Another Catholic Diocese Wants Komen Ties Broken Over Abortion

[SoCalRC]

And therefore my comment that it was a nasty remark is fully justified.

I tend to forget your somewhat unorthodox view of the Church heirarchy. I accept things like this:

“Among the principal duties of bishops the preaching of the Gospel occupies an eminent place. For bishops are preachers of the faith, who lead new disciples to Christ, and they are authentic teachers, that is, teachers endowed with the authority of Christ, who preach to the people committed to them the faith they must believe and put into practice, and by the light of the Holy Spirit illustrate that faith. They bring forth from the treasury of Revelation new things and old, making it bear fruit and vigilantly warding off any errors that threaten their flock. Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent.” - LUMEN GENTIUM

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html

So, from a Roman Catholic point of view I’m simply stating that the Diocese might have made its point more consistantly and coherently with the help and support of a teacher “endowed with the authority of Christ”. I can understand why a Protestant might resent the thought, but it startles me from a fellow Catholic. I suppose, in hindsight, I should not have been surprised. You’ve been pretty dismissive of Papal authority in other threads.

But I guess I chalked those comments up as hyperbole, sort of akin to your inventing statistics to justify your position on ectopic pregancies. Seemingly, I was incorrect and your prior statements were sincere. However, I cannot apologize for the remark. For better or worse I am Roman Catholic and cannot help that I accept what I assert out loud at each Mass. I believe in a Holy Catholic and apostolic Church, so, of course, I think that a Diocese will tremendously benefit from a bishop’s leadership.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I tend to forget your somewhat unorthodox view of the Church heirarchy.

And I tend to forget your propensity to sling around words like “unorthodox” and “anethema.”

 

[Bennie_P]

So I take it you reject giving to the Amercan Cancer Society as well (www.cancer.org)??) As far as I know, no cancer foundation or society in the world yet accepts an abortion/cancer link as medical fact. Baby killers, all of them? Or is it just that the are insisting on solid science and causal research first?

It really depends, if I recall doctors use to promote in magizine and TV ads which was better for your health Camels or Winstons. Today we have a world which seems to be controlled more by politcs then true science, and the political band wagon is promoting women’s right to abortion despite the problems it causes women, so even when science points to danger in that to that choice, good science is ignored …

columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/frear/brind.htm

This statement, which is now over 10 years old contradicts your idea that, the first time link was found in a scientific study was over 50s years ago, long before Roe v. Wade.

Janet Daling is a highly regarded researcher with the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle. She has studied the effect of abortion on various forms of cancer, including cervical and ovarian cancer. She found no link until she studied breast cancer, and discovered an increased risk of 50 %. Daling, who had had no difficulty publishing her earlier studies, was puzzled by her inability to publish her findings concerning breast cancer, and was hurt by the professional and public rejection she encountered in her attempts to do so.
It is sometimes said that studies finding a positive correlation between abortion and breast cancer are done by pro-life researchers who are presumably biased. I myself am pro-life, but it should be noted that Daling has no personal objection to abortion, nor do a number of researchers who have found a link. Daling complimented me on the quality of the study that I did.

Of course many will say that Dr Daling is just dupe for the pro-life movement.

I didn’t realize that this thread was started and started another on the Catholic News forum. Maybe the moderater can pull them both together?

She said groups should support Catholic hospitals directly that operate breast centers. These include St. Vincent Breast Center, Little Rock; St. Edward Mercy To Save A Life Program, Fort Smith; St. Joseph Mercy Health Foundation, Hot Springs; Mercy Breast Center, Rogers; and St. Bernard’s Foundation, Jonesboro.

“Your dollars will go further and will be used locally,” Linane said.

The complete statement is available on the Respect Life Office page at www.dolr.org.

• And there are other good sources to give your money to inorder help the fight breast Cancer.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Quote:
She said groups should support Catholic hospitals directly that operate breast centers. These include St. Vincent Breast Center, Little Rock; St. Edward Mercy To Save A Life Program, Fort Smith; St. Joseph Mercy Health Foundation, Hot Springs; Mercy Breast Center, Rogers; and St. Bernard’s Foundation, Jonesboro.

Amen

 

[davia]

I just can’t donate to the Komen Foundation because of this stupidity. There is well founded evidence of the abortion-breast cancer link. The thought of having breast cancer testing done in a place which may very well have contributed to the cancer is ridiculous to me.

I will have to agree with SoCal on some points.

Not to stir up controversy, but I think the jury may still be out on this one. New (newer) studies which has been protected from any “flaws” have not shown any greater risk. I know there are some studies that show there may be a risk, but the studies I am mentioning were very controlled 30 year studies that were carefully done in several countries. Also several of the studies that show a link are actually based on interviews and not soley on medical data which can affect their outcomes.

The study I mention showed a possible slight increase in risk when an abortion is performed later in the pregnancy. Not trying to start a controvercy, but I just want to put this out there.

I just don’t think at this point, it can be said that a reason not to give (if someone wants to) is that the women being screened may be there because of abortions in the first place.

fwhc.org/abortion/abcancer.htm
msnbc.msn.com/id/6446707/
wcco.com/seenon/Reality.Check.abortion.2.372392.html

 

[Bennie_P]

I will have to agree with SoCal on some points.

Not to stir up controversy, but I think the jury may still be out on this one. New (newer) studies which has been protected from any “flaws” have not shown any greater risk. I know there are some studies that show there may be a risk, but the studies I am mentioning were very controlled 30 year studies that were carefully done in several countries. Also several of the studies that show a link are actually based on interviews and not soley on medical data which can affect their outcomes.

The study I mention showed a possible slight increase in risk when an abortion is performed later in the pregnancy. Not trying to start a controvercy, but I just want to put this out there.

I just don’t think at this point, it can be said that a reason not to give (if someone wants to) is that the women being screened may be there because of abortions in the first place.

fwhc.org/abortion/abcancer.htm
msnbc.msn.com/id/6446707/
wcco.com/seenon/Reality.Check.abortion.2.372392.html

If a Human does the study there will be a flaw. Don’t kid yourself thinking that mankind can come up with “perfect” solutions through science, science is good until we try to jusitify immoral choices with flawed conclusions. That is what got us in this mess, thinking we could solve all of a woman’s problems by just aborting(killing) her child.