury-Irish-abortion-law-condemned-wife-death.html
Well, I missed alot. Buddy with regard to your post of 8:41 pm, I will concur with Savvy’s response here:
Posted by savvy on Friday, Mar 22, 2013 8:52 PM (EDT)
Buddy wrote: “Do you suppose the anecdote of your acquaintance who experienced severe hypertension when she was pregnant, allows you judge the medical ethics of professional physicians?”
No, not to judge because of the anecdote I supplied. But certainly we have a right to question.
Savvy and Carla, thank you for taking the time to respond to Buddy’s posts. Don’t think I could have said it any better. God Bless.
The Sister McBride case is all the evidence that anyone would ever need to remove the Catholic Church from any matters involving moral and ethics. Any worldview that chooses the life of a baby over the mere mitigation of risk of harm to the mother has no place in decisions that must be made at hospitals. I would never send a pregnant woman to a Catholic hospital (or maybe even to any hospital in a “Catholic country” like Ireland) for fear of loss of the mother because they refused to take the life of the baby. That is just so wrong.
Savvy, you’re doing an awesome job here. You asked if I thought stealing to feed one’s family in a situation of starvation reduces culpability. I believe the answer is that yes, it does. That’s the question of motive and object (means and ends) discussed above. One thing though, and I may have misunderstood what you said, but the principle of the double effect does not apply to the Saint Joseph case or to any case that involves a direct abortion. It applies to actions that may cause harm or even death to the fetus but are nonetheless permissible because the motive is to save the mother’s life, like my example of chemotherapy for a pregnant woman above.
Buddy, you have attacked me personally several times. I thought we were discussing matters of truth and objective reality, but I will try to answer nonetheless. Do I love anyone? Yes, I do, though imperfectly to be sure. God’s love is perfect. Mine is not—far from it.
Since we’re attempting to define so many things, let’s define love, shall we? To love is to will the good of another. Do you agree? Sometimes it includes warm fuzzy emotions, and sometimes it doesn’t, but at it’s core, it is an act of the will. Given that definition, is it loving to be the cause—direct or indirect—of killing an innocent human being?
I fear a world where your ethics prevail because they change based on your feelings. Such a world would (and indeed sadly does) exist on ever-shifting sand.
You don’t even have to be Christian to make sense of the ethics the Church holds true and that you condemn so vehemently. Read Aristotle, and you will find most of it right there. Look at Socrates who chose to die for the truth and Plato who determined by logic alone that there could only be one God. Even the ancient Greeks saw abortion as an evil never to be performed as evidenced by the Hippocratic oath.
Buddy,
The Irish case was completely different from the US case involving sister Mcbride. There was NOTHING stopping the Irish doctors from acting. There are Irish doctors testifying who confirm this.
The country’s General Medical Council guidelines already allow for abortion in “rare” cases when a pregnancy would threaten the mother’s life. The guidance states, “In current obstetrical practice, rare complications can arise where therapeutic intervention (including termination of a pregnancy) is required at a stage when, due to extreme immaturity of the baby, there may be little or no hope of the baby surviving. In these exceptional circumstances, it may be necessary to intervene to terminate the pregnancy to protect the life of the mother, while making every effort to preserve the life of the baby.”
“Obstetricians and Gynaecologists Dr. Sam Coulter Smyth, Dr. Mary McCarthy, and Dr. Rhona O’Mahoney responded to probing questions from Senator Dr. John Crowne, a leading oncologist. Asked whether they knew of any instances of “needless maternal deaths” from the current ban on abortions, all three insisted that they were aware of no such instances. Further, they said they had never been prevented from providing life-saving medical treatment by Ireland’s pro-life laws.
“Earlier this year an international group of 140 obstetricians and other physicians meeting in Dublin issued a statement denying that abortion is ever “medically necessary” for women.
“Earlier this year an international group of 140 obstetricians and other physicians meeting in Dublin issued a statement denying that abortion is ever “medically necessary” for women.”
What was the motivation for the statement? Were they all Catholic?
Bill S,
The leading Oncologist who testified, is an atheist. But, that is not the point being made. The point is that there was NOTHING under Irish law or Catholic teaching, that could have stopped the doctors from acting in her case.
This case is being exploited by pro-abortion groups.
“Kitty Holland, the Irish Times reporter who broke the story about the death of Savita Halappanavar that launched a global crusade against Ireland’s pro-life laws, has admitted that the story of Mrs. Halappanavar asking for an abortion may have been a little bit “muddled” in the retelling, and there may have been no such request after all.
Holland later told the state broadcaster RTE that her coverage in the Irish Times “never suggested” that an abortion might have saved Mrs. Halappanavar’s life.
</b>“Journalists have a responsibility to ensure that the reader understands when matters are factual and when they are uncorroborated. Yet the Irish Times tossed that responsibility aside in order to force abortion into the centre of this tragic case concerning a miscarriage and septicaemia.”</b>
“As leading medical experts have pointed this case had very little to do with abortion, yet the headlines around the world became more lurid by the moment,” she added.
Listen to the full interview here.
http://media.newstalk.ie/listenback/174/wednesday/1/?uniqueID=2837929
Kitty Holland, the Irish Times reporter who broke the story about the death of Savita Halappanavar that launched a global crusade against Ireland’s pro-life laws, has admitted that the story of Mrs. Halappanavar asking for an abortion may have been a little bit “muddled” in the retelling, and there may have been no such request after all.
Holland later told the state broadcaster RTE that her coverage in the Irish Times “never suggested” that an abortion might have saved Mrs. Halappanavar’s life.
</b>“Journalists have a responsibility to ensure that the reader understands when matters are factual and when they are uncorroborated. Yet the Irish Times tossed that responsibility aside in order to force abortion into the centre of this tragic case concerning a miscarriage and septicaemia.”</b>
“As leading medical experts have pointed this case had very little to do with abortion, yet the headlines around the world became more lurid by the moment,” she added.
Listen to the full interview here.
http://media.newstalk.ie/listenback/174/wednesday/1/?uniqueID=2837929
Bill S,
A better question is what was the motivation behind the head of a radical pro-abortion group running the investigation, when even the reporter who broke the story says, she never said, there was a request for a termination.
Watch her interview here
http://media.newstalk.ie/listenback/174/wednesday/1/?uniqueID=2837929
“The point is that there was NOTHING under Irish law or Catholic teaching, that could have stopped the doctors from acting in her case.”
When Savita and her husband asked for an abortion, they were told “this is a Catholic country..” and were denied. She suffered and died a terrible death because of the convoluted Irish laws that are influenced by the Catholic Church.
Bill S,
Do you have trouble reading? The guidelines concerning these cases are clear, it was the doctors who were ignorant about them and should have known better. It seems to me that you’re motivated by hatred towards the Catholic Church rather than sound thinking.
Bill S,
The reporter who broke the story claims there was no request for a termination, as later media outlets allege.
Spam police yet again—I’ll paste the quote and article header for your to Google. Apparently links to certain secular websites and suspect or totally blacklisted.
*****
Treatment Denied: Catholic Hospitals Refuse Care—posted January 11, 2012
“he Phoenix story drew national outrage, but lesser-known cases of religious doctrine affecting medical care are rampant….In Arizona, a couple raced to a Catholic hospital ER after the wife miscarried one of a pair of fetuses, only to be sent to a secular facility after doctors determined that the twin fetus was still alive — though not viable. And in New York, doctors at a Catholic institution neglected to terminate an ectopic pregnancy (in which the fertilized egg begins to develop outside the uterus) even though the embryo could not possibly survive and the patient faced a potentially fatal rupture of her fallopian tube.”
.
[Re the McBride case}, John Ehrich, the medical ethics director for the Diocese of Phoenix, told NPR at the time. “There are some situations where the mother may in fact die along with her child. But — and this is the Catholic perspective — you can’t do evil to bring about good. The end does not justify the means.”—Salon—Clergy are not doctors.
.
(Isn’t that comment interesting? NFP is sanctioned by the Church because the means justify the ends.)
I keep getting spam-checked! New name to try posting again.
******
Savvy—maybe you should learn to read.
****
“Savita Halappanavar was 17 weeks pregnant when she arrived at Ireland’s Galway University Hospital complaining of severe back pain. She was soon informed by her doctors that she was miscarrying, and that her fetus had become nonviable.
.
It was then that she asked for, but was denied, the abortion that could have saved her life.
.
Doctors told Halappanavar that it would be illegal to terminate the pregnancy while the fetus’ heart was still beating. They explained that, because of Ireland’s strict laws governing abortion services, their “hands were tied.”—-Salon.com, February 14, 2013.
.
The article also blames the doctors in the case, who may not have followed up on indications that she might have had infection of arrival to the hospital, etc. The main point, however, is that an abortion could have saved her, but it was denied because of Catholic ethics and not on Medical ethics.
Savvy,
Irish laws on abortion are a disaster and it is all because of the power that the Church wields that obstructs the needed reform which is being pressured by the EC.
Savvy—I wrote before, but maybe it didn’t pass the spam police.
.
Bringing up your version of “pro-abortion groups” is an underhanded ploy to distract from the issue at hand. In these cases, the embryo/fetus was not viable, there was opportunity to save the mother, the mother asked for/consented for treatment to abort the fetus, and it was up to the Catholic hospital board of ethics—not the patient or next of kin—to decide whether to perform the treatment to save her life.
/
McBride (it was declared afterwards) violated Church policy by in sanctioning an abortion (she used the “double effect” rule, but the Bishop declared it was inapplicable in the case.) The Irish physicians chose not to violated Church policy and waited until the fetus’ heart stopped. In both cases, it was the decision of OTHER people that dictated whether they should perform what the patient requested/consented to.
.
Joanp62—for some reason some posts by Savvy come across as blank space. It’s impossible to read what you are referring to.
“No, not to judge because of the anecdote I supplied. But certainly we have a right to question.”
.
Certainly you have the right to question—I wish you would let me do the same.
.
Sometimes it takes time for information, especially legal and medical information to become public. Sometimes, hospitals settle legal issues out-of-court—with the condition that the patient NEVER publicly disclose information about the case—a “gag rule.”
.
I wish you would question—but you seem to have all the answers you want. You don’t do any research—the McBride case was well-publicized, but you prefer the experience of someone you know rather than the documented record of persons who were involved in a totally different situation.
Bill S—the statement by the physicians in Dublin is Catholic doctrine, not medical doctrine.
.
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists issued this statement:
.
Contrary to the inaccurate statements made yesterday by Rep. Joe Walsh (R-IL), abortions are necessary in a number of circumstances to save the life of a woman or to preserve her health. Unfortunately, pregnancy is not a risk-free life event, particularly for many women with chronic medical conditions. Despite all of our medical advances, more than 600 women die each year from pregnancy and childbirth-related reasons right here in the US. In fact, many more women would die each year if they did not have access to abortion to protect their health or to save their lives.
Laura,
“The main point, however, is that an abortion could have saved her, but it was denied because of Catholic ethics and not on Medical ethics.”
There is no such thing in Catholic ethics that says you have to wait for the fetus’s heart to stop beating, when there is direct threat to the life of the mother or under Irish law either.
“The Irish physicians chose not to violate Church policy and waited until the fetus’ heart stopped.”
There is no such church policy. There is perfectly okay to treat the mother before waiting for the fetus heart to stop.
This is the point I am trying to make.
“Bringing up your version of “pro-abortion groups” is an underhanded ploy to distract from the issue at hand”
This is not my own version. The Salon is filled with pro-abortion writers.
Laura,
Ireland has a much better health care system, than the U.S does, and the maternal morality rates are among the lowest in the world.
Recently a study was published by the World Health Organization, The UN Population Fund, UNICEF and the World Bank, a group of decidedly pro-abortion organizations, that showed Ireland, with its pro-life protections intact, enjoys one of the world’s lowest rates of maternal mortality in the world. 2008 statistics showed a rate of 3 maternal deaths for every 100,000 live births and 3.81 infant deaths per 1,000 live births. This places Ireland 202 out of 222 countries.
Bill S,
Ireland has a lower maternal morality rate than the United States and a better health care system.
“Ireland has a lower maternal morality rate than the United States and a better health care system.”
And that means..,,.?
Am I to take this to mean that women are better off living in Ireland where abortion on demand is illegal?
Bill S,
It proves that abortion on demand is not necessary to save lives.
Thank you for proving my point that this has all to do with legalizing abortion on demand, than medicine and saving lives. It’s all about catering to pro-abortion groups.
A fact that Laurie/Buddy/Adam/whatever is denying.
The study, compiled by actuary Mr Patrick Carroll M.A., F.I.A. of the Pensions and Population Research Institute (PAPRI), compared statistical data on abortions carried out on women resident in Ireland and Northern Ireland from 1968-2010 with the corresponding data for Britain and discussed the implications for the health of women.
He added that there were benefits for both women and children, explaining that: “it is because abortion rates are low among Irish women that Ireland shows a low incidence of maternal and infant conditions known to be abortion sequelae: still births, low weight births whether in singleton or multiple births, preterm or premature births, cerebral palsy and maternal deaths.”
http://www.youthdefence.ie/am_cms_media/irelands-gain.pdf
Savvy—it is well-known that Ireland has a stellar reputation for prenatal and maternal care. Savita Halappanavar was not giving birth—she was having and inevitable abortion—“a condition of pregnancy in which spontaneous termination is imminent and cannot be prevented. It is characterized by bleeding, uterine cramping, dilation of the cervix, and presentation of the conceptus in the cervical os. If heavy bleeding supervenes, immediate evacuation of the uterus may be required. Transvaginal ultrasound makes it possible to determine presence or absence of fetal heart movement at 5 weeks gestation.” (medical dictionary)
.
The risk of death of a first trimester abortion is extremely low (less than 1 in 100,000). A first trimester abortion is 10 times safer than continuing the pregnancy.—http://depts.washington.edu/uwcoe/healthtopics/familyplan/term_facts.html
.
She was not a Catholic, but Catholic ethics interfered with her right and request for an operation that could have saved her life.
Savvy—I don’t know what html codes you are using for your quotes, but they are showing up blank. Can’t you try something else?
.
Moving the conversation is another move of the goal posts. You’re trying to justify the Catholic rule of not inducing abortion to save the mother’s life when she is in crisis and the miscarriage is inevitable with irrelevant statistics on the success rate of maternal care.
.
I’m all for successful pregnancies and optimal maternal and prenatal care. You can’t deny that this happens IN EVERY PREGNANCY. A miscarriage is a tragedy, but if it can’t be prevented and it is prolonged, it’s a double tragedy when the mother also dies. The Catholic obsession that only god has the authority to control reproduction is endangering and killing women.
Laura, you may know who you are but I do not. Please let us know what name you were posting as before you had to change your name again.
Other than that, you posts addressed to me do not make any sense.
Savvy, I commend you on your efforts to explain things to people who have their minds made up and who are blinded by their hatred for the Catholic Church.
“You’re trying to justify the Catholic rule of not inducing abortion to save the mother’s life
when she is in crisis and the miscarriage is inevitable with irrelevant
statistics on the success rate of maternal care.”
You are being more Catholic than the Pope. I am trying to make the point that there is NO such Catholic rule, that says not to induce a pregnancy in her case.
Catholic thought is a lot more nuanced than people assume.
For a great deal of nuance from Catholic writers on this sad story, see:
Fr. Dwight Longnecker: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/2012/11/savita-halappanavars-death.html
The Anchoress: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/theanchoress/2012/11/15/savitas-tragic-death-could-have-been-avoided/ Elizabeth Scalia writes from personal experience, and raises really valid questions about gross medical negligence. In other words, the abortion laws are being scapegoated (another case of shortcut thinking!)
Sam Rocha: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/samrocha/2012/11/the-scandalous-abortion-of-savita-halappanavar/#comment-360
Calah Alexander also hints at medical negligence and wonders what happened to the double effect: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/barefootandpregnant/2012/11/savitas-death-and-common-sense.html
Laurie,
Please provide me with evidence from valid Catholic documents that say a woman cannot be treated or a pregnancy cannot be induced, before a fetus;s heart beat stops.
I’m having no trouble seeing Savvy’s links.
Joanp62—Check my post on Saturday, Mar 23, 2013 1:44 PM (EDT). I used to be Buddy but my comments are blocked.
.
I wrote before—some of Savvy’s comments end up as blank spaces and I don’t know why. I’m guessing it’s some html code that is at fault. In any case, I cannot read the comment and cannot not address it.
.
You and savvy are moving the goal posts in bringing up statistics that are not relevant to saving a woman’s life when she is in crisis and having a spontaneous abortion that can kill her without timely medical evacuation.
.
Also, you are bringing up “pro-abortion” groups, whom you unreasonably seem think that abortion should not only be allowed, but physicians should have to perform on demand without medical necessity. Even if it were so, it doesn’t matter in our discussion that there are medical events that call for the option of inducing abortion to save the mother’s life.
.
Laurie,
You are the one that is moving the goalposts. Please provide me with evidence from valid Catholic documents that say a woman cannot be treated or a pregnancy cannot be induced, before a fetus;s heart beat stops.
II What if, in order to save the life of the mother, independently of her pregnant condition, a surgical intervention or a therapeutic treatment is necessary which would have as an accidental consequence, in no way desired nor intended, the death of the fetus?
“Deliberately We have always used the expression ‘direct attempt on the life of an innocent person,’ ‘direct killing.’ Because if, for example, the saving of the life of the future mother, independently of her pregnant condition, should urgently require a surgical act or other therapeutic treatment which would have as an accessory consequence, in no way desired nor intended, but inevitable, the death of the fetus, such an act could no longer be called a direct attempt on an innocent life. Under these conditions the operation can be lawful, like other similar medical interventions - granted always that a good of high worth is concerned, such as life, and that it is not possible to postpone the operation until after the birth of the child, nor to have recourse to other efficacious remedies.” Pius XII, Allocution to Large Families, Nov. 26, 1951. (17)
http://www.catholicapologetics.info/morality/abortion/abortion.htm
the saving of the life of the future mother, independently of her pregnant condition, should urgently require a surgical act or other therapeutic treatment which would have as an accessory consequence, in no way desired nor intended, but inevitable, the death of the fetus, such an act could no longer be called a direct attempt on an innocent life. Under these conditions the operation can be lawful, like other similar medical interventions - granted always that a good of high worth is concerned, such as life, and that it is not possible to postpone the operation until after the birth of the child, nor to have recourse to other efficacious remedies.”
http://www.catholicapologetics.info/morality/abortion/abortion.htm
Pius XII, Allocution to Large Families, Nov. 26, 1951. (17)
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01046b.htm
.
However, if medical treatment or surgical operation, necessary to save a mother’s life, is applied to her organism (though the child’s death would, or at least might, follow as a regretted but unavoidable consequence), it should not be maintained that the fetal life is thereby directly attacked. Moralists agree that we are not always prohibited from doing what is lawful in itself, though evil consequences may follow which we do not desire. The good effects of our acts are then directly intended, and the regretted evil consequences are reluctantly permitted to follow because we cannot avoid them. The evil thus permitted is said to be indirectly intended. It is not imputed to us provided four conditions are verified, namely:
.
That we do not wish the evil effects, but make all reasonable efforts to avoid them;
.
That the immediate effect be good in itself;
.
That the evil is not made a means to obtain the good effect; for this would be to do evil that good might come of it — a procedure never allowed;
.
That the good effect be as important at least as the evil effect.
.
All four conditions may be verified in treating or operating on a woman with child. The death of the child is not intended, and every reasonable precaution is taken to save its life; the immediate effect intended, the mother’s life, is good — no harm is done to the child in order to save the mother — the saving of the mother’s life is in itself as good as the saving of the child’s life. Of course provision must be made for the child’s spiritual as well as for its physical life, and if by the treatment or operation in question the child were to be deprived of Baptism, which it could receive if the operation were not performed, then the evil would be greater than the good consequences of the operation. In this case the operation could not lawfully be performed. Whenever it is possible to baptize an embryonic child before it expires, Christian charity requires that it be done, either before or after delivery; and it may be done by any one, even though he be not a Christian.
.
As Carla pointed out, Catholic ethics forbid any treatment that will cause the death of the unborn child. The fetus must die inside the woman’s body before it is allowed to be manually removed.
.
This is not to be confused with the “double effect” which allows for treatment of a condition not related to the pregnancy but may result in miscarriage. That’s why McBride and St. Joseph’s were excommunicated.
I haven’t given any statistics or links or mentioned pro-abortion groups.
Savvy-sorry again. I pasted too much text from the article in response for your demand for documentation. Here is the site:
.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01046b.htm
.
It takes some reading, but the gist is that no action can be taken to end the life of an unborn embryo/fetus. Interestingly, it poses that the “killing” unborn embryo/fetus (i.e. while there is still a heartbeat) is a greater evil than the immediate (good) effect of saving the mother’s life, because the unborn child dies before it is baptized.
.
I was mistaken in that I thought these rules were infallible, but the Church resists any changes, and still considers obstetrical abortion a greater evil that trumps the good intent of saving the mother’s life.
Joanp62—For some reason I’m not getting savvy’s complete posts—only some parts are visible to me, so I’m at a disadvantage.
.
Also, I’m discussing this issue with both you and savvy. Please don’t take it that all my comments are only about you.
Well, gee, Laura. You addressed the comment in question to me. Silly me for thinking that you were addressing me.
Laurie,
The link you gave me cites moral arguments between Catholics and quotes old canon law. Only doctrine is infallible, not canonical legislations. But, that is a whole different discussion.
“and still considers obstetrical abortion a greater evil that trumps the good intent of saving the mother’s life.”
The key word you are looking for here is it forbids “direct” abortion.
http://www.catholicapologetics.info/morality/abortion/abortion.htm
III What if, in order to save the life of the mother, independently of her pregnant condition, a surgical intervention or a therapeutic treatment is necessary which would have as an accidental consequence, in no way desired nor intended, the death of the fetus?
“Deliberately We have always used the expression ‘direct attempt on the life of an innocent person,’ ‘direct killing.’
Because if, for example, the saving of the life of the future mother, independently of her pregnant condition, should urgently require a surgical act or other therapeutic treatment which would have as an accessory consequence, in no way desired nor intended, but inevitable, the death of the fetus, such an act could no longer be called a direct attempt on an innocent life. Under these conditions the operation can be lawful, like other similar medical interventions - granted always that a good of high worth is concerned, such as life, and that it is not possible to postpone the operation until after the birth of the child, nor to have recourse to other efficacious remedies.” Pius XII, Allocution to Large Families, Nov. 26, 1951. (17)
Laurie,
The link you gave me cites moral arguments between Catholics and quotes old canon law. Only doctrine is infallible, not canonical legislations. But, that is a whole different discussion.
“and still considers obstetrical abortion a greater evil that trumps the good intent of saving the mother’s life.”
The key word you are looking for here is it forbids “direct” abortion.
http://www.catholicapologetics.info/morality/abortion/abortion.htm
” Because if, for example, the saving of the life of the future mother, independently of her pregnant condition, should urgently require a surgical act or other therapeutic treatment which would have as an accessory consequence, in no way desired nor intended, but inevitable, the death of the fetus, such an act could no longer be called a direct attempt on an innocent life. Under these conditions the operation can be lawful, like other similar medical interventions - granted always that a good of high worth is concerned, such as life, and that it is not possible to postpone the operation until after the birth of the child, nor to have recourse to other efficacious remedies.”
Laurie,
The link you gave me cites moral arguments between Catholics and quotes old canon law. Only doctrine is infallible, not canonical legislations. But, that is a whole different discussion.
“and still considers obstetrical abortion a greater evil that trumps the good intent of saving the mother’s life.”
The key word you are looking for here is it forbids “direct” abortion.
http://www.catholicapologetics.info/morality/abortion/abortion.htm
“the saving of the life of the future mother, independently of her pregnant condition, should urgently require a surgical act or other therapeutic treatment which would have as an accessory consequence, in no way desired nor intended, but inevitable, the death of the fetus, such an act could no longer be called a direct attempt on an innocent life. Under these conditions the operation can be lawful, like other similar medical interventions.”
Laurie,
The link you gave me cites moral arguments between Catholics and quotes old canon law. Only doctrine is infallible, not canonical legislations. But, that is a whole different discussion.
“and still considers obstetrical abortion a greater evil that trumps the good intent of saving the mother’s life.”
The key word you are looking for here is it forbids “direct” abortion. It does not prohibit inducing the pregnancy before viability in cases where it is not possible to wait, to save the life of the mother.
http://www.catholicapologetics.info/morality/abortion/abortion.htm
“and still considers obstetrical abortion a greater evil that trumps the good intent of saving the mother’s life.”
That’s just evil. To say that the baby’s life is more important than the mother’s, especially if the reason is that the baby hasn’t been baptized yet, is ignorant, superstitious and more evil than any abortion. It makes the Catholic Church an evil institution.
“The key word you are looking for here is it forbids “direct” abortion…”
.
Savvy—I admitted I was mistaken about cannon laws being infallible, but it still remains that Catholic hospital ethics strictly adhere to cannon law and cannon law has not budged in its doctrines.
.
According to cannon law, if you read the article, obstetrical abortion is directly killing the non-viable embryo/fetus. The immediate “good effect” of saving the mother is outweighed by the evil of directly killing the unborn fetus (which is even more evil because the child could not be baptized!) This means that obstetrical abortion to save the mother’s life is NOT justified under the “double effect” provision of cannon law.
.
That’s why Sister McBride was declared excommunicated, and why the Catholics in Ireland are trying to avoid at least partial responsibility as to why a Catholic hospital refused Savita Halappanavar appropriate treatment for her circumstances.
.
“It does not prohibit inducing the pregnancy before viability in cases where it is not possible to wait, to save the life of the mother.”
.
“Inducing labor” of a non-viable, living embryo/fetus is, by definition, abortion and forbidden in cannon law. People here often try to confuse the issue by implying that “inducing labor” in a miscarriage is somehow acceptable as inducing labor to assist a live birth.
.
From the link you posted:
“We feel for the mother whose fulfillment of her natural duty involves her in grave danger to health and even to life itself. But can any reason ever avail to excuse the direct killing of the innocent? For this is what is at stake. The infliction of death whether upon mother or upon child is against the commandment of God and the voice of nature: “Thou shalt not kill!”
.
Darn! my posts keep getting stalled, and it probably won’t be passed until Monday, if at all.
.
Try again:
Savvy—I admitted I was mistaken about the infallibility of cannon law, but Catholic hospitals adhere to cannon law and they have not changed.
.
You are again suggesting that the “double effect” clause in cannon law would apply in such cases, but the Bishops have decreed that it does not.
.
An obstetric abortion is considered an evil that outweighs the “good” effect of saving the mother. It is stated as so in the link I posted AND in the link you posted.
Savvy—there are still parts of your posts that are invisible to me.
Several of my posts have been stalled as well. Hopefully they’ll make it eventually, but meanwhile, Laura and Bill S., there’s just a basic point that’s being missed here: It’s never right to do evil even for a good purpose. It’s never right to kill a baby even to save the mother’s life. It would be fine to do all sorts of things to save the mother’s life even if those things might kill the baby, but it isn’t right to kill the baby outright.
Pretend for a moment that you are the father or mother of a family of 5 dying of starvation in a third-world country. You think to yourself, if I just kill the youngest child, the rest of us have a better chance of surviving. That may be true, and your motives may be the best possible motives, but it would still be wrong to kill the child even if it means that all 5 of you, that youngest child included, die of starvation. Does that make sense to either of you? Do you see how it’s the same thing, only slower?
Bill S,
I am tired of your childish nonsense. Limbo was a theological proposition. There have been debates over the centuries over all kinds of issues, down to very letter T.
The question is if the church is evil, then why are you still part of the evil church? You are one that refuses to leave. It’s more like you are self-hating.
Laura,
“You are again suggesting that the “double effect” clause in cannon law would apply in such cases, but the Bishops have decreed that it does not.”
This is from the National Catholic Bioethics Centre.
Directive 47 reads: “Operations, treatments, and medications that have as their direct purpose the cure of a proportionately serious pathological condition of a pregnant woman are permitted when they cannot be safely postponed until the unborn child is viable, even if they will result in the death of the unborn child. “
http://www.ncbcenter.org/NetCommunity/Document.Doc?id=171
“An obstetric abortion is considered an evil that outweighs the “good” effect of saving the mother. It is stated as so in the link I posted AND in the link you posted.”
This refers to direct abortion and not the case we are discussing.
I think Carla put it very well. Savvy, I thought Bill was an ex-Catholic.
“It’s never right to kill a baby even to save the mother’s life. It would be fine to do all sorts of things to save the mother’s life even if those things might kill the baby, but it isn’t right to kill the baby outright.”
If it was my wife, I would say that I don’t care whether people like you think it’s right or not. I would go ahead with the abortion and never give it second thought. A mothers life is hundreds of times more valuable than that of a baby. I would never choose a baby’s life over my wife.
Bill S,
What if your wife disagreed with you, like in the case of Giana Mola?
Laura,
Irish Bishops have already ruled that the principle of double effect could be used in that case.
http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2012/11/22/irish-bishops-mother-and-child-have-equal-right-to-life/
Savvy—are we discussing different cases? How Catholic ethics conflicted with medical ethics in the McBride case and the Savita Halappanavar case?
.
You don’t seem to understand, even after reading your own link—Catholic cannon currently dictates that the direct killing of an unborn child is unlawful—even it it is the only way to save the mother. Abortion is the direct killing of the child—according to all Catholics here and all Catholic teachings.
.
My postings have been blocked, so maybe you can be given the benefit of the doubt that you are not deliberately missing the point. Inducing labor of a non-viable fetus, while it is considered alive in Catholic cannon, is abortion—the Catholic texts refer to it as “obstetric abortion” and it is universally condemned.
“What if your wife disagreed with you, like in the case of Giana Mola?”
It would be her choice. I would plead with her to have the abortion. I’m not impressed by Mrs. Mola’s story. There was nothing noble about her death. Figures that the Church would make her a saint.
Savvy- How is the case of Gianna Beretta Molla relevant? She refused treatment and it was not forced on her. Her choice was respected.
.
From your link:
“Whereas abortion is the direct and intentional destruction of an unborn baby and is gravely immoral in all circumstances, this is different from medical treatments which do not directly and intentionally seek to end the life of the unborn baby,” the bishops said in their statement.
***
It’s the same equivocal double talk you’ve been pushing all along. The statement insists that treatment that did not directly “seek to end the life of the unborn baby.” Inducing labor in these cases, directly kills the unborn baby because it is clear that the baby would not survive out of the womb.
.
I’ll give you credit for trying so hard to keep to your double standards.
Your zeal to protect the Church from criticism is no better, morally. than the lawyers who pleaded that fetuses were’t people. You’ll say anything to get them off the hook.
Bill S—are you still in the closet re your faith? I understand you are surrounded by Catholics 24/7. Don’t these issues come up in conversation?
Buddy,
We are discussing the principle of double effect.
“Inducing labor of a non-viable fetus, while it is considered alive in Catholic cannon, is abortion—the Catholic texts refer to it as “obstetric abortion” and it is universally condemned.”
There are exceptions to this. My link clearly says in Directive 47 that IS permitted in exceptional cases.
“Inducing labor in these cases, directly kills the unborn baby because it is clear that the baby would not survive out of the womb.”
Yes, it does, but it does not “intend” to take the life, enough if it results in the life of the baby, which is the unintended consequence.
Catholic teaching is not always black and white, you are convinced it is, and therefore trying to read your views in it to affirm your own worldview.
Savvy—some of my posts have be blocked, so I’ll forgive the needless repetition.
.
The embryonic child, as seen above, has a human soul; and therefore is a man from the time of its conception; therefore it has an equal right to its life with its mother; therefore neither the mother, nor medical practitioner, nor any human being whatever can lawfully take that life away. The State cannot give such right to the physician; for it has not itself the right to put an innocent person to death. No matter how desirable it might seem to be at times to save the life of the mother, common sense teaches and all nations accept the maxim, that “evil is never to be done that good may come of it”; or, which is the same thing, that “a good end cannot justify a bad means”.
,
Now it is an evil means to destroy the life of an innocent child. The plea cannot be made that the child is an unjust aggressor. It is simply where nature and its own parents have put it. Therefore, Natural Law forbids any attempt at destroying fetal life.Abortion was condemned by name, 24 July, 1895, in answer to the question whether when the mother is in immediate danger of death and there is no other means of saving her life, a physician can with a safe conscience cause abortion not by destroying the child in the womb (which was explicitly condemned in the former decree), but by giving it a chance to be born alive, though not being yet viable, it would soon expire. The answer was that he cannot. (I posted the link above.)
Dammit! Every time I past text from Catholic literature, it get’s marked for spam! Maybe a few smaller quotes:
/
“Abortion was condemned by name, 24 July, 1895, in answer to the question whether when the mother is in immediate danger of death and there is no other means of saving her life, a physician can with a safe conscience cause abortion not by destroying the child in the womb (which was explicitly condemned in the former decree), but by giving it a chance to be born alive, though not being yet viable, it would soon expire. The answer was that he cannot.”
To continue:
/
“... let the questioner remember that no acceleration of birth is licit unless it be done at a time, and in ways in which, according to the usual course of things, the life of the mother and the child be provided for”. Ethics, then, and the Church agree in teaching that no action is lawful which directly destroys fetal life. It is also clear that extracting the living fetus before it is viable, is destroying its life as directly as it would be killing a grown man directly to plunge him into a medium in which he cannot live, and hold him there till he expires.”
In both cases—McBride and Halappanavar cases—“inducing labor” was a direct operation to destroying the unborn child’s life—according to cannon.
/
Do you get it?
Laura,
What are you quoting from, I want to seek a link. Current canon law, makes exceptions, as I have pointed out.
“In both cases—McBride and Halappanavar cases—“inducing labor” was a direct operation to destroying the unborn child’s life—according to cannon.”
It may have been a direct operation, but it was not intended to directly kill, is the point. Irish Bishops got this one right. The ONE Bishop in the US got it wrong. He does not understand the principle of double effect.
So, Yes based on the research I have done, I have to conclude that Sister Mcbride’s excommunication was invalid to begin with.
Carla,
The example you brought up is not valid, because we are not discussing the intention to directly kill here, but the principle of double effect, where every other option has been tried.
I posted it before, Savvy, but here it is again:
.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01046b.htm
“inducing labor” was a direct operation to destroying the unborn child’s life—according to cannon.”
Only in the case, where there are other options to treat both mother and child, not in cases where there are not.
This is explained here.
http://www.catholicapologetics.info/morality/abortion/abortion.htm
Savvy—again, parts of your posts are white space. Are you doing something different in parts of your comments? I’ve never experienced partial censorship on this site before, and certainly not from “defenders of the faith.”
“inducing labor” was a direct operation to destroying the unborn child’s life—according to cannon.”
Only in the case, where there are other options to treat both mother and child, not in cases where there are not.
.
There were no other options in the McBride case. In the Halappanavar case, they did everything allowable by Catholic doctrine but, while medical ethics would allow for the “extraction of a living fetus before it is viable” Catholic ethics do not.
Savvy—I selected some of the “blank text” in your posts and pasted them as unformmatted text on a word document. They are periods (.) followed by hard returns. Please cut it out.
Laura,
That is not current canon law, which the 1983 canon. This is why I gave you this link that cites the exception.
http://www.catholicapologetics.info/morality/abortion/abortion.htm
“while medical ethics would allow for the “extraction of a living fetus before it is viable” Catholic ethics do not.”
It does in this case, as I have pointed out repeatedly. You keep ignoring the current code of cannon law and keep posting things from the 18th century.
Laura,
A lot of my posts have been censored too for spam, so it’s the system here.
Savvy—I’m trying to find the 1983 cannon in the site you posted, but no luck. Can you please direct me, or paste the text you want to cite?
If you have text that proves that abortion of a live unborn child is acceptable to the current Catholic cannon, then in both the cases I believe we are discussing indicate that the Catholic Bishops/clergy/lay persons involved in the decisions who applied earlier canonical doctrines are obviously in the wrong. What do you think of that?
Laura,
I already pasted the text, but here it is.
“if, for example, the saving of the life of the future mother, independently of her pregnant condition, should urgently require a surgical act or other therapeutic treatment which would have as an accessory consequence, in no way desired nor intended, but inevitable, the death of the fetus, such an act could no longer be called a direct attempt on an innocent life. Under these conditions the operation can be lawful, like other similar medical interventions – granted always that a good of high worth is concerned, such as life, and that it is not possible to postpone the operation until after the birth of the child, nor to have recourse to other efficacious remedies.”
http://www.catholicapologetics.info/morality/abortion/abortion.htm
Laura,
I already pasted the text, but here it is.
“Under these conditions the operation can be lawful, like other similar medical interventions – granted always that a good of high worth is concerned, such as life, and that it is not possible to postpone the operation until after the birth of the child, nor to have recourse to other efficacious remedies.”
http://www.catholicapologetics.info/morality/abortion/abortion.htm
Laura,
I think, that there is a great need for better teaching, and the church needs to follow its own teachings.That the church needs to be MORE Catholic, not less.
Is it possible you are mistaking “Canon 1983” for “Canon 1398?”
.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_1398
Laurie,
No canon 1983 is the same as canon 1398 since, canon 1398 is found under the code of canon 1983, which is a complete book.
Savvy—we seem to be crossing over each other!
.
We are pasting quotes of the same sources, but using them for different purposes.
.
The text you pasted refers to operations that are necessary to save the life of the woman, but NOT DIRECTLY TARGETED AT THE EMBRYO/FETUS. Thus, for example, a woman can have chemotherapy which is likely to cause her body to abort her unborn child, but the chemo was directed to save the woman, not directly to kill the child. That is “double effect.”
.
I cited above—the Church considers the extraction of an unborn child from the womb with the knowledge that it will die outside the womb is considered murder of the unborn child. It is also stated that it is against Church law to use such means to save the mother’s life—the good of saving the mother is outweighed by the evil of the extraction of a live embryo/fetus.
Posted by savvy on Saturday, Mar 23, 2013 10:23 PM (EDT):
Laurie,
No canon 1983 is the same as canon 1398 since, canon 1398 is found under the code of canon 1983, which is a complete book.
*****
So what difference does it make? I search for “1398” and found that the procuring of an abortion results in excommunication, but no reference to the allowance of abortion (as defined by the Church) to save a mother’s life when no other means are available.
Posted by savvy on Saturday, Mar 23, 2013 10:19 PM (EDT):
Laura,
I think, that there is a great need for better teaching, and the church needs to follow its own teachings.That the church needs to be MORE Catholic, not less.
******
Then it is obvious that the bishops currently in positions of authority have inadequate teaching for this era.
.
So many people who comment here love the Church because it doesn’t change. We “trolls” come here to show that change is necessary for continued existence. Is that the root of our conflicts?
Savvy, I think you’re mistaken in part in your understanding of the principle of the double effect in reference to the case at St. Joseph’s Hospital in Phoenix specifically. Let’s look at the difficult case of an ectopic pregnancy. In that case, it is not legitimate to perform a direct abortion. It is, however, legitimate to remove the entire tube in which the baby has been implanted, knowing full well that that will cause the death of the baby. To the best of my knowledge (and I haven’t done any recent research, but I know you can), there is no situation in which it would be considered ethical according to the Church to perform the abortion as it occurred at Saint Joseph’s. Also, when you state that one bishop was mistaken (Bishop Olmsted), this is a man who is faithful and kind (contrary to the way he was portrayed in the wake of that), and I am quite sure that he would not have acted without sure knowledge of the morality of the case.
Buddy wrote, “So many people who comment here love the Church because it doesn’t change. We “trolls” come here to show that change is necessary for continued existence. Is that the root of our conflicts?”
I don’t think that’s quite the root. It’s not change per se but the manner of change you suggest. I don’t love the Church because she doesn’t change, though stability is good. I love the Church because she is the bride of Christ, and He doesn’t change. The Church continues to develop over the millenia in her understanding of Christ, but that’s not exactly the same as change. It’s more like growth. If you look, though, at Christian denominations that have given in to the current views of the world, they are certainly not growing for the most part.
I’m signing off for Holy Week. God bless you, and thank you for making me think!
“the Church considers the extraction of an unborn child from the womb with the knowledge that it will die outside the womb is considered murder of the unborn child. “
Yes, but is is permitted, if there is no other option.
National Review has quoted Fr. Tadeusz Pacholczyk, director of education at the National Catholic Bioethics Center, as saying that
“The lack of precise medical details included in media coverage of the Savita Halappanavar case does indeed make it difficult to offer a cogent moral analysis of what transpired…If it were the case, for example, that she suffered from a serious placental infection unable to be controlled by other remedies, it would have been allowable to induce labor under a proper application of the principle of double effect. Such an action would not constitute a direct abortion, but maternally directed therapy to remedy the infection, with the secondary, unintended effect that the life of the child would be lost.”
“I search for “1398” and found that the procuring of an abortion results in excommunication, but no reference to the allowance of abortion (as defined by the Church) to save a mother’s life when no other means are available.”
Perhaps, because it deals with excommunication and not abortion.
Laura,
The code of cannon 1983 is an entire book with different sections, dealing with different issues.
The church grows, into a deeper understanding of its revelation, but there is no new revelation itself.
Carla,
I am still reviewing the case in the US. I will get back to you. In the Irish case, she was already miscarrying, as a result of another infection she was being treated for.
Carla,
Catholic hospitals in the US get their directives from the National Catholic Bioethics Centre. According to them directive 47 could apply in the US case, but because the hospital refused to give them access to the records, they do not know for sure.
I am not saying the Bishop in question is a bad person, but if the hospital refuses to consult their own directives, and there is not much collaboration, then nothing much can be done.
This shows that the conspiracy theorists who think all Catholic healthcare networks and Bishops are marching in lockstep, are wrong.
Savvy—I still keep getting paragraph marks for what appears on my connection as white space, I don’t know why, but please keep it in mind when regarding my responses.
.
“Perhaps, because it deals with excommunication and not abortion.
.
Isn’t that our discussion? whether excommunication is applied in special circumstances when it may be necessary to perform/promote an abortion to protect a mother’s life?
,
If, as you write, the statement deals with excommunication and not abortion,” then why is it relevant? Are we not discussing under what circumstances the decision assigns excommunication or justification?
.
I keep feeling “gas-lighted” by your defense of Church ethics in our exchange. You either assert that Catholic ethics were misunderstood by Catholic hospital boards, or my citations are out-of-date or mis-interpreted. I can only conclude that you understand that there is conflict between us.
.
It’s not so much a conflict of beliefs, but whether Church ethics apply to all circumstances. We both understand the “double effect” condition and we both understand the explicit understanding that abortion is not justified for the purpose of saving the mother’s life.
I think we all better call off our comments for a while—they keep getting marked for spam check, and as this is a holy week for Catholics we can’t expect any “approval” of our posts until after Easter. Another thing to b&&&h about Catholic influence on secular communication.
.
If this post gets in:
Savvy—one thing I want to get across, which Carla seems to have no problem with, is that Catholic cannon, which Catholic hospitals adhere to, conflicts in certain circumstances with secular established medical ethics.
/
You correctly pointed out that it is an issue as to who makes the informed decision for appropriate medical care. In the case of an inevitable miscarriage when the mother’s life is in serious danger and the unborn child has no chance to survive, who decides if the direct abortion of the fetus is ethically lawful?
/
Medical ethics dictate that the patient (woman) is the authority of her own body, and therefor has the right to be informed of all known options in her medical care.
/
Pregnancy—whether you like to think so or not—is a medical condition which requires medical care, and under circumstances may endanger the mother’s life.
/
This is a point where the Catholic Church seems to have a hissy fit.
/
It seems to me that the Church can’t handle the concept of individual circumstances, or accept that people are not willing to conform to its doctrines.
—-
to be continued….
“McBride joined the ethics committee in approving the decision to terminate the pregnancy through an induced abortion. The abortion took place and the mother survived.”
To lose your wife so as to not take the life of an 11 week old fetus and be left with five children without a mother all because the Catholic Church prohibits abortion would have been indescribably horrible. It just shows the evil that the Catholic Church is capable of in excommunicating Sister McBride.
Wow. I’ve been away for several days, and all I can say is: Savvy, Joan and Carla, you are all amazing apologists. God bless you for sacrificing much of your weekend to defending our faith to a troll who thinks that a Catholic website owes her a forum to voice her prejudices. While some people will remain intentionally ignorant, I’m sure that your apologetics will help people who are genuinely looking for answers. I hope you all have a blessed Holy Week.
Oh, Claire the All Knowing—what is your interpretation of the “double effect” exemption in Church cannon?
Bill S—This might interest you:
.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21353977
.
It’s a study on how the medical directives of Catholic hospitals effect the treatment of ectopic pregnancies.
.
CONCLUSION:
Our findings suggest that some interpretations of the Directives are precluding physicians from providing women with ectopic pregnancies with information about and access to a full range of treatment options and are resulting in practices that delay care and may expose women to unnecessary risks.
This might interest everybody—
.
http://crosscut.com/2011/10/16/health-medicine/21429/SwedishProvidence-questions-remain-after-Planned-P/
The USCCB wrote here about direct abortion, and why we think it is wrong.
http://old.usccb.org/doctrine/direct-abortion-statement2010-06-23.pdf
Those of you debating contraception please take a look at the article “What Openness to Life Does Not Mean” by Brett Salkeld, and I beg you, please don’t tell anyone that the Church allows NFP because of the tiny statistical possibility of pregnancy in a given act of intercourse. It is not so, and you will not find it stated in any official documents.
http://vox-nova.com/2009/05/08/what-‘openness-to-life’-does-not-mean/
” As the Church has said many times, direct abortion is never permissible because a good end cannot justify an evil means.”
Way off base. Other than a Catholic hospital, no hospital would ever abide by such a foolish and potentially disastrous policy.
Skywalker: great link. It gave a clear explanation of what the Church’s teaching on sex and procreation and what it does not teach. I particularly liked this part:
“All that the Church means is that we are not to alter the sex act to avoid its consequences…We are free, in many circumstances positively encouraged, to avoid the sex act in order to avoid its consequences.”
Which is why NFP is NOT contracepting the sex act.
““All that the Church means is that we are not to alter the sex act to avoid its consequences”
Yes. But WHY???
There is no need for people to reproduce if they don’t want to. And it is OK for them to have sex using contraceptives. There is no rational reason to deny them this pleasure. None.
The Church is not out to deny anyone pleasure. And you act as though the Church is forcing YOU to comply with its’ teachings. These teachings are for those who willingly become Catholic. If non-Catholics learn and accept the Church’s teaching on contraception, and many have, they are free to comply or not. Also, no outside entity has any right to force Catholics to supply or administer, or pay for insurance coverage for the contraceptives of others. In doing so these entities are forcing their beliefs on others. By following our consciences and beliefs about contraception and refusing to supply them to others, we are not forcing our beliefs on others. They are free to go elsewhere for their contraceptives.
You think it is Ok to have contraceptive sex. Fine. No one is telling you not to. The Church just tells the Truth as it must. You do NOT have to accept it. For example, some insist that global warming is totally anthropogenic. They are very dogmatic about it (the debate is over-Al Gore) and seek to silence any other scientists who see different evidence. But they see it is the truth, so insist it must not only be said, but that people must take certain costly, expensive measures to comply with their standards.
Yet, no one on this list, nor the Church, has tried to force anyone, especially non-church members to comply with their teachings. So please cease from acting as though you are being oppressed by the Church.
The Church is not out to deny anyone pleasure. And you act as though the Church is forcing YOU to comply with its’ teachings. These teachings are for those who willingly become Catholic. If non-Catholics learn and accept the Church’s teaching on contraception, and many have, they are free to comply or not. Also, no outside entity has any right to force Catholics to supply or administer, or pay for insurance coverage for the contraceptives of others. In doing so these entities are forcing their beliefs on others. By following our consciences and beliefs about contraception and refusing to supply them to others, we are not forcing our beliefs on others. They are free to go elsewhere for their contraceptives. (continued)
(continued)You think it is Ok to have contraceptive sex. Fine. No one is telling you not to. The Church just tells the Truth as it must. You do NOT have to accept it. For example, some insist that global warming is totally anthropogenic. They are very dogmatic about it (the debate is over-Al Gore) and seek to silence any other scientists who see different evidence. But they see it is the truth, so insist it must not only be said, but that people must take certain costly, expensive measures to comply with their standards.
Yet, no one on this list, nor the Church, has tried to force anyone, especially non-church members to comply with their teachings. So please cease from acting as though you are being oppressed by the Church.
“By following our consciences and beliefs about contraception and refusing to supply them to others, we are not forcing our beliefs on others.”
Yes you are. By law, they are entitled to free contraceptives. You can’t violate the law to force your beliefs on them. The court cases pending for suits filed by employers like Hobby Lobby and Hercules Industries will settle this issue once and for all.
“For example, some insist that global warming is totally anthropogenic.
It is more likely “partially” but we still must address carbon dioxide emissions. No?
“So please cease from acting as though you are being oppressed by the Church.”
I’m sorry I gave you that impression. I myself am in no way oppressed by anyone. I’m good.
The government is violating the first Amendment by prohibiting the free exercise of our religion by forcing us to go against our beliefs, conscience and teachings of our faith. If by law people are entitled to free contraceptives then I guess that means that anyone can go into a drugstore and demand to get condoms for free. If it is the law for free contraceptives, then why do drugstores sell them?
Again- anyone can go anywhere to get contraceptives. The law cannot force all people and venues to supply them. And if these laws do pass, that does not make them ethical or right. So many times I hear from the left, the law is the law! when it suits their agenda. But when it does not, as in current marriage laws, they demand that they be changed. So don’t tell me that making something a law settles issues, it does not.
The USCCB opposition to the HHS mandate. Telling Catholics that they can’t vote for pro-choice politicians. Denying them communion. Anti-gay marriage rallies. Etc.
The government of this country no longer cares about what Catholics want and don’t want. It will concede only what the courts make it concede and no more. Every move Catholics make will be counterproductive to their cause. If Hillary wins in 2016, it won’t be until 2024 that Catholics will be able to try to muster up enough votes to elect a President sympathetic to their cause. There may not even be Catholics sympathetic to the cause by then.
It doesn’t look good for American and European Catholics. It also doesn’t look good for the economy. I’m not sure there is any correlation, but we are all in for hard times for ourselves, our children, etc.
I agree with your last paragraph completely.
Regarding your first few sentences- we as Catholics are only informed as to the Church teaching on abortion, etc., and at times may be given information about which candidates hold views that are more in line with Catholic doctrine or not. And of course we can also find out that information ourselves. We are told that we should not in good conscience vote for a pro-abortion candidate and if they are both pro-abortion to choose one who may be a lesser advocate than the other-either way, we then must make up our own minds as to who we vote for.
As for anti-gay rallies.Do you mean anti-gay marriage rallies? Well gee, all sorts of people with various interests have rallies and protests all the time. There are anti-gun rallies, yet, at this time, guns ownership is legal. During Bush’s presidency there were all sorts of anti-Bush protests, much of it extremely disrespectful of the person and not just his policies, yet when anyone disagrees with the current President’s policies, we are labeled as racist bigots and people are outraged that we would show any disrespect because, after all, he is the President.
I agree with your last paragraph completely.
Regarding your first few sentences- we as Catholics are only informed as to the Church teaching on abortion, etc., and at times may be given information about which candidates hold views that are more in line with Catholic doctrine or not. And of course we can also find out that information ourselves. We are told that we should not in good conscience vote for a pro-abortion candidate and if they are both pro-abortion to choose one who may be a lesser advocate than the other-either way, we then must make up our own minds as to who we vote for. (to be continued)
Part 2: As for anti-gay rallies.Do you mean anti-gay marriage rallies? Well gee, all sorts of people with various interests have rallies and protests all the time. There are anti-gun rallies, yet, at this time, guns ownership is legal. During Bush’s presidency there were all sorts of anti-Bush protests, much of it extremely disrespectful of the person and not just his policies, yet when anyone disagrees with the current President’s policies, we are labeled as racist bigots and people are outraged that we would show any disrespect because, after all, he is the President. (to be continued)
For some reason it won’t accept my posts unless I break them up.
Regarding refusing Holy Communion to Catholic politicians who publicly denounce Church teaching, well, just as our country has laws, so does the Church. And Canon Law 915 (not sure if that’s the right number) states that Holy Communion must be withheld from someone who is publicly known to be acting contrary to the Church’s teaching, as in supporting abortion, etc. I’m paraphrasing it.
And yet, most Bishops in this country have scandalously gone against that law and NOT withheld Holy Communion from these Catholic politicians! That certainly sends a confusing message to the rest of the Church’s members. Anyway, you are complaining about a law of the Church, when it hasn’t really been enforced as it should be.
Skywalker, Joanp62, etc.:
.
I think Bill S (correct me if I’m wrong, Bill) and I understand that Catholic canon condemns abortion and contraception, and as devout Catholics you hold Church doctrine above every other moral consideration.
.
Medical ethics contradict Catholic ethics in that the rights of the patient are the primary concern of healthcare providers practicing for the public. Hospitals do not have the right to refuse care because the patient is Muslim, black, homosexual, or even a criminal.
.
Yet you assert Catholic doctrine over medical ethics when a woman is dying and abortion is the best and/only option available to save her life, and the patient wants and consents to the operation. Catholic hospitals in our country force women experiencing a long, inevitable miscarriage are forced to transfer to a secular provider—which could be miles away in rural areas, but that’s the most they will do for her.
.
To be continued….
McBride’s decision to allow the abortion to save the life of a patient cost her censure (excommunication) from her religion until she repented and humbled herself to the will of the Church.
.
The Catholic hospital in the Catholic country of Ireland decided to reject her request to induce labor (obstetrical abortion) in her prolonged miscarriage—the procedure that would have prevented her death from septicemia and multiple organ failure. That decision cost the patient’s life.
.
No one here denies the rights and lives of patients by were dependent on Catholic ethics and NOT medical ethics.
.
to be continued…
In defense of the Church, the Catholics here are insisting that the Church doctrines are the TRUTH, and that Catholic medical providers have the right to deny abortion and contraception in spite of medically based evidence that these procedures can be the best options to preserve the life and health of a patient.
.
They also defend NFP because Church doctrine has declared that sex and procreation must never be separated (though I still don’t get how they exempt NFP from that condition) and the practice of “artificial” contraception leads to sexual promiscuity, objectification of women, and the diminishes the loving relationship of husband and wife.
.
Now the conversation has turned to the HHS mandate and Catholics are screaming that they’re being persecuted by the government by being forced to pay for contraception, and the possibility that the Supreme Court may decide that same-sex marriage is a constitutional right.
.
to be continued….
Again Bill S, correct me if I’m wrong by including you in my comments.
.
The political activities of Catholics—which include from excommunication of Catholic politicians who support contraception and abortion rights, and political lobbying to overturn Roe v Wade and destroy Planned Parenthood, threaten our civil rights to control our own healthcare and sexual privacy.
.
Joanp62, Skywalker, et al. are also telling us we are wrong to want those rights.
.
The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibit the free exercise thereof….”
.
to be continued…..
If it were ethical to kill one person to save another it would be ethical in other circumstances. If it is ethical to kill an unborn person to save its mother, it would be just as ethical to kill a one year old to save his or her mother. Catholics must treat the problem. If a person has a heart problem, any medications or procedures to treat the heart problem are licit. Killing someone else to treat your heart problem is not licit. The only life that you are allowed to sacrifice for another is your own.
Oh, hell!!! The last comment was blocked. Maybe I’m making too many posts in a row as Buddy Sorrell.
.
I did go into a lot of detail, just as Joanp62 did, so in the summary version, look to this link:
.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Exercise_Clause
.
It describes the application of the Free Exercise Class in the 1st Amendment and how it has been interpreted in various court cases. One thing I found interesting is that the first court case upheld the bigamy conviction of a Mormon who claimed the government was violating his religion.
.
That case also “...introduced the position that although religious exercise is generally protected under the First Amendment, this does not prevent the government from passing neutral laws that incidentally impact certain religious practices.”
.
The Warren court of the 1960’s also ruled, in response to civil rights’ cases, that the 1st Amendment protects religious practice except when there is compelling interest to do so. Thus the government can intervene when religious practice involves ritual child abuse or medical neglect, ritual drug use, or coerced membership.
....
Skywalker made another false dichotomy analogy between my comments.
,
As in the McBride case above, it was medically necessary to abort her pregnancy to treat her heart problem. If her child were one year old, she probably wouldn’t have had that heart problem.
.
Both Catholic and secular medical ethics agree that every effort must be made to save both the mother and unborn child if it is at all possible. The Church has decided that the soul of an unborn child is more important than the life of it’s mother because Catholic “charity” dictates the prolonged survival of the child so it can be baptized, even at the expense of the mother’s life.
.
Bill S and I agree that the patient (or next-of-kin/designated power of attorney) should make that decision.
Laura Petrie et al. - you have a lot guts posting anything on this site after Mike destroyed your entire world view, and exposed your position as being incoherent and internally inconsistent, in this exchange:
http://www.ncregister.com/blog/jennifer-fulwiler/why-love-is-the-secret-to-conversion/
I think your death knell came with Mike’s comment at 9:15 PM (EDT), about 3/4th of the way down the screen.
Readers should also look skeptically at your pseudo-legal dissertation on the Establish Clause, since the aforementioned exchange proved that you do no even know what the word “evidence” means, nor did you express any real interest in understanding the legal definition of the word. Thus, it is difficult accept that you have insights into the highest of constitutional principles.
Oh, damn—I must have written too many “questionable” terms again.
.
I seriously doubt my thoughts, as I try to go over the conflict between Catholic and secular ethics, will pass some of the scrutiny. So I’ll try a summary again.
.
It has been cited that the Catholic cannon that forbids abortion even if it costs the mother’s life by declaring the “immediate good” of saving the mother’s life is outweighed by the intrinsic evil of “killing” of the unborn child—especially the evil that the child will die unbaptized. Previous doctrine holds that an unbaptized soul cannot enter the “Kingdom of Heaven”. The mother has either been baptized, or is not a Catholic and not under the same concern for her soul.
I’m speculating that souls and not physical health are the prime concern of the Catholic church cannons, and that is also the basis for Catholic opposition of “artificial conception” and homosexuality. Both practices are contrary to the conception (or, if you insist, cause the abortion) of unborn children who can be baptized into the Catholic faith.
.
After baptism, apparently the Catholic regard for life slackens. Gun control, an adult woman’s life, global warming, poverty and disease are all of lesser importance than abortion, contraception and sexual behavior.
Steve—I admit that my posts are turning into more of an essay, but I am trying to get to the rood of my differences with my moral ethics and what the Church considers should be my ethics. I’m citing links and pasting quotes, but Mike and Steve consider my “evidence” arbitrary and irrelevant.
.
Can you rebut my observations? I’m trying to understand the Church’s justification for overriding patient rights to making informed decisions about their health care, and the responsibility of Catholic providers to support the patient until the relationship is ended by the patient or the physician—-but the physician has the obligation that the patient has time to obtain needed care from someone else.
.
Some of my comments are blocked, and may not be published, but I think the ones that got through are enough to address rationally.
Steve—what right have you to describe my references as “pseudo-legal?” I don’t think I should have to, but they can be traced to the official documentation.
.
Or do you think Mormons have the legal right to polygamy, that Christian Scientists should pray over their sick children to remove their “sin” instead getting medical care? That Muslims have legal right kill their daughters for holding hands with an unrelated male in public?
.
It’s really difficult to get my points across, because the Catholic documents I refer to contain suspect language on this site.
.
I’ll try skipping the Catholic premises I want to site and try just posting my conclusion. Maybe the premises will be passed later.
.
My conclusion is that the Catholic Church is concerned about saving souls until they are baptized and thus welcomed into the eternal afterlife of Catholic heaven. Secular healthcare is concerned at saving lives that can be saved in this life.
.
The Catholic mission to save souls, in its doctrines, means Catholics are authorized to override secular decisions that prevent souls from the ritual of baptism.
Catholic cannon has established the life of the mother is less important than the soul of the unborn child, that “artificial” contraception and homosexuality should be made illegal because it prevents the conception and baptism of souls.
.
This is an arbitrary position in that there are many religions that don’t acknowledge an afterlife and value life in this world.
.
Any questions?
Looks like “Laura, et al” has been having a conversation with herself.
Steve you are correct about Mike’s post. As for me, I have been fighting bronchitis all weekend and I just can’t stomach her right now.
Editor’s note: The Register encourages spirited debate but “Laura,” “Buddy” and all his/her Dick Van Dyke Show usernames are guilty of sock puppetry, which we highly discourage.
Well, thank you Millie/Laura, et al.
Laura,
You have moved from reason to outright slander.
I told you what the current cannon states on the question you asked me. Every situation is different, so I cannot give you a definite answer. In Ireland that was a state hospital not a Catholic hospital.
The Hyde amendment already prevents Catholic hospitals in the US from performing abortions. So if you want an abortion, do not go to a Catholic hospital.
The HHS lawsuits are being won by both Catholic and Evangelical groups in the courts, because they have pointing out the flaws in its reasoning.
It seems like you will not stop until everybody bows down to your views on these issues.
Millie says:
“Medical ethics contradict Catholic ethics in that the rights of the patient are the primary concern of healthcare providers practicing for the public. Hospitals do not have the right to refuse care because the patient is Muslim, black, homosexual, or even a criminal.”
Catholic hospitals have two patients when a woman is pregnant, so do other hospitals, but they may not acknowledge it. They must do what they can to save both. Women have the same right to life as their children born or unborn. I know you want to call it a superior right to life, but we do not consider it so. If we judged a right to life based on consciousness or IQ level we would have the right to kill those who are asleep, comatose, drugged, developmentally delayed, children, etc. but we do not. Our equality is bound up in our humanity. If anyone is as human as I am, he or she should enjoy the same right to life.
If they cannot save both, they must save who they can without directly killing the other.
.
About Savita Halappanavar’s death:
It is an assertion and not a fact that this woman would have lived if she had been allowed to have an abortion. The facts indicate that she died of septicemia AND and E.coli ESBL. So when did she develop them, and why was she not on antibiotics at the start, to prevent infection?
Savvy and Skywalker, you’ve tried so hard, sometimes we just have to say enough is enough. I don’t think this person, with all their different screen names, has any interest in getting to Truth. She has her mind made up and is hell bent on getting us to see things her way. If she is so certain that the Church will soon enough be a non-entity why does she spend so much time and effort with it? The Church has been around for 2000 years and it will still be here long after we are all gone. And that just drives some people nuts.
Goodnight, I need to rest.
Millie ,
You are entitled to your misguided views on Catholicism, but they still make them misguided. Actually, the younger generation is increasingly turning pro-life in America and elsewhere.
And thanks for admitting that you are a militant secularist, who will not accept that others too have a place in the public square as citizens.
Thank God, the American constitution begs to differ.
“I finally found reference to the 1983 Code of Cannon Law, but I still
don’t see how it’s amendments to previous cannon affect the Church’s
position on abortion, even for medical necessity.”
The point is every case is different.
.
“Also, could you please explain the “slander” you’re referring to so I and
explain and/or apologize?”
Sorry, not slander, I think paranoia is the right word.
“What is your explanation on the Church’s weight on the merit of saving the mother’s life vs the unborn child’s soul?”
The church holds that BOTH lives must be saved, to the best of one’s ability. Just that it is never right to intentionally take life to save one, esp, when there might be other options.
Joanp62,
You are right. I am done.
“Catholic cannon has established the life of the mother is less important
than the soul of the unborn child, that “artificial” contraception and
homosexuality should be made illegal because it prevents the conception and
baptism of souls. “
This is complete nonsense. It was the church that came up with the difference between a natural right and a positive law. Indirect material co-operation is the idea that not everything, immoral should be illegal.
It is possible that the double effect should have applied in the Halappanavar cases, there just isn’t enough information known whether or not it did.
“The lack of precise medical details included in media coverage of the Savita Halappanavar case does indeed make it difficult to offer a cogent moral analysis of what transpired,” Reverend Tadeusz Pacholczyk, director of education at the National Catholic Bioethics Center cautions. “If it were the case, for example, that she suffered from a serious placental infection unable to be controlled by other remedies, it would have been allowable to induce labor under a proper application of the principle of double effect. Such an action would not constitute a direct abortion, but maternally directed therapy to remedy the infection, with the secondary, unintended effect that the life of the child would be lost.”
.
It is certain that she should have been given antibiotics long before two days into the miscarriage, whatever else may be said.
Ethel,
Every case is treated on an individual basis. This is what the National Catholic bio-ethics centre says:
“Of course, there are many complications that can arise with a pregnancy which would morally permit an intervention that would result in the death of the child. They are too numerous to consider here. Also, one must weigh all the factors that are part of a given situation, some of which may never arise again. But as another example of what would be morally licit under the Principle of Double Effect, one can mention a case in which there is an early rupture of the membrane and the placenta becomes infected. In such a case, the uterus may indeed be evacuated, that is, the infected material threatening the life of the mother may be removed, even though it is foreseen that the child will die.”
Ethel,
In the Irish case, The woman had ruptured membranes according to the reports. If this was the case, evacuation of the uterus would have been possible by current Irish medical guidelines and Catholic doctrine This is stated more clearly in an analysis of the case on the website of the International Catholic medical association http://www.fiamc.org.
The National Catholics Bioethics Center in both it’s handbook of hospital practice as well as recent commentary on this recent case state that evacuation of the uterus would be acceptable in this case. Catholic practice, as stated by Pope Pius XII in 1951, allows medical and surgical interventions to save a mother’s life, even if the unborn baby dies as a result, when there is NO other alternative. One name for this is indirect abortion, and it is permitted by Irish guidelines.
Ethel,
Stop the spin. There is no movement to outlaw contraception in the US. This is a LIE. The issue is the mandate’s definition of religion.
Only the courts can decide Roe V Wade or civil marriage.
Witch hunts were Protestant.
I wish you would stop torturing us here with your constant baiting.
“I’ve pasted links and direct quotes from current Catholic sources to support
that the Church holds the life of the mother is less important than the life
of the child—especially if the child dies before it is baptized.”
No you have not. You have just ignored the links I gave you.
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.
The time period for commenting on this article has expired.