Ariz. hospital loses Catholic status over surgery

[jimmy]

It didn’t first become an issue with this case and it will not go away as a consideration in future cases. Unless laypeople and professionals are assisted (in a proactive rather than reactive manner) in sorting out these dilemmas, the result might be widespread supplanting of applicable Church doctrine in these matters, with secular ethics (as is here illustrated by a pro-life poster with the “baby’s going to die anyway” argument). Put bluntly - we need to keep up with changing times: not by changing beliefs but by continually revisiting their application.

Is what I said secular ethics, or is it simply a practical approach to the situation? Secular ethics implies that it is devoid of the considerations of faith. That isn’t the case with what I have said. I simply find it ridiculous that the value of life is reduced to such an extent that they would say ‘let em die’. They supplant life with a convoluted conception of the dignity of life, that means nothing because both the mother and child are going to die anyway. So since they are both dead, what life has dignity? The only way this idea of dignity can be understood is if it is applied to the general concept of life, not to any concrete actually existing person. Life is precious, but actual living persons are not.

It reminds me of the conversation in the Brothers Karamazov between the elder Zosima and the woman of little faith. The woman says she has lost her faith. She goes on to say that she loves humanity and would like to help people, but the more she thinks about it the more she realizes that she couldn’t love someone without receiving appreciation for it. She wants appreciation for her love. The elder responds with a reference to a doctor he once spoke to. The doctor told him that he got into the profession because he wanted to help people, but the more he worked with people the more he hated the individual people that he worked with. He hated their quirks and all their neuroticisms. He loved humanity, but hated the actual people.

Now, I have always thought of this as being similar to liberalism with all its concerns for the poor and for the under privileged while maintaining an atheistic perspective. It loves the poor as a class but feels contempt for all actual poor people that it might come across. But it seems to apply to this situation as well. The sense of moral theology in this case completely ignores the actual people involved for some generalized conception of dignity.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Or maybe you are simply trying to make point that every Catholic hospital that intends to follow the directives needs to act as my hospital did.

^ This.

I am also saying that Catholic hospitals who serve both Catholics and non-Catholics cannot require non-Catholics who have no alternative available hospitals in the vicinity, to abide by the USCCB directives unless those non-Catholics voluntarily sign Informed Consent documents, stating those explicitly, as a condition of admission/treatment. Which is why I said that Catholic hospitals serving those of mixed faiths (and no faith) may find themselves out of business (sued, and/or served with federal injunctions) if alternative treatments are not available in that facility or in a nearby locality (next door, next wing, etc.)

 

[LittleSoldier]

I’m trying to give everyone the benefit of the doubt here. The bishop, just by virtue of his authority, had no reason to not act in good faith.

As regards the staff: I have personally known doctors who openly support and perform abortions who will also, when the situation demands it, will give 110% (and a sleepless night or two) to save a baby’s life (feel free to speculate on the incongruity of that state of affairs).

For these reasons, the knowledge that the hospital had a not-so-stellar history does not really impact my view of what transpired in this case, particularly since a hospital/hospital department, is not a person and the individuals involved in that case may or may not be representative of prevailing practices and views at the institution.

It may simply have been a case of information mismatch (medical vs theological). The prevailing comments I have read on this and other forums seem to come down squarely on one side or the next, sometimes with the barest minimum of reflection. I see every reason here for objective and thoughtful reflection.

And the process of applying our principles to such situations, which you allude to in your first sentence, falls very squarely not just into the domain of bishops but into the hands of all childbearing women and their doctors simply by virtue of the fact that they are the ones facing these health situations characterized by changing knowledge and technology.

What do you mean by “this case”? Do you mean the killing of the child or do you mean the entire episode of this supposedly Catholic hospital obviously going against Church teaching by providing contraceptives and sterilizations and making donations to pro-abortion groups?

Do you support your physician friends or acquaintances (or whatever they are) when they perform abortions? Are they performing abortions on demand? Are they only performing abortions in an attempt to save the mother’s life? It makes a difference. Are you ever involved in the decision making?

 

[LittleSoldier]

So what should the hospital have done? Let both die?

Yes, the hospital should have let them both die. Absolutely.

With all due respect, what do you think people have been discussing here? This is a complicated situation and you want a simple answer?

Have you read this thread? Have you read the references provided?

 

[LittleSoldier]

^ This.

???

 

[LittleSoldier]

And that is one of the reasons why moral theology is bankrupt in the west. It has a distorted sense of good and evil. It is kind of like the scenario in which a man is hiding Jews in Nazi occupied territory; must he tell the truth when they ask whether he is hiding Jews? Moral theologians would say yes, he must tell the truth and to lie would be a sin. In that scenario a fact takes precedence over human life. It is morally bankrupt. The situation with the hospital is similar. For the sake of some convoluted idea of dignity - that really serves no ones dignity in this case - you are willing to allow both to die.

The Church does not teach that the truth be told in all cases. She teaches that truth must only be told to those who deserve to know the truth. That old tired “hiding the Jews from the Nazis” has been discussed to death. The Nazis don’t have the right to know the truth.

If a moral theologian says that truth must be told in all circumstances he/she is not adhering to the Universal Law that states all human life is precious.

And that is morally bankrupt.

 

[bookgirl32]

From my earlier post:

What I can’t figure out is if you think that, in the case that they are morally called to violate civil law, if you acknowledge that it is objectively the right thing to do.

You didn’t answer this part. And that’s what I was asking.

 

[LittleSoldier]

I hope everyone realizes that now Godwin’s Law is in effect. I never thought I would see that happening in a thread like this. There’s just something about those Nazis…

Of course this means the thread is finished and the poster who brought up the topic of the Nazis is automatically wrong.

 

[jimmy]

The Church does not teach that the truth be told in all cases. She teaches that truth must only be told to those who deserve to know the truth. That old tired “hiding the Jews from the Nazis” has been discussed to death. The Nazis don’t have the right to know the truth.

If a moral theologian says that truth must be told in all circumstances he/she is not adhering to the Universal Law that states all human life is precious.

And that is morally bankrupt.

According to moral theology, it isn’t a question of whether the Nazi’s deserve to know the truth, but rather a question of eternal truth. By lying you are sinning against God. Lying is always sinful, whether the question is ‘how do I look in this dress’ or ‘are you hiding Jews’.

 

[bookgirl32]

According to moral theology, it isn’t a question of whether the Nazi’s deserve to know the truth, but rather a question of eternal truth. By lying you are sinning against God. Lying is always sinful, whether the question is ‘how do I look in this dress’ or ‘are you hiding Jews’.

No, it’s not.

 

[LittleSoldier]

^ This.

I am also saying that Catholic hospitals who serve both Catholics and non-Catholics cannot require non-Catholics who have no alternative available hospitals in the vicinity, to abide by the USCCB directives unless those non-Catholics voluntarily sign Informed Consent documents, stating those explicitly, as a condition of admission/treatment. Which is why I said that Catholic hospitals serving those of mixed faiths (and no faith) may find themselves out of business (sued, and/or served with federal injunctions) if alternative treatments are not available in that facility or in a nearby locality (next door, next wing, etc.)

I have a feeling that you’re not quite right. No Catholic hospital is required to provide abortions or contraceptives or sterilizations. And I hope no Catholic hospital other than the one in Arizona does so. Hospitals can be sued for anything and are. When the ACLU sues to “force” Catholic hospitals to provide abortion for convenience, Catholic hospitals will close. It has nothing to do with not providing treatment to non-Catholics; it has to do with the Church’s teaching that abortion is wrong.

 

[1holycatholic]

^ This.

I am also saying that Catholic hospitals who serve both Catholics and non-Catholics cannot require non-Catholics who have no alternative available hospitals in the vicinity, to abide by the USCCB directives unless those non-Catholics voluntarily sign Informed Consent documents, stating those explicitly, as a condition of admission/treatment. Which is why I said that Catholic hospitals serving those of mixed faiths (and no faith) may find themselves out of business (sued, and/or served with federal injunctions) if alternative treatments are not available in that facility or in a nearby locality (next door, next wing, etc.)

Putatively Catholic hospitals can’t kill non-Catholic patients even with informed consent.

 

[jimmy]

No, it’s not.

Yes it is.

The argument is that you can never do evil that good may come from it. So a lie can never be told no matter what the effect is because it is considered an offense against the truth.

The problem is that it places the value of mere facts above that of life. As if the fact that I am hiding Jews has any bearing on eternal reality.

 

[LittleSoldier]

According to moral theology, it isn’t a question of whether the Nazi’s deserve to know the truth, but rather a question of eternal truth. By lying you are sinning against God. Lying is always sinful, whether the question is ‘how do I look in this dress’ or ‘are you hiding Jews’.

NO, IT’S NOT!!! And even bringing this up is veering this thread off-topic. If you want to discuss this, why don’t you start a new thread? And it’s “Nazis,” not “Nazi’s.”

I have been through this debate before. Twice.

This is Church teaching, straight from the CCC:

IV. RESPECT FOR THE TRUTH

2488 The right to the communication of the truth is not unconditional. Everyone must conform his life to the Gospel precept of fraternal love. This requires us in concrete situations to judge whether or not it is appropriate to reveal the truth to someone who asks for it.

2489 Charity and respect for the truth should dictate the response to every request for information or communication. The good and safety of others, respect for privacy, and the common good are sufficient reasons for being silent about what ought not be known or for making use of a discreet language. The duty to avoid scandal often commands strict discretion. No one is bound to reveal the truth to someone who does not have the right to know it.

2491 Professional secrets - for example, those of political office holders, soldiers, physicians, and lawyers - or confidential information given under the seal of secrecy must be kept, save in exceptional cases where keeping the secret is bound to cause very grave harm to the one who confided it, to the one who received it or to a third party, and where the very grave harm can be avoided only by divulging the truth. Even if not confided under the seal of secrecy, private information prejudicial to another is not to be divulged without a grave and proportionate reason.

[Bolding added]

 

[jimmy]

NO, IT’S NOT!!!

I have been through this debate before. Twice.

This is Church teaching, straight from the CCC:

IV. RESPECT FOR THE TRUTH

2488 The right to the communication of the truth is not unconditional. Everyone must conform his life to the Gospel precept of fraternal love. This requires us in concrete situations to judge whether or not it is appropriate to reveal the truth to someone who asks for it.

2489 Charity and respect for the truth should dictate the response to every request for information or communication. The good and safety of others, respect for privacy, and the common good are sufficient reasons for being silent about what ought not be known or for making use of a discreet language. The duty to avoid scandal often commands strict discretion. No one is bound to reveal the truth to someone who does not have the right to know it.

2491 Professional secrets - for example, those of political office holders, soldiers, physicians, and lawyers - or confidential information given under the seal of secrecy must be kept, save in exceptional cases where keeping the secret is bound to cause very grave harm to the one who confided it, to the one who received it or to a third party, and where the very grave harm can be avoided only by divulging the truth. Even if not confided under the seal of secrecy, private information prejudicial to another is not to be divulged without a grave and proportionate reason.

[Bolding added]

No where in that text does it ever say that lying can be justified. All it says is that a person may not have the right to the truth, so you may be morally obliged to remain silent. It never authorizes a person to tell a lie, no matter how serious the situation. You can’t tell a lie to a Nazi about hiding Jews, but you could remain silent. I wonder how he would respond to a man remaining silent when asked if he was hiding Jews. I wonder how you would respond if your husband remained silent to your question of ‘how do I look in this dress’. As I mentioned in my last post, the principle is that evil can never be done no matter what the effects are. Since a lie is a purposeful untruth, it is always evil and can not be justified because the ends do not justify the means. You may remain silent, but you can’t lie.

 

[jimmy]

Here is what the catechism says about lying.

CCC 2482 “A lie consists in speaking a falsehood with the intention of deceiving.” The Lord denounces lying as the work of the devil: “You are of your father the devil, . . . there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies.”

CCC 2483 Lying is the most direct offense against the truth. To lie is to speak or act against the truth in order to lead someone into error. By injuring man’s relation to truth and to his neighbor, a lie offends against the fundamental relation of man and of his word to the Lord.

CCC 2484 The gravity of a lie is measured against the nature of the truth it deforms, the circumstances, the intentions of the one who lies, and the harm suffered by its victims. If a lie in itself only constitutes a venial sin, it becomes mortal when it does grave injury to the virtues of justice and charity.

CCC 2485 By its very nature, lying is to be condemned. It is a profanation of speech, whereas the purpose of speech is to communicate known truth to others. The deliberate intention of leading a neighbor into error by saying things contrary to the truth constitutes a failure in justice and charity. The culpability is greater when the intention of deceiving entails the risk of deadly consequences for those who are led astray.

CCC 2486 Since it violates the virtue of truthfulness, a lie does real violence to another. It affects his ability to know, which is a condition of every judgment and decision. It contains the seed of discord and all consequent evils. Lying is destructive of society; it undermines trust among men and tears apart the fabric of social relationships.

 

[LittleSoldier]

No where in that text does it ever say that lying can be justified. All it says is that a person may not have the right to the truth, so you may be morally obliged to remain silent. It never authorizes a person to tell a lie, no matter how serious the situation. You can’t tell a lie to a Nazi about hiding Jews, but you could remain silent. I wonder how he would respond to a man remaining silent when asked if he was hiding Jews. I wonder how you would respond if your husband remained silent to your question of ‘how do I look in this dress’. As I mentioned in my last post, the principle is that evil can never be done no matter what the effects are. Since a lie is a purposeful untruth, it is always evil and can not be justified because the ends do not justify the means. You may remain silent, but you can’t lie.

Um, did you miss the part about “discrete language?” What do you think that means? If you’re standing in front of a group of Nazis (Nazi’s to you) and they have their guns aimed at you and ask you if you’re hiding a group of Jews in that attic and you remain silent they are going to know there is a group of Jews in the attic. And you will be shot and the Jews will either be shot or sent off to a concentration camp.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Is it always a sin to lie?

---

After reading the thread about lying I became even more confused about it. Is it ALWAYS wrong and sinful to lie? Take the example of Gestapo asking me if I’ve seen any Jews around. Does the Church teach that I should tell the Nazi officer the truth even at the cost that it will result in many deaths and suffering? Is truth more important than love and compassion with our neighbor?

---

Last edited by Michelle Arnold; Nov 18, '06 at 12:19 pm.

#2 Nov 18, '06, 12:30 pm
Michelle Arnold
Catholic Answers Apologist Join Date: May 3, 2004
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 4,250
Religion: Catholic

Re: Is it always a sin to lie?

---

1. The thread you mention was about whether or not it can be considered lying to tell kids stories of imaginary creatures such as Santa, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy. My response was that it is not lying to create stories for the entertainment and/or education of children. Thus, that thread does not deal with the morality of lying itself.
2. The Catechism of the Catholic Church’s treatment on lying can be found in paragraphs
   2475-2487.
3. In a separate treatment of the subject that falls under the heading “Respect for the Truth” (CCC 2488-2492) the Catechism states:

Quote:
The right to the communication of the truth is not unconditional. Everyone must conform his life to the gospel precept of fraternal love. This requires us in concrete situations to judge whether or not it is appropriate to reveal the truth to someone who asks for it (CCC 2488).

Charity and respect for the truth should dictate the response to every request for information or communication. The good and safety of others, respect for privacy, and the common good are sufficient reasons for being silent about what ought not be known or for making use of a discreet language. The duty to avoid scandal often commands strict discretion. No one is bound to reveal the truth to someone who does not have the right to know it (CCC 2489).

1. What this means is that there can be cases in which it is morally licit to reserve the truth. Avoiding giving the location of people in danger of being murdered if found would be one such case. Although a person in such a situation should try to avoid directly lying, if possible, fear for the safety of innocents and the unjust external pressure brought to bear on him could mitigate against culpability for lying should he cross over the line from mental reservation to lying.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=120163
[Bolding added]

This thread is now off-topic. Congratulations. Will you puhleeze start a new thread about lying? This realy has nothing to do with the hospital case. I don’t think the mother was in danger of being shot by Nazis (Nazi’s to you) or being taken to a concentration camp.

 

[jimmy]

Um, did you miss the part about “discrete language?” What do you think that means? If you’re standing in front of a group of Nazis (Nazi’s to you) and they have their guns aimed at you and ask you if you’re hiding a group of Jews in that attic and you remain silent they are going to know there is a group of Jews in the attic. And you will be shot and the Jews will either be shot or sent off to a concentration camp.

Are you so sure that ‘discrete language’ refers to actually lying? Or is it just an avoidance of telling the truth?

That is what I would expect the Nazis (thankyou for correcting my grammar) would do.

 

[jimmy]

This thread is now off-topic. Congratulations. Will you puhleeze start a new thread about lying? This realy has nothing to do with the hospital case. I don’t think the mother was in danger of being shot by Nazis (Nazi’s to you) or being taken to a concentration camp.

It was an example that I used to show how the present question is wrong.I didn’t want it to be about lying to Nazis, but about the problem with the arguement.